350:

I am confident I have experianced enough of your venom on the issue to draw a conclusion. But thanks for calling me igonrant and proving my point. LOL

Yeah, uhm, 350. . . wern't you just blasting. . .oh something about 'loosing an argument then resorting to name calling' ? Hmmmmm


edit: oh yeah. . .WWAGD? ...sorry Mark.

Al Gore would have simply invented the solution to terrorism. Come on, it isn't that hard.

I think things would be very different. I don't know if he would have gone into Afganistan either, have you ever read his book? He's quite a passivist. He is far far left of Billy Boy. I imagine he would not have done much more than some bombing runs etc.. I can see him going to the UN and petitioning for sanctions for terrorist supporting countries or something useless and ineffective like that, but it would make him feel better for having tried:) Maybe he'd send Karina over with a daisy in her hair to explain how wonderful peace is:) Who knows, but I think I'm close.

The UN is not the answer to terrorism. America is a soveign nation and we should stay that way. Asking the UN's permission is just what Al would have done and that is sujecting our country to outside interests who really don't care about us.

Al would have become Muslim, put Tipper in a burka and blown a few things up just to try and understand how the terrorists feel...

The UN was in Iraq, They took one hit on the chin and turned tail an left. they now run there Iraq opperations from Cypress.

Invading Iraq was more about the big picture on terror than oil or 9/11. It is about building a stable country where average people can partake and enjoy in freedom. Picutre Poland where the people caught the diesase of rising expectations that the soviet union could not deliver. If the muslem extremists had prosparity to live for they would be less likly to blow themsleves and inocents alike. How many of the suicide bombers are rich. Most of the rich ones just foot the bill for the poor ones to buy the bombs. We will not see the real results from "project Iraq" for several years. This president was brave enough to stake his re-election on paving the road to a reducion in the demand for terorrist.

Hey Mark...How's everything going...

I've only read the title to your thread & started laughing (so i'm not sure which turn this topic has taken) because it made me picture when Al Gore was on Saturday Night Live & in the hot tub. ;) :) :)

9/11 made the least competent president in U.S. history look competent.

Since Gore would not have had a big oil deal brewing with the Taliban, he probably would have struck sooner. Since it's been the same lousy intelligence people advising the White house for the past 12+ years, he probably would have gotten all those made-up WMD reports. But he wouldn't have been stupid enough to attack Iraq based on 'programs to acquire' WMDs. And Saddam would today be the non-threat he was 14 months ago, and tens of thousands of people would still be alive. Also, I doubt Gore would have condoned long-term incarceration of suspected terrorists without charges and legal representation. There's real value in being the moral leader the U.S. has traditionally tried to be. I have no doubt the world would be a safer place if Gore were president.

TW, thanks for the laugh. That's the funniest damn thing I've heard in weeks......


Hey Sarah!

Hey...I still don't have my 930 back yet :(..but soon...very soon..then i'll be back to posting misc pictures of it on MN field trips. hope your doggy is doing good. ok...i'll jump back out of the political discussion. :) SmileWavy

Face it Techweenie...you guys all hated GW even before Iraq and 9/11. It doesn't much matter what he does. It will be either wrong, stupid or both.

flintstone: "Face it Techweenie...you guys all hated GW even before Iraq and 9/11. It doesn't much matter what he does. It will be either wrong, stupid or both."

That's more or less correct. Worst president ever; least-qualified modern president. First person conviced of a crime to occupy the white house... record of stupid moves since election -- unprecedented.

Attacking Afghanistan after giving the Taliban a reasonable period of time to turn over Osama -- I have no argument with that. There may be something else he did that I don't consider wrong, stupid or both, but in the immortal words of GW Bush himself:

"You know, I hope I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't — you just put me under the spot here and maybe I'm not quick, as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

Isnt Purjurya Crime? I think Buba lost his ability to practice law over it. Al and Billy boy had been pumping funds to the Taliban for years so dont think they would be any more objective.

"Isnt Purjurya Crime? I think Buba lost his ability to practice law over it. Al and Billy boy had been pumping funds to the Taliban for years so dont think they would be any more objective."

Clinton wasn't convicted of perjury -- or any other crime -- in a criminal proceeding. He was disbarred in Arkansas, I believe.

Other than the same humanitarian aid given to half the countries in the world, what funds had the Clinton administration been 'pumping' to Afghanistan?

As for objectivity, I can assure you that on 9/12 Gore would not have given permission for the Bin Ladin family to fly while all other aircraft were grounded in the U.S.

This is not entirely true, at least in my case. I did not have much respect for him as a leader, a self-made man, a thinker, a reader, a traveller, a soldier, etc..., but I did not hate him. I felt like he was the Peter Sellers character in "Being There", or maybe Forrest Gump, (if you really liked the guy), who just fell into being the president through a series of weird circumstances. (And a sympathetic Supreme Court).

I was pissed about the election, but got over it since Al Gore wasn't exactly the Messiah and the country and world were in decent shape. How bad could he ***** it up? :rolleyes:

After 9/11, I thought that he did a good job of acting like a leader and I was behind him 100% at hunting Al Quaeda. And BTW, who wasn't? I don't recall any peaceniks marching in the streets when we invaded Afghanistan. As a Democrat, I was willing to overlook other issues, (the environment, court appointments, etc.), while we came together as a country to battle Osama Bin Ladin. (Remember when we were focusing resources on capturing him, "dead or alive")?

Iraq changed everything. It is w/o question the largest scandal ever perpetrated on the U.S. public, (maybe the world), they lied, period, about the strength of their intelligence of him as a threat and his ties to 9/11 and Quaeda in order to mislead the public and congress, you that support him now have complete contempt for the public's right to be informed through our elected leaders about decisions that affect our lives and future.

When I read that someone is mad at the press for asking Bush tough questions at the press conference, it boggles the mind. First of all, he has made his administration the most secretive, (and corrupt, IMO), in history, absolutely accountable to no one! All legitimate inquiries are met w/ a snarl or a smirk, and the refuge of "either you are with us or against us", and "we are at war". Never mind that he started the war, illegally, Osama did not start the war in Iraq. And any deals that Saddam broke were w/ the U.N., not the United States separately. And deals w/ the U.N. don't count, right? That's what Bush and Co. have told us. When you don't like the terms, change the game. Why wouldn't Saddam, (and any other despot), get that message?

But I forgot. We went to Iraq to "free those people", the ones that we aren't killing anyways. It's all about the Kurds in 1988, when we sold him the gas and "Rummy" went over and made sure that he knew how to light the fuse. :rolleyes:

So when do we go to Rhwanda? Those people are just dying for Bush and CHeney's doctrine of freeing people from oppression. :rolleyes:

Yes, he is the worst President in history, w/o even mentioning the economy. He'd be the worst in several Latin American countries as well, why limit the contest to the U.S.A.? :D

Al Gore? We would have been better off w/ Gerald Ford or Reagan firing on 1 cylinder. :cool:

There were no hard questions, only assinine ones.

Please explain this. Are you referring to the 800,000 people that were slaughtered there (mostly hacked to death) during the Clinton administration? Who would you have us free who from now?

There are still a few million there, and elsewhere in Africa, who have not been hacked to death yet. Clinton never claimed that he was invading another country in order to "liberate" its population, (a lie, in case you missed the irony), but other than that, nice analogy. As usual. Just pull the Clinton card out, hey wait, the entire deck is Clinton cards! You're cheating! :rolleyes:

And the American press needs to grow some balls and do its job, they give Bush and Cheney a blowjob every day. You have no idea what a truly free press would look like, hombre. And lucky for you, and your agenda.

I'm out for now. I cannot compete w/ unemployed right wingers who type this fast, it's not a fair contest. I gots to go to work. Take care. :cool:

Yeah, but Senator Gore would have been some great entertainment:D .

Yeah I got it...but bringing up the Yugoslavia invasion was just too easy! Believe it or not, I thought we should have stayed out of that one.