Pajamas Media

64 Comments

1. Michael J. Totten:

I expect you to get piled on here, so let me start this thread by saying I agree with you 100 percent.

Oct 1, 2007 - 1:28 am 2. Night Owl:

Interesting speculation. It made me wonder, if Al had taken us to war instead of Bush, how would that have affected the perception of this war? Would we have more international support? What role would the MSM play?

I would bet that the countries that hate us now, would still hate us. They can’t help it. They enjoy hating us too much to stop.

The MSM would probably be more even handed in balancing achievement vs. failure stories. My gut tells me Gore would have made some mistakes, since no war is perfect (and my gut never lies).

The question mark is how we as a country would have responded under a Gore led assault. Would the Repubs have supported Gore on this? Would the Cindy Sheehan crowd still exist? Would Hollywood be making war hero movies? My gut is unsure. Better go have breakfast.

Oct 1, 2007 - 2:25 am 3. David Thomson:

I profoundly disagree with Roger L. Simon. The election of any Democrat (or Ron Paul style Republican) to the White House in 2008 would be a disaster. The polling data clearly shows that far too many Democrats do not really believe in the war on terror. As matter of fact, it is now the consensus view among their intellectual class that the threat of Islamic totalitarianism is greatly exaggerated. More importantly, and this is what Simon fails to comprehend: America is allegedly at fault for the enraging Osama bin Ladin and his terrorist allies. We imperialist have filthed on the dark skinned people of the world. The Democrats, it is very fair to say, are mostly self-hating Americans.

Everyone should read James Pierson’s Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism. I consider this work to be the most important book of this year. The author contends that the phenomenon of self-hating Americanism begin immediately after the Kennedy assassination. Left-wing Democrats conned many Americans to believe that somehow their own country was responsible for the murder of their national leader. The reality, of course, is that Lee Harvey Oswald—a committed Communist, assassinated JFK.

There are few center-left Democrats remaining within the Democratic Party. Joseph Lieberman did not run as a Democrat in his last election. The pacifism of George McGovern dominates the party. Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey are long dead.

Oct 1, 2007 - 3:35 am 4. DoktorNo:

I would add, that it is not only power, but also raison d’etat, stupid.

Oct 1, 2007 - 3:35 am 5. David Thomson:

“I expect you to get piled on here, so let me start this thread by saying I agree with you 100 percent.”

The anti-abortionists must make their peace with Rudy Giuliani. The war on terror must be our first priority. Those on the other side of the cultural war must also face reality. I am convinced that Michael Totten, Roger L. Simon, Stephen Green, and others are primarily motivated by these issues. They want to believe the Democrats are solid on the war issues. Unfortunately, the evidence does not support their position.

Oct 1, 2007 - 3:49 am 6. Tano:

This strikes me as complete nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that Al Gore, nor any other rational person, believed that invading Iraq would be part of any coherent strategy for fighting Islamic terrorists.

Simon’s logic seems to be that Gore opposed the war as a politician out of office; politicians out of office often say things that are different from what they do in office; therefore Gore would have invaded Iraq.

Just plain dumb. And a pretty pathetic attempt to dodge responsibility for this fiasco on behalf of his ideological soulmates.

Oct 1, 2007 - 4:10 am 7. Kim Zigfeld:

“You bet Al Gore would have been in Iraq.”

Indeed. And if so, it’s interesting to speculate about whether Bill Clinton knew that, and knew that if Gore was elected then he’d face what Bush does now, dooming Hillary’s succession. I’ve fleshed this speculation out a bit more here:

http://publiuspundit.com/articles/2007/09/reading_bill_clintons_mind.php

Oct 1, 2007 - 5:23 am 8. dan:

Of course he would’ve gone into Iraq – I agree. I also agree with the basic sentiment of the article: US presidents are compelled by geostrategic logic, and not by any of the other motivations attributed to Bush. Iraq was going to have to be resolved sooner than later, with or without 9/11, and it was never going to be resolved in Saddam’s favor. Why? Because Saddam Hussein was a psychotic asshole. That’s pretty much all that matters here.

Oct 1, 2007 - 5:45 am 9. nikias:

“There is no evidence whatsoever that Al Gore, nor any other rational person, believed that invading Iraq would be part of any coherent strategy for fighting Islamic terrorists.”
- Tano

For your viewing pleasure…
http://tinyurl.com/2sb6hy

Oct 1, 2007 - 6:03 am 10. Roger L. Simon:

You totally misread me, David Thompson. The War on Terror is my first priority. I shouldn’t speak for Totten, but I am almost certain it is his as well. He devotes his life to it.

Oct 1, 2007 - 6:13 am 11. David Thomson:

“You totally misread me, David Thompson.”

You are indulging in wishful thinking. Why is that? What is the motivation behind such a bizarre belief that Democratic Party “elites” are not self-hating Americans? The consensus opinion of these people is that America is responsible for the rage of the radical Muslim world—and military action is almost always a mistake. In their heart of hearts, the Democratic Party mainstream contends that Western imperialism and militarism is the cause of the world’s problems. We will only get Osama and his buddies angrier by continuing our “aggressive actions.”

Democrats are also totally whacked out of shape by their inability to honestly deal with racial issues. A dark skinned individual is inherently a victim of unjust society. No, the Democrats will not even begin to respond adequately to the challenge of Islamic militancy. They are both psychologically and existentially incapable of doing so. Once again, I strongly recommend reading James Piereson’s “Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism.”

Oct 1, 2007 - 6:36 am 12. Drugstore Cowgirl:

I don’t believe that we would be in Iraq or Afganistan if Gore were president. I believe that he would have continued on with the “realistic” viewpoint that all we need to do it talk about it and all will be well. In the meantime Islamist attacks would continue unabated both in the US and anywhere else the “freedom fighters” chose to blow up innocent civilians.

Oct 1, 2007 - 6:41 am 13. reliapundit:

u r dead wrong.

he’d a sent albright to negotiate with the taliban the way he and bj did with kimjonil.

he’d a handled it the way they handled khobar and the uss cole and the embassy bombings.

really rog’

u r so effin off on this itz NUTZ!

Oct 1, 2007 - 6:51 am 14. Webutante:

I also agree wholeheartedly with Roger. None of us know what future events will call us or our leaders to do, no matter what’s said on the campaign trail, or from a Lear jet on the way to Stockholm.

Talk is so cheap, but reality can have very sharp teeth when it bites.

Someone mentioned the Christian thing. As one, I think men like Dobson et al who want to support a third party candidate solely on the basis of abortion are making a grave mistake. The war on terror and in Iraq calls for the best candidate we can discern in that arena. We’re being silly to think otherwise right now. And I am not a fan of a woman’s right to rechoose.

Still, misplaced priorites are unfortunate at this juncture, it seems to me.

Great pic of Gore….btw. He looks more and more like himself, don’t you think?

Oct 1, 2007 - 6:55 am 15. Lem:

Unless there is another attack on US soil btwg now and nov 08 the election will not be about the WOT.

There is one palpable difference btwg a democrat president and a republican president. What kind of judges will they bring to the table?

The choice of federal judges has denigrated into a kind of Greco-roman all you can eat political buffet. A supreme court choice is the kind of main event were no small or extravagant detail is spared.

When we vote for president we are really voting for judges.

Oct 1, 2007 - 7:05 am 16. reliapundit:

the idea that any dem would have been or will be as tough on the enemy as bush or any gop prez is NUTZ.

they arefor accomodation and retreat.

from pelosi to reid and durbin and hillary and kucinich and obama.

the idea that a dem would have and will fight the enemy until we win is delusion.

david thomson is right.

u and totten dead wrong.

totten in the recent has psoted in his comment’s section that he might vote democratic in 08.

no true hawk could say that.

rog’ if you agree with totten then u r no hawk.

but a dove.

again – like in the veetnom era.

u wuz wrong then, too.

you are reverting to form.

sadly….

Oct 1, 2007 - 7:23 am 17. AllenS:

If the Clinton’s are elected president, get set for bombs away. Hillary will use them because she doesn’t want to be seen as a weak woman, Bill will want to bomb the crap out of people because he looked quite weak the last time he was president. Be very afraid, N. Korea, Iran.

Oct 1, 2007 - 7:33 am 18. Paul A' Barge:

dealing with an ornery (possibly antiwar) opposition party

This demonstrates pretty revealing naivety on your part.

The Republican Party has proven itself to be more than willing to put the interests of the country ahead of the party’s interests in time of war.

Bosnia comes to mind.

There is in fact a very real difference between the Republican Party, which can be counted on to support American interests when the chips are down, and the DHIMMIcRAT party, which would throw America under a bus at the first opportunity.

Oct 1, 2007 - 7:38 am 19. Dudley Smith:

I would agree with you certainly on Gore and Afghanistan, Iraq is a tougher call. Of course, Gore wouldn’t have had the psychotic break that he had after losing the election, so it’s possible he could have been the fairly hawkish Dem that he was in the 90’s, and rode the wave into Iraq as well. Certainly no one really thought that the George W. Bush of the 2000 campaign was interested in starting a preemptive war in Iraq when he was running for President.

I certainly agree with your point about the Dems “growing up” on foreign policy if Hillary wins, I’m not so sure about Obama and Edwards, because I think their sheer cluelessness about the world we live in could get us hurt. Hillary will likely bomb the hell out of Iran if the occasion arises.

Oct 1, 2007 - 7:49 am 20. billhedrick:

It’s hard to take a person serious who finishes their posts with a
“u r so effin off on this itz NUTZ!”

Oct 1, 2007 - 7:51 am 21. Jacknut:

One thing that has always struck me is Gore’s silence on the war in Iraq. He’s made few, if any, public comments on it as far as I can tell, preferring to complain about the weather.

Maybe he knows something…

Oct 1, 2007 - 8:13 am 22. Tom Holsinger:

No question about this one. The national security establishment decided on this one during the Clinton adminstration. It was engraved in stone – the next big terrorist attack in the U.S. and off we go into Iraq.

But Roger, as a writer you should be ASHAMED of being so limited! Think of the plot possibilities here. We’ve have had years of listening to Rush Limbaugh scream:

“9/11 wouldn’t have happened if George Bush had been elected president!”

Oct 1, 2007 - 8:18 am 23. EasyLiving:

“I know this because I believe in my heart…”

Damn! Good argument, case closed for me.

In fact, I believe had Jimmy Carter defeated Reagan in 1980 everything would be the same as it is now. You see, I know this because I believe it in my heart. The tax policy, deregulations, defense policy (Carter said “we win, they lose” too didn’t he?), optimism and hope, along with Supreme Court picks all would’ve been in line with Pres. Reagan’s had Carter won, right? Same with the next President, whomever it shall be.

Also, it seems to be that had Germany been able defeat the allies in WWII, for the most part things would have been the same with few, if any, major consequences, as I truly believe this with all my heart (and therefore you should too).

Oct 1, 2007 - 8:22 am 24. Erik:

My bet is that Gore would have handled it like Clinton used to.
Lob a few missiles into a few terrorist camps in Afghanistan, hit a few camels in the butt, declare victory and that the people responsible had been punished.

(If that even, remember how Clinton handled the first WTC bombing?)

Saddam would have been handled the same way Clinton did, whenever it was necessary a few airstrikes would be launched, and victory declared. That’s the appropriate response that was used back then. Actually, “West Wing” had this in one of their episodes, how attacks should be met with “appropriate response”, and not overwhelming force. Pretty standard Dem view.

As for Milosevic, that war was more or less exclusively airstrikes to minimize (US) casualties, and there was no real effort to actually win anything, just to bomb into submission and hope they changed their ways.
A pretty good example of the type of attack I’d expected Gore to launch towards the Afghan mountains. If he was president.

Oct 1, 2007 - 8:43 am 25. David Thomson:

The bottom line is this: the Democratic Party “elites” believe the war on terror is grossly exaggerated. Al Gore even said that George W. Bush is pandering to our fears. This is not something that I’m imagining. The polling data is very clear on this point. Some old style Harry Truman Democrats may still believe in American exceptionalism—but the elites are self-hating to the core. How can you expect somebody to fight a battle which they do not believe in?

Oct 1, 2007 - 8:54 am 26. reliapundit:

david thomson is right. roger wrong.

Oct 1, 2007 - 8:59 am 27. Johan Amedeus Metesky:

Roger’s right. Most Democrats capable of getting elected president would have acted exactly the same way regarding Iraq. The only difference is that the Dems wouldn’t be whining about the war.

The vast majority of American politicians are loyal Americans. There are a few Dems, Dhimmi Carter, Kucinich, and others, who would be a danger in the Oval Office, but most would do the job competently.

Oct 1, 2007 - 9:01 am 28. dan:

“One thing that has always struck me is Gore’s silence on the war in Iraq.”

He’s made a lot of comments.

What is interesting is so few people seem interested in bringing up his CSPAN interview during the final pre-invasion UN inspection period when he reacted to the question “Do you think Iraq has WMDs and is developing a nuclear program?” with a look of mild disbelief, and asserted “Well, of course he has WMDs, although the extent of his nuclear program is questionable…”

This is my second favorite disclosure, the first being on Meet the Press when Madeleine Albright had been busy dissembling about Osama bin Laden being captured already and the Administration lying about WMDs when ol’ Russert whips out a video and say, “Oh really? Well take a look at our monitor there…” upon which appeared Ms. Albright from 1999 wailing about Saddam’s WMDs in exactly the same fashion as Bush & Co.

At which Madeleine visibly blushed and commented through nervous laughter that “well things are very difficult when you’re in that position and it’s very easy for me to sit here…”

Yeah, shut your mouth Madeleine.

Oh and cf. that invasion plan by General Zinni developed in 1999 which concluded that even 400,000 troops could not guarantee the kind of Asiatic jockeying for tribal power that we witness on television. The present problems of Iraq have nothing to do with troop levels or after-invasion planning, and everything to do with the nature of the problem of a pre-modern Middle East – one that’s made wealthy enough by oil revenue from All the rest of the post-industrialized world to buy, for example, contemporary weapons infrastructure and capabilities. Does this really not seem to be a problem to those in the anti-war camp?

The fact is, the opposition has this entire time indulged in the most unsophisticated, uncritical and nearly treasonous kind of “opposition” – namely, say No! to everything to which your opponent says Yes, while destroying him with relentless and vicious ad hominem.

I think I may never vote Democrat again. It’s one thing to be an arse about a president’s ex-marital Oval Office trysts, it’s another thing entirely to regard 9/11 and the revelations it provided about the actual state of things in the Middle East as an opportunity to stick it to Chimpy – and the entire US military, and indeed the entire history and character of the country.

Shameful – and humiliating to have them as the present political opposition in my country.

Oct 1, 2007 - 9:06 am 29. Veeshir:

I personally think he would still be discussing the size and shape of the table for the talks with the Taliban where he’s going to ask them to consider maybe handing over bin Laden.

Oct 1, 2007 - 9:12 am 30. Michael B. Babbitt:

Could you imagine what the middle-east would look like if Saddam had stayed in power? We would probably have 2 nuclear power wannabees to deal with instead of one — besides the WMD program that Saddam would surely have restarted as soon as the inspectors left; the Duelfer report suggested as much. Imagine, Ahmedinijad would claim he needed nuclear weapons as a defense against Saddam. Now he says he doesn’t need them — that is still a lie as it concerns his intentions but he could publicly rationalize it with more support. What a mess. So I agree, any rational world leader would have had to consider what they knew then in 2002 and 2003 and what the probabilities in the future looked like and could only conclude that Saddam had to go. It was a good and needed start.

Oct 1, 2007 - 9:14 am 31. joseph hill:

maybe this and maybe that is maybe not worth thinking about. In fact, democratization was begun (if you must dump on Dems) under Wilson, a long time before Bush. Bush simply tried to justify what he had done. I seriously doubt that Gore would have invaded Iraq if you plan to spectulate in order to take the heat off the worst war we have entered into.

Oct 1, 2007 - 9:33 am 32. Kafir:

Around the time the war started, I saw Bill Clinton on TV say something along the lines of: “Say what you want about the President, but if I were in office I’d be doing the same thing.” Strangely enough, I cannot find that quote anywhere on the ‘net but I know I didn’t dream it. I believe if Bill Clinton would have gone into Iraq, so would Al Gore.

Also Paul A’ Barge, as much as I hate to admit it, there were Republicans who railed against Kosovo, as well as WWII. The opposition party will apparently always do that. History either silences or amplifies their voices.

Oct 1, 2007 - 9:44 am 33. John:

When Clinton took the U.S. into Serbia, there was some Republican opposition, but only a fraction of the opposition Bush got for going into Iraq. Some of that was political expediency, while others were due to the Pat Buchanan-neo isolationist view that there’s almost nothing outside of Putin reconstituting the Soviet Union that should justify a major commitment of American military forces overseas.

Watching Hillary and the other Democratic hopefuls for 2008 trying to leave themselves maneuvering room if they get elected shows that a great deal of the opposition to the war in Iraq is merely political opportunism.

In it’s own way, that’s even more reprehensible than the anti-war people on the left who actually believe there’s no American interest in remaining in Iraq. Those people are simply too stupid to know better or truly do hate American to the point they want us to lose. People like Hillary or Edwards know better, but actually give Bush a backhanded vote of confidence by gambling that they can try to win the votes of the far left by acting like the Islamic terrorist threat is overblown, because they believe there won’t be a major attack on U.S. soil or American interests overseas before next November’s election.

Had Gore won in 2000, he still would have faced the dumb/America-hating left’s opposition to U.S. action in Iraq — the same ones who rioted in Seattle during Clinton’s G-8 conference in 1999 — and he’d have people like Buchanan opposing him, as well as a few others on the right who would try to portray Al as the 21st Century’s LBJ simply to gain political power. But there’s no way you’d be seeing the conventional media onslaught against the war in the same way you’re seeing it today with Bush in the White House.

Oct 1, 2007 - 9:55 am 34. Yevgeny:

There is an argument to be made that Democratic administration would be good for WOT. During the years as VP, Gore was not the unhinged lunatic he became since the 2000 election. He was actually a reasonably sane and reasonably competent individual back then. Being a loser of an election unleashed the worst part of him, because he no longer has any control and responsibility for what he says or does. Being in opposition is easy because you no longer are responsible for grounding your proclamations to reality. If Gore won in 2000, he would have to deal with reality.

Would his determination, his instincts, be as strong as Bush’s? No, they would not. But, he would not have nearly as much headwind as Bush does. Instead of facing press determined to bring him down and an opposition party which puts their own interest ahead of country’s interest, he would face a semi-supportive, semi-hostile press and opponent party. I agree with those who say that Republicans wouldn’t be nearly as irresponsible as Democrats proved to be. So, things would be different, but I don’t know if they’d be worse. A more united country with a weaker leader just might beat a divided country with a stronger one.

That is one of the reasons why I am not as dismayed about Hillary as most people are. Her natural inclination would be completely wrong, of course. But, she has shown that she is capable of ignoring that. She is a genuine 100% authentic fake, but that is a good thing. She has tried to blow off the extreme left, who was never that happy with her in the first place, because she knows that is a political loser. She might be one of them, but she is smarter than them, and more willing to compromise. Unlike opportunistic and none too bright Edwards, or inexperienced idealistic Obama, Hillary would do the right thing in spire of herself.

And it might be nice not to have half the country trying to sabotage the other half.

Oct 1, 2007 - 10:05 am 35. Michael J. Totten:

Al Gore was extremely hawkish as a senator and vice president, and only changed his tune lately. He was never on the anti-war side, and was hated by those who were.

David Thomson is silly if he thinks abortion rights are more important to me than Iraq. I work in Iraq.

Oct 1, 2007 - 10:32 am 36. Matthew Goggins:

Roger,

You are correct to point out that President Gore could very well have pursued Saddam to the point of invading Iraq.

But possibilities are not the same as probabilities, and it seems to me that you are neglecting to incorporate some reasonable estimations of the likelihoods of various scenarios.

For example, the probability that a President Thompson or a President Giuliani would vigorously prosecute the war on Islamist terror/jihad: somewhere between 90% and 100%. The probability that a President H. Clinton or a President Edwards would do the same: somewhere between 70% and 90%.

Or looking into alternate versions of the past, the probability that a President Gore would have competently handled Afghanistan after 9/11: somewhere between 70% and 90%. That he would have invaded Iraq: between 60% and 80%.

When you play poker, or international politics, you need to consider the odds before you make any decisions.

Oct 1, 2007 - 10:45 am 37. Gus Hall:

Joseph Hill, if you’re the same Joe Hill I saw last night, alive as you and me… it’s time for us guys to pack it in. The socialist dream went out with that other Joe. Get over it.

Oct 1, 2007 - 10:47 am 38. The Mechanical Eye:

I agree with those saying Simon is utterly wrong.

What led us into Iraq was essentially Bush’s choice in counsel — Bush had chosen to surround himself with fervent neo-conservatives. While Clinton wasn’t shy about using military power either, he had the memory of our Somalia debacle, and was thus somewhat constrained in becoming too confident with the use of force. I think Gore would have carried some of that institutional memory with him had be been president.

What’s bizarre is that neither Roger L. Simon or Michael J. Totten look into who Gore’s foreign policy advisors/mentors/whatever were in the 2000 campaign. Who was it? Was it someone sympathetic to the neo-cons or someone more “realist?” An internationalist?

A journalist might know…

DU

Oct 1, 2007 - 10:51 am 39. Looking Glass:

Roger: Exactly right. The WTC was an attack on the American power elite. People who lost friends, family and partners. The kind of people who never talk about an injury, but never forget it either.

Everything since then has been political shadowboxing. Al Gore prevents activist true believers from protesting the war by distracting them with a greater, non-existent, threat. In 2004 the Democrats nominate an unelectable candidate and run a stunningly incompetent campaign. They even sacrifice Dan Rather to ensure Bush’s re-election.

Iraq is the ideal of strategic offense combined with the strength of tactical defense. By attacking the terrorists solve the Coalition’s biggest problems, identification, processing and final disposal.

Kim Zigfield: Exactly. Great article at the link, had to fix the URL manually. What is it with this site breaking links in comments?

You article is particularly insightful in terms of the performance of the Democratic Congress. A perfect storm of stupidity, including a slumber party!, that gave George W. Bush everything he wanted. By the end they passed FISA with the lame excuse that they didn’t read it.

AllenS: Dead on. Decades of cruel mental abuse from Bill have left Hillary with enough passive aggression to cause bright radioactive flashes over Iran.

Remember, too, that it was Hillary who publicly offered a hudna (truce) with the terrorists until after the election. It may or may not benefit her and the Democrats. It definitely benefits the American people. The USA can live with that kind of practical politics.

After the 1994 Congressional elections Bill told Hillary to STF down and STFU. She obeyed without a murmur. The public spanking worked.

If elected Her Royal Clintoness will demonstrate to the terrorists that when it comes to underhanded double-dealing backstabbing politicians the USA has few equals.

Oct 1, 2007 - 10:52 am 40. Michael in Seattle:

Anyone paying attention in ‘98 and ‘99 would have realized that the rhetorical groundwork for Iraq Part 2 was being put in place. Hell, one could argue that the *only* reason that the war didn’t start in 1998 was Clinton was open to ‘Wag The Dog’ opposition from the Right.

Go and actually read all of the speeches from the Democrats and the Republicans in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Whomever was President from 2000-2004 would have gone to war in Iraq. The collapsing sanction regime would have necessitated it. 9/11 only muddied the waters.

Actually though, this whole affair has only reinforced one of my fundamental ‘Laws’ of American Foreign Policy: Only ‘Johnson’ can invade Viet Nam, and only ‘Nixon’ can go to China. Meaning, only a Democrat can effectively neutralize the ‘Peace at any price’ crowd to wage war with a broad spectrum of national and international support, and only a Republican can neutralize the ‘you are appeasing’ hawks on the Right to change the geopolitical status quo.

If the wrong ‘letter’ tries to break this rule, you end up where we are now.

Oct 1, 2007 - 11:00 am 41. Artd0dger:

Well, the Bush administration has basically been reacting to events, not driving them. And despite what the angry left would have you believe, it has been a series of middle path, compromise reactions. So yeah, a Dem could have easily done the same.

Of course, that doesn’t mean the parties are equivalent going forward, now that contrary stances have hardened and all.

Oct 1, 2007 - 11:06 am 42. dan:

“What led us into Iraq was essentially Bush’s choice in counsel — Bush had chosen to surround himself with fervent neo-conservatives. While Clinton wasn’t shy about using military power either, he had the memory of our Somalia debacle, and was thus somewhat constrained in becoming too confident with the use of force.”

The Somalia debacle? The one where we were trying to feed starving people, the food was being commandeered by a gang, and we attempted to attack the gang?

What I wonder is, is it really more humane to send in these small supertroop forces rather than just blow the whole target area to absolute hell with B-2s?

We could’ve just killed 50,000 Iraqis off the bat, for example, and arguably provided the kind of clarity that the Anbar sheikhs, for example, have just experienced after 4 years of absolutely needless and pointless “war.”

Call me a deaf mute, but from here it doesn’t seem like the supposed benefits, moral and otherwise, of the light, quasi-law enforcement methods actually earn us anything except a much, much longer problem, during which we are blamed for everything we do, everything we are perceived to have done, AND everything the natives do to themselves and to us.

What kind of calculus is this? Why not just firebomb Ramadi and get it all over with?

Oct 1, 2007 - 11:20 am 43. BMoon:

It is useless to try to envision what Gore or any other Dem would do by trying to determine their political beliefs. They simply do not have any except “get elected.” I think rather that Gore and Dems would be like their most recent mentor and hero, Clinton- obsessively checking the opinion polls every morning to determine foreign policy and the future of the free world, determining policy decisions on which way the wind was blowing that morning.

Oct 1, 2007 - 11:25 am 44. Mike:

I bet Gore would have done a better job post-invasion. If you are going to take out the dictator on your terms you have to have some post-war plan and know something about the fricken’ country you are invading. There were never any good options in Iraq (still aren’t) and it was going to get ugly eventually. It will probably get worse over time along with the other major countries in that region.

Oct 1, 2007 - 11:33 am 45. ggonzalezm:

Gore, Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton would very likely have invaded Iraq if any had been President at the time. If a semi-”realist” and publicly isolationist candidate like Bush ends up in Iraq, certainly a liberal interventionist already engaged in a low level conflict with Iraq during the 1990s would no longer have tolerated Saddam in a post 911 world.

Further speculation:

1- Gore would have faced hostility from the far-left and probably from the Move On/Hollywood set, but not monolithically in the case of the latter. The Democrats’ dividing line would be along the lines of the Chompsky/Zinn crown who vehemently opposed Gulf War I and more so those who opposed the Kosovo intervention. He may have held the support of mainstream and even most liberal Democrats.

2. At least half (but probably not many more) Republican war supporters would now be opposing the intervention, at least after the fact as in the case of the present Democrats, on grounds that Gore/Clinton irresponsibly misrepresented the threat and got the Nation involved in a needless war in which vital national interests are not at stake. We are diverting resources from the search for Osama. These traditional Republican themes would resonate very well in a party whose isolationists instincts would have outweighed their Jacksonian instincts or “neo-conservative” (whatever that means) minority. Republican neo-conservatives would probably have supported the centrists in the Democratic Party.

3. Gore (or Clinton) may have handled the diplomacy better than Bush, who was frankly incompetent. French participation would have been at least 50/50.

4. All of the above could have had major implications for the way in which the war is portrayed in the U.S. media and the (largely derivative) European media.

Gabriel Gonzalez

Oct 1, 2007 - 11:37 am 46. Lem:

“[Iraq] ..the worst war we have entered into.” – Joseph hill

Wow. You mean Iraq has managed to eclipse Vietnam? When did this happen?

Oh wait. History be dammed. No mater what conflict the US is involved – at that particular time – that is the worst war evil US has entered into.

Now that is what you call a reliable opposition.

Oct 1, 2007 - 11:45 am 47. Looking Glass:

Yevgeny said: “She is a genuine 100% authentic fake, but that is a good thing.”

Agree. I won’t be completely happy, but neither will her supporters.

Yevgeny said “it might be nice not to have half the country trying to sabotage the other half.”

There’s a school of thought that the reason WWII turned remarkably and decisively against the triumphant Axis powers when Germany invaded the USSR was that communist cells around the world went from anti-war to pro-war.

Bill Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party with Welfare Reform, repudiating HillaryCare, and philandering that gutted feminist credibility when they tacitly approved.

In 2008 the liberal MSM will go stark, staring, frothing at the mouth bat5h!7 insane to elect Hillary. The 15% boost they gave Kerry will turn into 25% or more. They will completely sell out their credibility for years to come to accomplish this.

Then Hillary will turn on them with a vengeance, primarily by supporting and continuing the war.

They’ll keep supporting her, at the cost of discrediting themselves to their remaining audience.

There’s a large moonbat contingent already contemptuous of the MSM as disgustingly pro-war. Yes, really.

Just as Bill destroyed the Democratic Party, a Hillary presidency would destroy the main stream media.

Oct 1, 2007 - 12:00 pm 48. Looking Glass:

Mike said “I bet Gore would have done a better job post-invasion.”

There was only plan that could win the Iraqi people to the side of the USA, stay long enough to convince them it wasn’t suicide to support the USA.

The abandonment of Vietnam in the early 1970s meant the USA was starting from negative credibility that cost time and lives, both Iraqi and Coalition.

No amount of clever planning could change that. Right now the Iraqis have turned on al Qaeda and are standing up for their own defense, siding with the USA. Convincing both the Arab street and followers of Islam to do that is a success on par with walking on water.

So of course it’s criticized as taking too long while being rushed. Since it’s George W. Bush walking on water the MSM is reporting it as “President Bush can’t swim.”

Oct 1, 2007 - 12:09 pm 49. David Thomson:

“Al Gore was extremely hawkish as a senator and vice president, and only changed his tune lately. He was never on the anti-war side, and was hated by those who were.”

Al Gore seems to be someone who places his wet finger into the air to see which way the wind is blowing. He is a quintessential example for my point of view. Why did Gore feel compelled to capitulate to these extremists? Are you aware that Gore is now a favorite of the Daily Kos crowd? Also, have you not noticed how fearful the Democratic Party nominees are not to offend Moveon.org?

I also have the hard data on my side. There is no doubt whatsoever but that the “elites” are self-hating Americans—and they are the power brokers of the Democratic Party. These are the people who will join the administration of any elected Democratic Party president. Are you unaware of these polls? Do you somehow believe that Karl Rove has bribed the pollsters to distort their results?

“David Thomson is silly if he thinks abortion rights are more important to me than Iraq. I work in Iraq.”

Just think about it. Might you be deceiving yourself? You have on numerous occasions expressed great contempt towards the GOP. There must be some reason for this hostility.

Oct 1, 2007 - 12:29 pm 50. Candide:

I also always believed that President Gore would go all out to remove Taliban and Saddam after 9-11.

Gore would do just like Bush, only much more so, because, as ‘Tom Holsinger’ said, right wingers would keep repeating that all the Al Qaida terror acts against US happened on Clinton and Gore watch, starting in 1993. “They made US less safe”, would be repeated every day by Republicans and with much greater sting. So President Gore would have to act big time, in some part just to change that perception.

That would mean to destroy the Taliban regime first, of course. So what would Gore do next? Would he concentrate on chasing Al Qaida operatives or would he go for something big? Something that would be long due, the right thing to do that can also improve his image and raise his popularity? Nowadays many choose to forget but the idea of Saddam removal was extremely popular circa 2002-03 and Bush ratings has sky-rocketed when he invaded Iraq.

I think Gore would certainly move to remove Saddam and the net result would be about the same but in reverse. Saddam would be taken out, Iraq would plunge into chaos, some mistakes would be made and Republican opposition would overstate President Gore’s faults and downplay all his achievements.

Would Gore survive 2004 elections? But we are getting ahead of ourselves…

Oct 1, 2007 - 12:39 pm 51. Dan:

Mike said “I bet Gore would have done a better job post-invasion.”

Guys! This is complete nonsense and has been since someone first added it to the list of sounds-good-has-nothing-to-do-with-reality anti-Chimpy claims – and nothing else!

LOOK at the country and people who were supposedly so badly served by Intergalactic Lord Haliburton.

Actually, since you’re simply being a prick, Just Shut Your Pie Hole.

Thanks.

Oct 1, 2007 - 1:14 pm 52. Smokey:

From the upcoming Nobel Prize for Globaloney winner, Al Gore:

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

– Al Gore, 9/27/2002

Oct 1, 2007 - 3:15 pm 53. reliapundit:

MORE PROOF THAT ELECTIONS MATTER:

SARKOZY AND MERKEL

AP:

Nicolas Sarkozy to stay at Bush’s residence in Washington in November :

President George W. Bush will host French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Washington in November. The specific date of the visit has not been announced.

Also in November, Bush and his wife, Laura, are planning to host German Chancellor Angela Merkel for two days at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. That visit will happen on Nov. 9-10, with an agenda covering NATO, the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Merkel is one of Bush’s closest European colleagues; Sarkozy and Bush are still forming a bond, and the new French leader is seen as Bush’s last chance to renew relations with France. Sarkozy was treated to an all-American lunch, a ride on a speed boat and an introduction to the whole Bush family in August.

Bush’s parents own an Atlantic oceanfront estate in Maine, and the president used all the trappings to make Sarkozy feel welcome.

* CAN ANY SANE PERSON IMAGINE THAT SEGOLENE ROYAL AND GERHARD SCHROEDER WOULD BE GETTING ALONG WITH BUSH AS WELL AS HAVE MERKEL AND SARKOZY!?

* NOPE.

* WHO WE ELECT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

* CHIRAC AND SCHROEDER WERE CROOKED WEASELS WHO UNDERCUT US AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

* MERKEL AND SARKOZY ARE ALLIES.

* GORE AND HLLARY AND OBAMA AND EDWARDS HAVE MORE IN COMMON WITH CHIRAC AND SCHROEDER THAN THEY DO WITH MERKEL AND SARKOZY.

* IT WOULD HAVE MADE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IF HAD WE ELECTED GORE IN 2000, OR KERRY IN 2004.

* IF WE ELECT A DEM, IN 2006 THE DIFFERENCE WILL BE JUST AS STARK.

* FRANCE NEEDED TO AVOID SEGOLENE AS MUCH AS WE NEED TO AVOID ANY FREAKIN’ DEM.

Oct 1, 2007 - 5:02 pm 54. Cris Berger:

Are you INSANE? or do you just forget that Bush had as part of his energy plan in March 2001 the invasion and securing of Iraqi oil feilds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0

To live in fantasy land is to continue to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Oct 1, 2007 - 6:00 pm 55. william jonas:

It is very, very late in this thread to be adding any more opinion. But from the comments so far , hats off to David Thomson (no p) for his clear logic and analysis.
If I were the ref in this match I would hold Davids arm aloft and announce ” the winner”! Sorry Roger,you lose.

Oct 1, 2007 - 7:31 pm 56. Andy Rigrod:

I am surprised how many agree Gore would have gone into Iraq. I have thought that myself for a long time and was interested to see it discussed here. Also funny to see how the orthodox of the right and left seem the most offended.

Oct 1, 2007 - 8:35 pm 57. C. Owen Johnson:

Roger’s assertion that had Al Gore been elected president in 2000, he’d be in Iraq now, just like Bush, and suffering the same opprobrium, is a statement of faith, and a misguided one at that. The rationale behind it is that US presidents are constrained in their actions by geopolitical realities. While that sounds perfectly reasonable, to be taken seriously it needs to be supported by history, and the fact is, it is not. Carter and Reagan faced the same geopolitical realities and yet acted very differently. Clinton faced the same geopolitical realities as Bush, but perceived the situation differently and acted differently. Clinton launched a war over Kosovo, but prosecuted in it a completely manner than Bush has prosecuted the war in Iraq, and garnered a very different reaction from the press and a large segments of the public. To go further back, Johnson and Nixon took different approaches to Vietnam. Past history will reveal other examples.

All these differences have been critical to the outcomes for our nation. To pretend that who is President does not matter because geopolitical realities do our governing for us is to take a dangerously mechanistic, not to say foolish and naïve, view of how things work.

Oct 1, 2007 - 11:42 pm 58. Steve M.:

I came over here assuming there’d be some evidence to support your assertion. There’s none. Thanks for playing, Roger.

Oh, yes, he would have been a typical craven chickensh*t Democrat and voted for the resolution, but there was no independent move on the part of non PNAC Democrats to go into Iraq in 2001 and 2002.

Oct 2, 2007 - 4:07 am 59. Linda Frank:

Gabriel Gonzalez put it very succinctly:

“Gore, Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton would very likely have invaded Iraq if any had been President at the time. If a semi-”realist” and publicly isolationist candidate like Bush ends up in Iraq, certainly a liberal interventionist already engaged in a low level conflict with Iraq during the 1990s would no longer have tolerated Saddam in a post 911 world.”

Oct 2, 2007 - 7:35 am 60. Demosophist:

It was actually a rather gutsy move to conceive and implement the idea that promoting the franchise expansion of liberal democracy was the only long term strategy in the WoT that stood some possibility of working. Gutsy, but probably inevitable. I just don’t see any alternatives.

Having said that, Erik might well be right that Gore would’ve just let loose from on high. They were convinced that a “ground invasion” was political suicide.

But this is all a little like the speculation that had McClellan won the election of 1864 he’d have disdained the Copperheads within his own party, and prosecuted the war. True, he wasn’t a Copperhead, but his history in actual military engagements suggests that he preferred show and bravado over actual performance (just like the Clintons), and he’d have canned Grant (and probably Sherman) from the outset.

Hard to say what difference McClellan would have made, really… but I’m glad the Siege of Atlanta changed the dynamic and put Lincoln back in office.

I don’t see how Rudy can get the nomination, nor do I see Mitt running away with it. McCain is actually more likely than either of those guys. Pity Thompson is such an unknown quantity. Put a lot of hope on that old horse. He may not be up to it, though.

“Huck”’s a pretty Americanized handle…

Oct 2, 2007 - 5:06 pm 61. mikek:

“Mike said “I bet Gore would have done a better job post-invasion.”

Guys! This is complete nonsense and has been since someone first added it to the list of sounds-good-has-nothing-to-do-with-reality anti-Chimpy claims – and nothing else!

LOOK at the country and people who were supposedly so badly served by Intergalactic Lord Haliburton.

Actually, since you’re simply being a prick, Just Shut Your Pie Hole.

Thanks.”

I’m not being a prick. The civilian leadership did not do a good job after the invasion. Gore (who I can’t stand btw) probably would have done a better job imo. In DC they worried about re-election and sent Paul Bremer, who is apparently retarded, to Iraq. The military has done as good a job as circumstances will allow, but the leadership is not impressive.

“There are no tribes in the new Iraq.”

Seriously, who would even think that?

Oct 2, 2007 - 6:51 pm 62. Bob Bolduc:

Cris Berger: I started the video but quickly found out it only supported the views of others here – Saddam was on a list long before 9/11. That does not make Bush evil. The left keeps saying there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. I never thought there was, nor that it was asserted as the reason for Iraq. Go find some other straws to grasp.

Oct 3, 2007 - 4:37 am 63. Jacknhoo:

Gore would definately be in Iraq, too!

Everyone should watch this video!

FLASHBACK TIME: Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq’s ties to terrorism

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

Oct 4, 2007 - 6:17 am 64. Luke:

So Gore would be in Iraq right now?

Your asking us to believe that even though Khalilzad, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other members of the Project for the New American Century (the people who created this war) authored an open letter to the Clinton/Gore administration denouncing their Iraq policy and asking for military intervention in 1998 (a letter flattly refused by Clinton/Gore), that those same people would have successfully engineered the same war in a Gore/Lieberman administration?

Idiot!

Oct 5, 2007 - 9:59 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: