Gore would kick ass if he threw his hat in

However, my like of Gore does not change the fact that he was putting a man to the right of George Bush a heartbeat from the presidency

Okay, I had to address this, I missed it before.

this is an example of what I was saying. We should stick with facts, rather than throwing out statements simply because they feel good to say.

As much as I dislike Lieberman, it is just factually incorrect to assert that he's to the right of Bush.

I consider Lieberman's support of the war to border on criminal. But, I'm not simply willing to make stuff up about him, that are unsupported by facts.

As much as we may hate Lieberman, he is not "to the right" of Bush. Lieberman consistently voted pro-choice, he is a reliable vote for labor on issues like minimum wage, collective bargaining, and workplace saftey regs (all oppossed by bush), and Lieberman is a reliable vote on stem cell research, and many environmental issues. Including, but not limited to, climate change.

His war support, and support for neo-liberal so-called free trade agreements is atrocious. He may be a bush apologist, in some senses. But, its simply wrong to say he's "to the right" of Bush.

And this is not a Lieberman apology. I wanted Ned Lamont to win as much as anyone. But, I also think we can't just toss out wild assed statement with no basis in fact. The progressive movement is based on credibility and facts. I prefer to jealously guard that tradtion. Or, as Harry Truman said: We don't have to lie to republicans - we just have to tell them the truth, and they'll think it's hell..

Yes, but, I think he means to the right of Bush on these wars. And I think you can make that case, because Lieberman has come out and outright supported military action against Iran, making the claim that "Iran has declared war on us" (ohhh, I'm scared, would you hold me?)

Then, there is the other case. And that case is that this adminstration IS going to attack Iran, they are dead-set on it. And they are using Lieberman as a tool, a "Independent Democrat" to be the one to bring it up. This way, when they bring it up, they can say "even Democrat Joe Lieberman says", and they think this will make them look less crazy.

So, is Lieberman to the right of bush on these wars, or is Lieberman simply doing bush and President Cheney's bidding? That's what we don't know, but I have my suspicions.
 
Darla,

What I read was a blanket statement about lieberman being to the right of bush. I didn't notice any qualification or caveat. But, perhaps what you interpreted was the intent. :confused:


Lieberman has the same postion as bush on iraq. I don't know how one measures, who's further to the right.

As far as Gore getting assassinated, and Lieberman invading Iraq -- that's hypotheical we'll never know the answer too. It's a huge assumption to say Lieberman could have invaded Iraq. We know that a GOP congress nearly always opposes a Democratic president, simply on principle, on virutally anything. Do I need to mention Bosnia or Kosovo? Would they have voted blindly to go to war in iraq, like they did with Bush? Or, would the mere fact that a Democrat was president, would a GOP congress have had a much more vigourous debate about the wisdom of war. Would Lieberman have short-circutied WMD inspections as rapidly as bush? Who knows?
 
Darla,

What I read was a blanket statement about lieberman being to the right of bush. I didn't notice any qualification or caveat. But, perhaps what you interpreted was the intent. :confused:


Lieberman has the same postion as bush on iraq. I don't know how one measures, who's further to the right.

As far as Gore getting assassinated, and Lieberman invading Iraq -- that's hypotheical we'll never know the answer too. It's a huge assumption to say Lieberman could have invaded Iraq. We know that a GOP congress nearly always opposes a Democratic president, simply on principle, on virutally anything. Do I need to mention Bosnia or Kosovo? Would they have voted blindly to go to war in iraq, like they did with Bush? Or, would the mere fact that a Democrat was president, would a GOP congress have had a much more vigourous debate about the wisdom of war. Would Lieberman have short-circutied WMD inspections as rapidly as bush? Who knows?

Well, the "suspicions" that I refer to are this: I don't think Lieberman is to the right of bush on the war, Iraq or Iran. I think Cheney wants to go into Iran, and I think Lieberman is laying some of the PR groundwork for them. To me, that equals that as far as these neocon wars go, this admistration is on par with Lieberman. Neither is better or worse. They wear the same face.

I never thought about what an R congress would have done if there had been a D president proposing we attack Iraq. Excellent point. I have at home, a bookmarked page of many of their comments about Clinton and Kosovo.
 
Well, the "suspicions" that I refer to are this: I don't think Lieberman is to the right of bush on the war, Iraq or Iran. I think Cheney wants to go into Iran, and I think Lieberman is laying some of the PR groundwork for them. To me, that equals that as far as these neocon wars go, this admistration is on par with Lieberman. Neither is better or worse. They wear the same face.

I never thought about what an R congress would have done if there had been a D president proposing we attack Iraq. Excellent point. I have at home, a bookmarked page of many of their comments about Clinton and Kosovo.

I don't think comparing Kosovo and Iraq (especially post 9/11) is an apples to apples comparison.
 
However, my like of Gore does not change the fact that he was putting a man to the right of George Bush a heartbeat from the presidency

Okay, I had to address this, I missed it before.

this is an example of what I was saying. We should stick with facts, rather than throwing out statements simply because they feel good to say.

As much as I dislike Lieberman, it is just factually incorrect to assert that he's to the right of Bush.

I consider Lieberman's support of the war to border on criminal. But, I'm not simply willing to make stuff up about him, that are unsupported by facts.

As much as we may hate Lieberman, he is not "to the right" of Bush. Lieberman consistently voted pro-choice, he is a reliable vote for labor on issues like minimum wage, collective bargaining, and workplace saftey regs (all oppossed by bush), and Lieberman is a reliable vote on stem cell research, and many environmental issues. Including, but not limited to, climate change.

His war support, and support for neo-liberal so-called free trade agreements is atrocious. He may be a bush apologist, in some senses. But, its simply wrong to say he's "to the right" of Bush.

And this is not a Lieberman apology. I wanted Ned Lamont to win as much as anyone. But, I also think we can't just toss out wild assed statement with no basis in fact. The progressive movement is based on credibility and facts. I prefer to jealously guard that tradtion. Or, as Harry Truman said: We don't have to lie to republicans - we just have to tell them the truth, and they'll think it's hell..

Bush is talking dialouge with Iran .. Lieberman has declared war on Iran.

We have troops stationed in Iraq who would pay the price dearly for any attack on Iran and we'd be at war with three muslims countries at the same time.

Not sure where you see left, right, or center, but the notion that we should attack Iran when even most republican politicians are not, puts him to the right of Bush.

He is a cancer who has always demonstrated neocon qualities which is why there was so much anger about him on the Gore ticket in the first place.
 
Last edited:
"I don't think comparing Kosovo and Iraq (especially post 9/11) is an apples to apples comparison."

Right; let's not forgot how integral Iraq was to the war on terror, and how much responsibility they shared for the attacks of 9/11. Also, they were on the verge of turning one of our cities into a mushroom cloud...
 
I don't think comparing Kosovo and Iraq (especially post 9/11) is an apples to apples comparison.

Well, we saw what a GOP-controlled congress did when a GOP president wanted to invade iraq: they lined up, saluted, and said yes, sir. No tough question asked, no real debate engaged.

What happens if a Dem President asks a GOP-controlled congress to go to war with Iran? More saluting, and saying "yes sir" ? I think not. I think it gets debated, challenged, and even opposed by many republicans.
 
"I don't think comparing Kosovo and Iraq (especially post 9/11) is an apples to apples comparison."

Right; let's not forgot how integral Iraq was to the war on terror, and how much responsibility they shared for the attacks of 9/11. Also, they were on the verge of turning one of our cities into a mushroom cloud...


Damn, how did I miss that one.

Yeah, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact Iraq had as much to do with 9/11, as did bosnia.
 
I don't think comparing Kosovo and Iraq (especially post 9/11) is an apples to apples comparison.

Oh really. Well, let me get you those quotes later Cawacko. I think you should read them before you decide what you think. I don't have them with me at work though.
 
"I don't think comparing Kosovo and Iraq (especially post 9/11) is an apples to apples comparison."

Right; let's not forgot how integral Iraq was to the war on terror, and how much responsibility they shared for the attacks of 9/11. Also, they were on the verge of turning one of our cities into a mushroom cloud...

I'm sorry, did I say Iraq participated in the 9/11 attacks? Oh that's right, you're a great mind reader. You must be another distinguished UCLA alumn.
 
Oh really. Well, let me get you those quotes later Cawacko. I think you should read them before you decide what you think. I don't have them with me at work though.

My recollection, which is often not good, is that the argument against going into Kosovo was that it did not serve America's interests.

My comment regarding post 9/11, contrary to what One Pump thought, was that in a post 9/11 environment when we are at war in Afghanistan do you think we would have gone into Kosovo? I don't think we would have and that's why I don't consider them apples to apples.
 
My recollection, which is often not good, is that the argument against going into Kosovo was that it did not serve America's interests.

My comment regarding post 9/11, contrary to what One Pump thought, was that in a post 9/11 environment when we are at war in Afghanistan do you think we would have gone into Kosovo? I don't think we would have and that's why I don't consider them apples to apples.

Well, going to war with Kosovo post 9/11, would have made as much sense as going to war with Iraq. They both had the same amount of responsibility for 9/11.
 
"For Congress to mandate a retreat from Iraq, will give the Iranians exactly what they want most. A retreat would not only represent a catastrophic defeat for the United States, but an epic victory for Iran, Hezbollah and the forces of Islamist terrorism."

"While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001."


President Joesph Lieberman

“Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach to the Iranian problem, which is the biggest threat facing the Jewish people since the Second World War. Negotiations with Iran are worthless. The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just like it was with North Korea.”

Israel's newest cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman

"Iran's nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel are comparable to the policies of Nazi Germany."

"Israel has identified Iran as the greatest threat to the Jewish state. Israel's concerns have heightened since the election of Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and has questioned whether the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews took place.

"We hear echoes of those very voices that started to spread across the world in the 1930s."


Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert .. who also criticized world leaders who maintain relations with Iran's president.

"If Iran only posed a threat to Israel, while offering new diplomatic opportunities to the U.S. and its NATO allies, then it would be possible to anticipate a threat perception gap between Jerusalem and Washington.

However, Iran's continuing support for international terrorism through Hizbullah -- an organization with proven global reach from South America to Saudi Arabia -- and its declared interest in achieving a nuclear-strike capability demonstrates the severe hostility and broad geographic scope of involvement of the Iranian regime."


Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

Lieberman warns of Iran's "terrorist agents," what he means, of course, are Hezbollah and Hamas, groups that are dedicated to fighting against Israel, not the U.S. But the tactic of those who want to conflate Israel's enemies with American enemies -- and thereby draw the U.S. into fighting those who are hostile to Israel -- is to ignore any such distinctions and to pretend that supporting anti-Israeli groups is evidence of support for the people who flew those planes into American buildings on 9/11. The exact same deceitful pretentions that drew us into Iraq. ... Saddam, 9/11, terrorism, Bin Laden.

Next he'll be breaking out the "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes" argument.

He is a mouthpiece for Israel, which is his first allegiance, and a danger to this nation.
 
Next he'll be breaking out the "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes" argument.

He is a mouthpiece for Israel, which is his first allegiance, and a danger to this nation.


I agree. With Bush/Cheney in the white house, he most certainly is dangerous. With someone else in the white house, he might be an absolute nothing. An afterthought. Joe who? Oh yeah, I remember that guy...he's still alive?

No one despises Lieberman more than I do. I get so angry when I see his face and hear that voice, that I say things that cannot be repeated on this board, not only because some are vulgar, but others, could be taken as something that "someone should look into".

But as a Senator, and after the past 7 years, with a new President, a sane President, I think Lieberman is 100% defanged, and rendered impotent.
 
BAC:

You're theory that everything would have been the same in a Gore presidency, is entirely predicated on three huge assumptions.


1) That the 9/11 plot wouldn't have been uncovered or stopped under a President Gore. Let's face it, Gore was more engaged than bush, and the federal government transitioning to Gore would have probably not have been as disruptive as transitioning to a bush presidency. After getting the August PDB, would gore have proclaimed to the FBI agent: "Well, you covered your ass", and then gone back to clearing brush on the tennesse farm? I think not.

2) That Gore would have been assisnated by PNAC kooks.


3) That a president Lieberman could have convinced an opposition congress run by republicans, and also his own party, to authorize a war on iraq.


There are also other minor assumptions (e.g., that Lieberman would have short circuited the inspections as rapidly as Bush. The reasons for war were rapidly collapsing in March 2003 - that's why bush had to pull the trigger. It those inspection went on for merely another month, who's to say a President Lieberman wouldn't have chickened out about invading?)


My guesstimates for the various permutations are:

20%: Lets say there was a moderately small chance, Gore stopped the 9/11 plot. I think that's a reasonable assumpiton.

5%: Let's say there's a 5% chance Gore got assasinated by PNAC. Sounds reasonable. What, maybe 5% of our presidents have been assisinated?

50%: Let's say there's an even chance a President Lieberman could have gotten a GOP controlled congress, and a skeptical Democratic party to authorize his war. Again, reasonable. In fact, generous: Based on the GOP congress's opposition to military action, when there's a Dem in the white house.


Assuming my arithmatic is correct, the probablity of the various permutatons all collectively happening so Lieberman could wage war on Iraq is in the neighborhood of a 2% chance. And that's a generous guesstimate, because I'm ignoring several other minor assumptions that we have to happen as well.
 
BAC:

You're theory that everything would have been the same in a Gore presidency, is entirely predicated on three huge assumptions.


1) That the 9/11 plot wouldn't have been uncovered or stopped under a President Gore. Let's face it, Gore was more engaged than bush, and the federal government transitioning to Gore would have probably not have been as disruptive as transitioning to a bush presidency. After getting the August PDB, would gore have proclaimed to the FBI agent: "Well, you covered your ass", and then gone back to clearing brush on the tennesse farm? I think not.

2) That Gore would have been assisnated by PNAC kooks.


3) That a president Lieberman could have convinced an opposition congress run by republicans, and also his own party, to authorize a war on iraq.


There are also other minor assumptions (e.g., that Lieberman would have short circuited the inspections as rapidly as Bush. The reasons for war were rapidly collapsing in March 2003 - that's why bush had to pull the trigger. It those inspection went on for merely another month, who's to say a President Lieberman wouldn't have chickened out about invading?)


My guesstimates for the various permutations are:

20%: Lets say there was a moderately small chance, Gore stopped the 9/11 plot. I think that's a reasonable assumpiton.

5%: Let's say there's a 5% chance Gore got assasinated by PNAC. Sounds reasonable. What, maybe 5% of our presidents have been assisinated?

50%: Let's say there's an even chance a President Lieberman could have gotten a GOP controlled congress, and a skeptical Democratic party to authorize his war. Again, reasonable. In fact, generous: Based on the GOP congress's opposition to military action, when there's a Dem in the white house.


Assuming my arithmatic is correct, the probablity of the various permutatons all collectively happening so Lieberman could wage war on Iraq is in the neighborhood of a 2% chance. And that's a generous guesstimate, because I'm ignoring several other minor assumptions that we have to happen as well.

First, I do not predict that "everything would have been the same" under a Gore presidency. What I predict is that had Gore been elected, he would have been assassinated and Lieberman would have become president. After that, who knows what the consequences would be, but I don't believe any of them would be good for this nation.

Lieberman would have still been driven by the exact same forces that brought us 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq and so would the Congress which remains Israeli occupied territory.

If the powers that gave us Iraq were able to confuse and make stupid the Congress and the American people with Bush, what makes you so sure that they wouldn't have been able to do the same without Bush, who after all is just a puppet. What were the circumstances of Gore's assassination? If they so easily made America believe that 19 cavemen caused 9/11, Saddam had WMD, and somehow he was tied to 9/11 although there was never a shred of proof of that .. what makes you believe that they couldn't have made Gore's death appear the work of Saddam?

With Lieberman at the helm, the country all fired up in a false sense of patriotism no different than before, 9/11, WMD, terrorism, the assassination of an American president, Bin Laden, and Saddam and the Taliban held responsiblle for everything including the sinking of the Titanic .. who knows what the unintended consequences might be.

Of course this is all speculation, but speculation based on knowledge of how we ended up in Iraq and Afghanistan and the depth of the shrewd cutthroat evil of the forces behind it.

Had Gore been president and stayed alive, I don't believe 9/11 would have ever happened. Not because he would have paid better attention to the warnings, but because those who planned it would not have had the pieces and elements within our government to make it happen.

Lieberman as president or anywhere near the presidency is a nightmare and the events of the day demonstrate that. Many who did not vote for Gore did not because of Lieberman. Gore's defeat rests in his lap, no one else .. and before you blame Greens for that defeat .. ever heard of Voter News Service (VNS)? It's proof positive that Bush simply took the election from Gore. Bush should have worn a mask while waiting for the results because the republicans strong-armed it away from the weakling Democratic Party. Then they turned around and did the exact same thing in 2004.

Bush rules because of the punkification of the American people and that gelatinous mass of sissyfied wimps called the Democratic Party.
 
First, I do not predict that "everything would have been the same" under a Gore presidency. What I predict is that had Gore been elected, he would have been assassinated and Lieberman would have become president. After that, who knows what the consequences would be, but I don't believe any of them would be good for this nation.

Lieberman would have still been driven by the exact same forces that brought us 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq and so would the Congress which remains Israeli occupied territory.

If the powers that gave us Iraq were able to confuse and make stupid the Congress and the American people with Bush, what makes you so sure that they wouldn't have been able to do the same without Bush, who after all is just a puppet. What were the circumstances of Gore's assassination? If they so easily made America believe that 19 cavemen caused 9/11, Saddam had WMD, and somehow he was tied to 9/11 although there was never a shred of proof of that .. what makes you believe that they couldn't have made Gore's death appear the work of Saddam?

With Lieberman at the helm, the country all fired up in a false sense of patriotism no different than before, 9/11, WMD, terrorism, the assassination of an American president, Bin Laden, and Saddam and the Taliban held responsiblle for everything including the sinking of the Titanic .. who knows what the unintended consequences might be.

Of course this is all speculation, but speculation based on knowledge of how we ended up in Iraq and Afghanistan and the depth of the shrewd cutthroat evil of the forces behind it.

Had Gore been president and stayed alive, I don't believe 9/11 would have ever happened. Not because he would have paid better attention to the warnings, but because those who planned it would not have had the pieces and elements within our government to make it happen.

Lieberman as president or anywhere near the presidency is a nightmare and the events of the day demonstrate that. Many who did not vote for Gore did not because of Lieberman. Gore's defeat rests in his lap, no one else .. and before you blame Greens for that defeat .. ever heard of Voter News Service (VNS)? It's proof positive that Bush simply took the election from Gore. Bush should have worn a mask while waiting for the results because the republicans strong-armed it away from the weakling Democratic Party. Then they turned around and did the exact same thing in 2004.

Bush rules because of the punkification of the American people and that gelatinous mass of sissyfied wimps called the Democratic Party.


Fair enough. This all started when I noticed that you said that you were thrilled with your choice of not voting for Gore, because of Lieberman. And the remote possibility that Lieberman could become prez.

I suppose you would apply the same standard to FDR.

Personally, I would have voted for FDR, no matter how reactionary or crazy his VP was. I realize the VP has no power, and is simply selected for electoral and adminstrative reasons.

FDR's first vice president was a reactionary, who oppossed many of the New Deal reforms. FDRs second vice president was a certifiable kook who communicated and hung out with russian mystics and other cultists.
 
Fair enough. This all started when I noticed that you said that you were thrilled with your choice of not voting for Gore, because of Lieberman. And the remote possibility that Lieberman could become prez.

I suppose you would apply the same standard to FDR.

Personally, I would have voted for FDR, no matter how reactionary or crazy his VP was. I realize the VP has no power, and is simply selected for electoral and adminstrative reasons.

FDR's first vice president was a reactionary, who oppossed many of the New Deal reforms. FDRs second vice president was a certifiable kook who communicated and hung out with russian mystics and other cultists.

That also is fair, and I'm sure I would have voted for FDR as well .. that is if I could have paid my "poll tax" and figured out how many bubbles are in a bar of soap .. as my father and other Affrican-Americans had to endure.

I like Gore much better today then I did in 2000. Today he is much more forceful and direct. He is not the wimp he was in 2000. Perhaps it was due to coming out of the shadows from the charisma and influence of Bill Clinton.

However Lieberman has turned out to be exactly what I knew him to be .. a danger to this nation.
 
FDRs second vice president was a certifiable kook who communicated and hung out with russian mystics and other cultists.
//

I did not know that Regan was FDR's VP ? wow!
 
Back
Top