Dems in power. What's the difference in a totalitarian state?

[Old Hippie]

They can't invade Iran...they cannot even stabilize Afganistan or Iraq...additionally, a few well placed strikes in Iraq from/by Iran with a Nuke of a Bio/Chemical weapon would effectively wipe out most of the U.S. military in that region, and the remaining Iraquis the Iranians might still hate as well...

 

In SHort, the U.S. cannot fight a war like this. We also cannot afford to pull out...the rest of the world cannot afford it either...the U.S. may well have destabilized the region with this war, but pulling out, plunging it into even worse chaos might be even more cathostrophic...a damned shitty situation to be in...

 

Iran may damned well be desparate for energy...rumor is their Oil supply is running low, they may need the Nuclear energy as most of the world is learning they may need it...France as I understand it, has been doing well with Nuclear power for years, and offered to set up and run the Iranian plants...Iran refused...Norway I think also is doing well with Nuclear power...the USA has a few plants, Needs more.

 

I was extreamely against Nuclear power, part of the histeria, but resent reading, and lectures from Bill Wattenberg has convinced me we need it. The sooner we tell these nut jobs to choke on their oil, the better...

[McBif]

 

I also have my doubts that 9/11 would have happened if Gore was president.

 

 

Explain, please. 9/11 was a couple of years in the planning. That is to say, when the planning commenced, Clinton was president.

[McBif]

Please define "totalitarian"

[Dali]

I'm fairly certain 9/11 would have happened regardless of who was in the Whitehouse. As above poster pointed out, the planning was happening long before Bush took office. Remember also that Osamma's boys attacked a US embassy in Africa while Clinton was in office, and I think the botched bombing of the World Trade Center took place during Clinton's term also.

 

As for the Iraq war, I agree it probably would not have happened with Gore. Bush Jr. deeply wanted to finish the job his father didn't during the first Gulf war (get Saddam), and was looking for an excuse to do so.

 

Also scared by Bush Jr's stocking of the supreme court with conservatives.

 

I consider myself pretty much middle of the road politically and can never decide if I'm a liberal republican or conservative democrat. Originally was a registered democrat and even worked for the democratic party... after becoming convinced that the left wing liberals were a bunch of idiots I switched and became a republican... until becoming just as convinced that the right wing conservatives were also a bunch of idiots. Unfortunately middle of the road doesn't get much representation. My nightmare is that the 2008 election produces John Edwards vs Newt Gingrich.

[Flashermac]

General opinion is that a President Gore would have gone after Taliban in Afganistan, but left Sodom alone in Iraq.

 

p.s. I come from a yellow dog Democratic family. But over the years, everyone but my mother switched to independent. Both major parties suck!

 

 

[itsmedave]

President Clinton had a well developed system of monitoring terrorist activity and had drawn up plans with Richard Clarke to intensify their focus on Al Queda.

 

When Bush came into the White House, he completely ignored almost everything that had the "taint" on Clinton on it...allowing Al Queda to exucute their plans with little interference from the intelligence community. Richard Clarke (no Democrat, he) testified about this in front of Congress. You can easily look up his testimony. Therefore, it is possible that with Gore in the White House, the intelligence community could have stopped Al Queda before 9/11 happened. I never said it definitely wouldn't have happened...but Bush's ignoring the problem certainly didn't help.

 

Also, it may be that Bush's hardline stance, and reputation may have encouraged the terrorists to speed up their plans...whereas Clinton (and presumably Gore) were much more popular around the world.

 

There is a really interesting book called "Conservatives Without Conscience" written by John Dean (of Watergate fame) about how the arrogance and authoritarianism of the current crop of conservatives in power (actually dating back to Reagan times) has taken us in a very scary direction.

 

Interesting, because I have to admit that Newt Gingrich has actually begun to sound fairly intelligent in recent interviews..but the book reminded me what a scary scumbag he is. Definately worthwhile sitting in your local Border's Books and reading while others actually buy stuff.

[Old Hippie]

I love that about borders! It is like a library without all the annoying "SHSSHHHing" going on.

 

 

[McBif]

Dave,

 

Thanks for responding.

 

I don't think Richard Clarke is a very reliable source or that his motives for going after Bush (who fired him) are disinterested. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

Clarke famously claimed that Condoleeza Rice's eyes went blank when he briefed her on al-Qa'eda and that he got the "impression" that she'd never heard of the outfit. A year earlier, however, she'd given a radio interview where she discussed Bin Laden, al-Qa'eda, and their presense in Afghanistan in detail. So much for Clarke.

 

But to address some of your points: Clinton and Clarke had their eagle eyes on al-Qa'eda? To what end? When the USS Cole was bombed (17 sailors killed) the Clinton administration announced it wasn't a sufficiently provocative act to respond to.

 

Then we had Clinton's cruise missile attack on the aspirin factory in Sudan (I forget how many deaths) to take the media's attention off whatever big-haired tart he'd recently been caught bonking.

 

As for Bush's "reputation" that might have speeded up the 9/11 attacks - what reputation? Before 9/11 I recall him as a deeply unappealing, touchy-feely, purely domestic-issue president. What was his schtick? "Compassionate Conservativism" or some such idiocy?

 

Finally, are we still not confusing dates and times? The Islamists and the Euros and the Democrats and most of the members here (at least those of us with the big mouths) certainly suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, but that loathing was mild before 9/11.

 

Anyway, funny that most people go blank when you point out that al-Qa'eda had the Two Towers in their sights long before they ever heard of Bush.

 

That's how dismal and partisan the debate has become.

[ChristianTroy]

Explain, please. 9/11 was a couple of years in the planning. That is to say, when the planning commenced, Clinton was president.

 

The day will come and the 9/11 will blow up and backfire to those who have initiated it! My opinion I have stated a million of times, a tower doesn't collapse faster than free fall speed and building 7 doesn't IMPLODE by the vibrations. It is impossible to find molten metal 5 weeks after the "attacks" it is not even possible that any of the elements in the official story is metling metal, it weakens it at max, it never melts and it isn't still glowing 5 weeks after without getting even air to breath! Who belives the official version is willing to ignore a couple of facts. Not a single independend scientist did say he rules out explosvies, not a single one who had access to the files. We have seen a lot on this day, like airplanes without wings in washington and arplains dropping from the sky leaving a hole in the ground but absolutely no wreckage or sliding scratches on the lawn. As I said, you gotta ignore a lot of facts to believe it.

 

All I know for sure is that if I was a terrorist and I would plan such an attack I wouldn't do it at a time where the buildings are half full, that they collpase was definately not to expect because they are mystically the first steel framed buildings which collapsed after 1 hour of fire or should I say lack smoke which indicates that the fire doesnt get enough air and is about to die???, others were still standing after 24 hours such as in madrid!

 

Like I have said, you gotta ignore a lot and I have learned to tolerate the official version for the americans citizens sake. What I know is that it was a brilliant opportunity to secure those pipes in Afghanistan and when you check out the map with the us military bases and the path of the pipeline then you might get an idea what they are really protecting. Since we have found millions of WMDs in Iraq we all know that George W. Bush always tells us the truth, he was really hoping that he can get the entire world behind them to follow him on his crusade for oil err... sorry against terrorism! I am proud of my country that they haven't have helped to kill innocent people in Iraq. Thanx to the USA for liberating the Iraq, it was really necessary to do so because Saddam was a threat to us all and he wasnt nice to his people, not like these very nice guys in Africa who put 5 year olds into the miltitary or killing entire tribes just because they have a different religion. In these regions are dying 4 million people every year, killed by their own government, but hey, they have nothing but bananas and moskitos so why bother???

 

Oh well got carried away again when I am talking about Mr Bush. It is corruption all the way and I feel bad for those who are not even considering the opportunity that all this was just a big scam. So many people had to die and there is so much information on the net from reasonable scientists, why are people too lazy to read them and believe a bogus story whiches report is blacked out by 38%!