Al Gore is smarter than the average politician

Gore never would have invaded Iraq. He may have felt compelled to lob some cruise missles or even bomb some airfileds, but never would have turned Iraq into Vietnam.

 

Right-wing voters in Arkansas were asked in 1992 why they voted for Clinton. Because we wanted him the fuck out of Arkansas is what they said.

 

Iraq is not even close to what the Vietnam war was. That is a ridiculous comparison, at least at this stage.

 

Ralph Nader needs a bullet in the brain pan.
I can think of some reporters and columnists who need the same treatment as well.
And I'm looking at you Mo Dowd.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/26/070326fa_fact_packer

read this article, then tell me you think the comparison is ridiculous.

My reasons for saying it are:
Bullshit public reasons for entry into the war
Political considerations in targeting
Lack of indiginous support
Lack of indiginous respect for the US presence
Arrogant, misinformed and plain stupid prosection of the war from the High Command
An unwinnable outcome

 

Unwinnable outcome because we shouldn't be there in the first place --- which makes this no different -- other than body counts and price -- than just about every other pissing match we get ourselves into and every one of them are for political reasons.

 

He's got big blood on his hands.

Of a non-Bush administration member, probably the most of any American.

 

As usual.... pure quality.

 

So Ralph Nader is evil for running for office in 2000, and not one word on Perot running a vanity campaign in 92 and 96?

 

Maybe President Al Gore would have enacted the airport security plans put forth by vice-president Al Gore.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html

 

I do remember a spirited discussion about Perot a couple of days ago on another thread, so there have been plenty of words on it . . . just not in this particular thread.

Also, neither the 1992 nor 1996 race was decided by 538 votes.

 

Haven't seen the Perot thread, or the thread that included it, but Perot had a far larger impact on the election because he got a decent chunk of mainstream voters to go along with him.

And the underlying issue with Perot, Nader and any other third party candidate that gets more than a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point isn't that they exist, it's the hubris of the supporters of the losing major party candidate for blaming the loss on them. Do Democrats (or Republicans) have a birthright to the liberal (or conservative) vote?

Also, if 800 votes swung to Gore in Florida, would that mean it's Pat Buchanan's fault Bush lost?