Ralph Nader says Gore would have attacked Iraq.

[Skinner]

Believe what you want about Ralph Nader. But his claim about Gore is flat wrong, and the evidence shows it is wrong.

Nader is willfully ignoring Gore's own position. Gore made eloquent speeches against the war in Iraq. He was one of a small number of prominent people in this country to do so. That is a FACT. The evidence on this is clear and convincing: Gore would not have attacked Iraq.

Nader is not the anti-politician. He spins, misrepresents, and tells half-truths, just like every other politician.

[drdon326]

1. Flame bait to Naderites.

.

[Skinner]

13. Sure, some would consider this flame bait.

But the rules have changed.

The evidence points strongly in the direction of one conclusion: Gore would not have attacked Iraq.

Of course, since Gore is not the president, Nader can basically say whatever he wants. Because we're dealing in hypotheticals.

But the fact remains that Gore's opinion of the war is a matter of record. For Nader to say that Gore would have attacked Iraq is simply not supported by the facts.

[Crunchy Frog]

109. I'm alerting on this thread Skinner

this is obvious flamebait.:D

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. No. It's flame bait from Nader himself.

Making controversial statements is the way you get press. However, this one goes totaly beyond the pale. It is insulting and demeaning in the extreme.

[ewagner]

2. Gore should answer this

as soon as possible. That was pure conjecture and had no business being placed into the conversation as a fact, a given.

Gore's got to get on top of this.

[mzmolly]

25. Your right, and in fact, Gore is the perfect person to really go after

Ralph Nader in 2004.

[Kahuna]

34. Agreed. I'm sure that Al Gore will be delighted to..

have that task. Calling Al Gore...

[mzmolly]

56. Yeeees indeed! I would savor that much.

:P

[LandOLincoln]

82. It's not conjecture, it's an out and out lie and Nader knows it.

The man is so corrupt and such a liar I can't believe ANYONE can still support him.

Notice too how quickly and how lamely he weaseled out of making his tax records public.

I can't wait for Outside magazine to make Nader's 2000 interview available online, the one where he admitted that he was out to destroy the Democrats and would vote for Bush himself if the election were held that day.

It would be a good idea too for the Green leadership to make a statement denouncing him or at least distancing the Green Party from this megalomaniacal crook.

I think Ralphie and his ego have just made a major tactical and strategic blunder, and I personally plan to do everything in my power to see he's exposed and brought down once and for all.

(edited for typo in the headline)

[BlueEyedSon]

3. But even Nader would have attacked Afghanistan.

After 9/11, the president would have to do SOMETHING!

[ThomWV]

7. Wrong

The pResident did the WRONG thing - he wasted our military resources in an attack against his foe when the nation's foe was elsewhere.

[MikeG]

4. Call Nader's candidacy what it is - a boutique candicacy

[boobooday]

5. Ralph's just wrong

Come on, Ralph! Do the right thing! Help us get rid of this scumbag Bush!

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[DaisyUCSB]

6. He did chose Lieberman as his VP

we don't know what Gore would have done. We just don't. Although everything you said about Nader being just another politician is true

[MurikanDemocrat]

20. Gore came out very clearly and vocally AGAINST the war.

We DO know what he would have done. He would NOT have started a war on Iraq.

[DaisyUCSB]

28. that's only your guess. We can't go into that alternate timeline/reality

and find out. It's like saying Kennedy would have never escalated Vietnam. There's evidence leaning towards it. We'd LIKE to believe that. But we just don't know.

[Liberal Veteran]

38. Evidence suggests that Gore would NOT have attacked Iraq...

Gore spoke out against the war.
Gore was in the Clinton administration that resisted demands from the right to invade Iraq.
Gore would not likely have appointed Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who were damned determined to invade Iraq.

Nader's suggestion that Gore would have attacked Iraq has about as much merit as a suggestion that Gore would have loosened restrictions on arsenic in our drinking water or allowed unfettered access to ANWR.

It is wholly without merit.

[MurikanDemocrat]

44. guess my ass! Gore denounced it publically through speeches!

The evidence is clear and convincing that he was adamantly opposed to attacking Iraq. That is a FACT!

The only alternate reality here is yours!

[DaisyUCSB]

65. convincing to you, someone who probably has faith in what Gore says

but I never thought that Gore was a genuine person, and I didn't with his reaction to the war. He's reinvented himself more than Madonna

[MurikanDemocrat]

69. And you sure buy in to a lot of media hype and right wing talking points

for a Democrat.

[DaisyUCSB]

72. Such as? What right wing talking point have I baught into?

None

Gore is just one democrat and me not putting him in higher praise because he happened to be the person the election was stolen from with revisionist history is just immature and simple minded.

I don't have and have no cause to have any more alliegance to him than any democrat or any politician

[MurikanDemocrat]

81. I see. The stolen election is just

"revisionist history is just immature and simple minded"

Yes, I DO understand now. It has become VERY clear. Yes, indeed. I know EXACTLY where you're coming from.

:hi:

[DaisyUCSB]

99. No it's revisionist history to say that because it was stolen, people look

at Gore like some martyr or something. He was the same warped senators son the day after as the day before the election.

And ever since he concieded he's been looking to reinsert himself back to power to a place where he could best run for president again at the most opportune moment. And we don't no if he had alterior motives when he did that or when he does anything. But a strong case can be made that he did.

What you are pretending to do is know exactly what and why he was doing when he made that speech and what he would have done in reaction to 9-11

[LandOLincoln]

86. Agreed, and as a fellow Clark supporter it's especially painful

to see another Clarkie echo such RW BS against the man Wes Clark and I both voted for in 2000.

[cally]

73. I guess you bought the Reublican talking points wholesale

Gore stated publically and made an impassioned speech against the Iraq war. He stated that the intelligence did not lead to a conclusion to attack Iraq. Instead, the US should focus on Al Queda. For further evidence, that was the Clinton administration policy.

[DaisyUCSB]

75. I guess you Kerry supporters have baught into sluring me with the same

thing and then not backing it up with anything. Gore was not turned into some untouchable when he had the election stolen from him. It didn't make him any better of or any more likable or believable a person

[cally]

87. I didn't say he was untouchable

I related his stated position. I don't know if you were following politics then but Gore's speech through moveon.org against the Iraq war was outstanding. He laid it all out about why we should never invade Iraq under the circumstances proposed by *. At the time, he was a very courageous speech because very few other prominent Democrats had stated that.

I don't care if you dislike Gore, just don't misrepresent his positions.

By the way, I have to laugh. You are the first person who has attacked me because I put up a Kerry avatar. I supported another candidate until he dropped out a few weeks ago. :-)

[blondeatlast]

133. It isn't about THEN. We are in Iraq now, and Gore's opposition has been

absolutely consistent.

Knowing what we do today, I honestly don't believe any Democrat would have gotten us into that ILLEGAL invasion, especially without UN endorsement.

[blondeatlast]

132. Gore has said as much, in the press, in speeches, in his (ill-advised)

endorsement of Howard Dean.

It's not specualtion at all.

It's a lie and if the Nader is our "anti-politics" saviour hucksters are gonna use it, I'm gonna do my best to force them to face the truth.

Karl Rove must still be dancing right now...

[Liberal Veteran]

27. Well, let's be honest. Choosing Lieberman was a distancing ploy...

...to try to counter criticism that Gore and Clinton were synonymous. It had nothing to do with anything other than trying to distance himself from the Lewinsky scandal.

[Punkingal]

122. We do know what Gore would have done...

he has said he would not have attacked Iraq.

[The Magistrate]

8. Indeed, Sir

The reptile's whole position, that there is not a dimes worth of difference between the parties, is a damnable and contemptible lie. He tells this lie about Vice-President Gore merely as a device to shore up the greater lie he bases his political endeavors on.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

9. I heard that too.

Nader is crazy to think that way, he's choosing not to acknowledge Gore's position. Gore has always been against the Iraq war, it's evident from his speeches/endorsements.

[tom2kpro]

29. tom2kpro

It is pretty clear that Gore was against going to war in Iraq. So Nader is not credible on this point.
<p>
Kerry is not Gore, though. If he had said tha same about Kerry, then he might have had a point.

[MoonRiver]

48. But he didn't say that. Nader LIED. He sounds like a Repuke

attacking Dems.

Welcome to DU tom1kpro :hi:

[LandOLincoln]

88. Nader IS a Republican, or at least a Republican-enabler. n/t

[newyawker99]

143. Hi tom2kpro!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[messiah]

10. Nobody Knows

[Skinner]

24. Is that a question or a comment?

It is true that nobody knows for certain what Gore would have done, because Gore is not the president.

But for Nader to make the statement, there must be some evidence to suggest that it is true. The evidence that Gore would have attacked Iraq is virtually nonexistent. While the evidence that Gore would not have done so is quite clear.

[messiah]

41. Nader

just said Gore would have done it in a "different" way not like George Bush but in "another way".

[mzmolly]

He's wrong.

:)

[LoZoccolo]

62. Nader would have attacked Iraq, Denmark, Tanzania, and New Zealand.

I mean I have about as much evidence as you do about Gore...why not?

Don't say he wouldn't. "You know" he would have.

:eyes:

[blondeatlast]

135. Canada. Given the counter-intuitive evidence offered in this thread,

it's just as plausible.

Sheesh. :eyes:

[liberalnurse]

11. Ditto......

That comment about Gore was obnoxious...... I never need to hear nader again.

[Blue_Roses]

12. It was hard not

throw something at the TV while watching him spew this lie. I have no doubt that Gore WOULD NOT have attacked Iraq.

Ralph Nader is opportunistic egomaniac. Where has he been all this time? In the meantime, our country has been going to hell in a handbasket under the Bush administration. I haven't heard Nader speak out about job loss, outsourcing, healthcare, medicare and many of the other serious issues we are facing.

[MurikanDemocrat]

14. Wonder if Nader supporters will excuse this out and out blatant lie.

I bet they will. But yet they will hold the Dem candidates feet to the fire over how they part their hair. :eyes:

[DaisyUCSB]

18. how is it a lie if he "thinks" Gore would have attacked

it's his guess.

I don't like Nader, but I've never really held too much trust in anything Gore says either

[MurikanDemocrat]

30. My understanding is that he said Gore WOULD have attacked.

Not that he "thinks" Gore would have attacked.

Will have to see a transcript to clarify that. But even so, to suggest he even "speculates" that Gore would have attacked Iraq flies in the face of clear and convincing evidence that he wouldn't have. Gore was clearly, firmly, and very vocally AGAINST going to war with Iraq. That is a FACT.

[DaisyUCSB]

35. Russert asked him "do you THINK Gore would have invaded Iraq"

.

[maddezmom]

50. from the transcript

~snip~
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq?

MR. NADER: He would have. I think he was a hawk. He may have done it in a different way. He and Clinton got through Congress a regime-change resolution as a pillar of our foreign policy. But let me answer the points you made. They're quite provocative. Any number of third-party candidates in Florida could have affected the equation the way you just described. Libertarians got thousands of votes, Buchanan got thousands of votes, Socialist Workers Party got votes. The Florida campaign was won by Gore. It was stolen by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush and their cohorts from Tallahassee to the Supreme Court. Two hundred and fifty thousand registered Republicans in Florida voted for Bush.

Let's not play the what-if game because when they pick one what-if, my candidacy, the candidacy of Nader-Ledoux, what they're doing is basically saying that third parties are a second-class citizenship. And the civil liberties crisis affecting third parties and Independent candidates, Tim, is very serious. Historically, that's where our reform has come from, in the 19th century, against slavery, women's right to vote, trade union, farmer, populist, progressive.

~snip~

more:http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4304155

[MurikanDemocrat]

51. You are taking it out of context then

In fact, you seem to be doing a lot of illogical twisting in favor of Nader, who clearly lied no matter which way you look at it. Whether he said Gore definitely would or he "thinks" he would, either way it's a blatant lie and clearly not supported by the facts.

Like I said, I wonder if Nader supporters will try to excuse his lies, where they would alternatively hold the Dem candidates feet to the fire for trivialities. You seem to be bending over backwards to do just that. :)

aha! edit:

From transcript:

~snip~
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq?

MR. NADER: He would have. I think he was a hawk. He may have done it in a different way.

[DaisyUCSB]

67. It's still his opinion of a hypothetical, which can't be proven

or disproven.

[MurikanDemocrat]

74. Only if the standards are as lax or nonexistent as Drudge or Rush Limbaugh

[MoonRiver]

63. I heard it. He said

"YES, he's a hawk. He might have done it differently." That one statement should be blasted across the internet. Nader shouldn't be able to shove this vicious LIE under the table, as I'm sure he and his Repuke pals are desperately trying to figure out how to do.

[DaisyUCSB]

70. No, look above, it says "I think he's a hawk"

it's not a lie. It can't be disproven or proven. It's an opinion

[MoonRiver]

77. He didn't say he "thought" Gore would have invaded. He said "YES"

That's the kind of thing I'd expect to hear from *, whose trying desperately to pretend the whole world supported his imperialism.

The truth is that Gore was incredibly OUTSPOKEN against the Iraq invasion. (Would that our Dem candidates had shown such backbone.) You have to admit that Nader was playing dirty politics to the hilt with that statement. But it was not very smart, and will haunt him from here on out. Of all the things to accuse Gore of that was the lamest.

[Liberal Veteran]

31. For the same reason Bush is liar because he "thought" Iraq had weapons...

...an accusation without proof and one that flies in the face of reality is by definition a lie. Just because you believe something doesn't make it factual or true.

[mzmolly]

33. Did he say he *thinks* because I've never heard Nader use that word

he speaks in God like terms.

[maddezmom]

55. no, he says he would have

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq?

MR. NADER: He would have. I think he was a hawk. He may have done it in a different way. He and Clinton got through Congress a regime-change resolution as a pillar of our foreign policy. But let me answer the points you made. They're quite provocative. Any number of third-party candidates in Florida could have affected the equation the way you just described. Libertarians got thousands of votes, Buchanan got thousands of votes, Socialist Workers Party got votes. The Florida campaign was won by Gore. It was stolen by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush and their cohorts from Tallahassee to the Supreme Court. Two hundred and fifty thousand registered Republicans in Florida voted for Bush.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

[Crunchy Frog]

119. I don't like Al Gore either

which is the reason that I made the terrible mistake of voting for Nader in 2000.

But in light of the stuff that Nader is pulling right now, I really, really dislike him, and if I had it to do over again I would grit my teeth and vote for Gore.

Despite how I may feel about Gore however, there is absolutely no evidence that he would have invaded Iraq, and ample evidence that he was completely opposed to the invasion.

However, it is simply impossible to prove a negative. Like I could accuse you, Daisy of beating your wife on a regular basis. What could you say or do to possibly refute the accusation? No matter what you say, I don't know you from Adam, and I have no reason to trust you, therefore, the accusation can't be refuted. After all, how is it a lie if I simply "think" you beat your wife?

Can't you see how meaningless this sort of accusation is, when there is no evidence other that one man's opinion?

[mzmolly]

21. Some have already defended and/or agreed with it.

:crazy: Pretty frightening...

[MoonRiver]

71. I don't know about those on this board,

but there are huge numbers of Pukes supporting Nader's campaign. They will probably single handedly finance it. Whether by design or necessity, Nader is firmly in *'s camp. Make no doubt about it.

[AmericanErrorist]

15. Why are you editorializing?

I would prefer it if you tried not to post on politics in your position as management.

[The Magistrate]

23. Nonsense, Sir

Why should Adminstrator Skinner not express his own views in his own forum?

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Liberal Veteran]

36. Nader has set himself up as an opposition candidate to the democrats..

...and as far as I am concerned that makes him fair game.

[Hav]

46. I agree

Skinner, how dare you? How dare you??
Answer, HOW DARE YOU

[LandOLincoln]

94. Because you don't like what Skinner is saying, you mean? n/t

"I would prefer it if you tried not to post on politics in your position as management."

[edzontar]

102. I think the question will eventually circle back to how much

Discussion of ANY kind of Nader and his statements--pro or con--will be "permitted" on this board in the future.

I presume that active politicking for Nader will not be permitted, but I wonder if debate as to his various critiques or policy positions will be shut down as well.

I would hate to see the enforcement of a "thought police" policy that would restrict discussion of the very real crirticisms that many of us have regarding the present state of the party, just because some third party candidate has been able to pick up on some of these themes.

[Jersey Devil]

98. Skinner has less rights than you on his own forum?

As someone who has administrated a forum (though miniscule in comparison) I take exception to the idea that someone who administrates has to remain neutral. You have no idea how difficult it is to referee all the competing and conflicting interests on a forum or how many absolute nutballs that have to be dealt with on a daily basis. Jumping in and posting just like anyone else once in a while is a healthy diversion from a thankless job.

Would you prefer that he login under a different username and deceive you by not letting you know who he really is? He could do that easily. At least give him some points for integrity.

[blondeatlast]

137. Unless, of course, management supports YOUR position.

Nader lied. Period. Read the transcript; it's very clear.

[mzmolly]

16. Well, dems need to call him on his bullshit *this time* around.

Gore was fiercly against this war, fiercly!

Nader is about as credible as Ms Cleo these days.

[Barkley]

17. Hey Ralph! Gore's not running this time.

[knight_of_the_star]

19. What a fool

As he says:

WASHINGTON - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday he will run again for the presidency, declaring that Washington has become “corporate occupied territory” and arguing there is too little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

What little difference? I somehow doubt the Democrats would have invaded Iraq, signed the PATRIOT Act into law, created the secret energy bill, raped the environment, held US citizens without trial, bail, or access to an attorney, and a host of other things. I myself may be a Green, but this is where Ralphie has it WRONG! I wish he would just swallow his ego and help beat Bush. At least everyone will know that this time around its about his ego, not the Green Party.

[maddezmom]

26. Al Gore's speech about bush's Iraq policy on 9/23/02

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html

~snip~

Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that America's most urgent requirement of the moment right now is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaida, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, even as Al Qaida members slip back across the border to set up in Afghanistan again.

Rather, he is telling us that our most urgent task right now is to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And the president is proclaiming a new uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

Moreover, President Bush is demanding, in this high political season, that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and, for that matter, under the language of his resolution, against any other nation in the region regardless of subsequent developments or emerging circumstances.

Now, the timing of this sudden burst of urgency to immediately take up this new cause as America's new top priority, displacing our former top priority, the war against Osama bin Laden, was explained by – innocently, I believe – by the White House chief of staff in his now well-known statement, and I quote, "From an advertising point of view, you don't launch a new product line until after Labor Day," end quote.

~snip~

[edzontar]

32. I don't think he would have, but who knows?

He certainly took a more reasonable position once he was "out of it," but Holy Joe might have pushed him into it--at least it is possible to imagine that scenario.

No one can say for sure, anyway.

[Skinner]

39. So is there any limit to what Nader can say about Gore?

Clearly, Gore is not president. So you are correct: Who knows what Gore would have done?

But is it responsible or fair to speculate anything -- even if the facts don't support it -- and defend it by saying "Well, we just don't know what Gore would have done."

What if Nader had said this?

"I think Al Gore would have dropped an A-Bomb on France."

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Gore would have dropped an A-bomb on France. Would Nader be permitted to say that, considering the fact that "no one can say for sure"?

[Liberal Veteran]

45. I agree Skinner. What if Nader said Gore would have allowed ANWR drilling?

Or Gore would have opened our forests to cutting? Or Gore would have loosened restrictions on arsenic in our drinking water?

Given Gore's past positions on matters of the enviroment, such statements would be laughed away by most people who know anything about Gore.

Same holds true for Iraq. All evidence suggests that Gore would NOT have attacked Iraq. So why should we give Nader a pass for making wild ass statements that have no basis in reality and are the product of a person who makes the claim that democrats and republicans are indistinguishable.

[edzontar]

57. We have all have a right to criticize Ralph, or Dean,or Kerry--if they say

Something we do not like.

What is the point?

Do you want to silence him?

Lock him up until the election is over?

Saying what he did will probably hurt him more than help him anyway.

[Liberal Veteran]

64. A person must not be allowed to make unfounded accusations unchallenged.

Nader IS an enemy to the democratic party. He may not be on the scale of an enemy to the party that Bush is to our party, but he is an enemy.

That point must never be forgotten.

I am not playing the pollyanna game with Nader this time. There will be no giving him a pass because he calls himself progressive. The only thing that matters to me at this point is that he has placed himself as an opposition candidate to the party I support and by my estimation, that makes him an enemy, not an ally.

[edzontar]

68. My one problem is with the word "allowed"

I think he or anyone else shold be "allowed" to do or say anyhthing they want as long as it is nt a crime.

It is up to each of us to decide how to respond, either as individuals or as a group.

I think the best person to respond to this is Gore himself, who I happliy supported and voted for in 2000.

[Liberal Veteran]

76. Of course you purposely divided the entire sentence.

Don't play semantics games with me or presume to try to take my statement out of it's context.

I said Nader must not be allowed to make unfounded accusations without challenge.

Nader can say whatever the hell he wants to say whether they make sense or not, but they must NOT be allowed to go unchallenged when he makes a claim so ridiculous and without merit.

To try to misrepresent what I said as to imply I was suggesting silencing implies that you have some form of an agenda. I was fairly clear that in my statement and you deliberately misunderstood and/or misrepresented it. No one could rationally read my statement as a suggestion that Nader be silenced. Not if English is a language one is fluent in, that is.

[edzontar]

97. You said "allowed," Skinner said "permitted"--I find these words

Problematic and worth debating.

I think Nader's remarks SHOULD and probably WILL provoke a response form the man whose mind he claims to read--Al Gore.

But I maintain that he has the "Right" to say any stupid or not so stupid thing he chooses to,

What I sense in the use of words like "allowed" and "permitted" in this copntext is an underlying desire to censor and silence other voices in the public arena--something I would think we all do not support.

[Skinner]

104. I think it should be obvious what the intent was.

Clearly, nobody here is saying that Ralph Nader should be legally barred from saying any moronic lie that he can come up with. Free speech, the First Amendment, etc, etc. I think 99+ percent of our members would fight to protect Ralph Nader's right to say whatever the heck he wants to.

The question is whether a public figure has a responsibility to base his comments on something remotely resembling the truth.

The evidence does not even remotely support Nader's statement that Gore would have invaded Iraq. I think that is a character issue for Nader, and I think he should be held accountable for making such a ridiculous statement.

[edzontar]

106. I am still concerned about the tone here lately.

We have a thread up right now that proposes harassing and threaening Nader events.


This is so much an over-reaction that it seems like borderline hysteria.

If he keeps making stupid statements like the one about Gore--he may turn out to be no threat at all.

[Skinner]

111. Nader is now our political competitor.

He is competing for the same votes we are. It should come as no surprise that some do not like that.

Furthermore, I think the question about the "tone" on DU is pretty much settled. I put in a bunch of rules requiring people to be nice, and lots of people hated those rules. So I have since gotten rid of those rules. Unsurprisingly, the "tone" has become more contentious. Nader is a public figure; I'm sure he is not concerned or surprised about the attacks against him on DU.

[edzontar]

114. My point is that word chocies have consequences.

The issue for me is not about rules, it is about effective political discourse.

[Liberal Veteran]

113. He already is no threat.

Gore won the popular vote last time with Nader in the race.

If anything, the opposition to Bush and the clear distinctions between Bush and the democrats is quite clear to anyone with eyes and ears.

He will have even less impact this time around.

However, I will not sit back and play nice while Nader undermines my party with unfounded and ridiculous statements. I will call him on the carpet for it.

This man is a political rival at this point and I will treat him as such.

[tom2kpro]

126. Gore won the popular vote last time with Nader in the race.

That is true, but everyone needs to remember that the contest is not for highest number of popular votes, but for highest number of electoral votes, so you need to be careful about the outcome in each and every State. Okay, I am stating the ridiculously obvious, but it a point that needs to be remembered so people don't get complacent. Nader could, theoretically, affect the outcome in one or two states, and therefore determine the outcome, if anyone could still stand Nader.

Statements like this one about Gore merely turn people against Nader.

[Liberal Veteran]

105. Bullshit. You are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

You know full well the statement indicated that as democrats it is our responsibility to challenge Nader when he makes unfounded statements.

If I had said "Nader must not be allowed to make unfounded accusations" you would be correct in your "discomfort".

But that's not what I said and any person with an ounce of intellectually honesty and integrity will take the statement as I typed to mean that we cannot sit back and do nothing while he makes unfounded and categorically untrue statements.

I will not play this game with you any further. If you cannot simply admit that you made an inference that any rational person would not have arrived at by reading the entire, and relatively simple statement, then I see no point in wasting my time with trying to convince you otherwise.

[edzontar]

107. I am asking all of us to be more thoughtful in our choice of language

I sense a mood of panic and hysteria around here lately which is not healthy.

[Crunchy Frog]

123. The thoughtlessness in choice of language

as well as the unhealthy mood of panic and hysteria, is a direct result of Skinner's lifting of the rules, which many people, including yourself IIRC, found profoundly objectionable.

Skinner gave us a clear choice between maintaining an atmosphere of civil discourse and haveing this forum degenerate into a free for all flamefest. Enough people wanted the latter that that is now what we have, and we have to accept responsibility for the choice that we helped to make.

Skinner is letting us lie in a bed of our own making, and it's a little late to complain about it now.

[edzontar]

125. In the end, individuals are responsibe for they post

nt.

[edzontar]

54. In a free country, he sets that limit for himself.

I think mit was a stupid remark, but I am not his campaign manager, and have no plans to vote for him anyway.

[loftycity]

93. Gore never would have gone to Iraq..no way

His concerns were more economic and eviromental. Reality is Congress would've had Gore's head over it.
Iraq was done for the Rat pack and their pals.

Good Ol' US Propaganda would of gotten rid of Saddam and Osama if that was the real goal. But, no.

Follow the money.

All Nader will do is dilute the process...he has started.

[Dudley_DUright]

42. Lieberman would never have "pushed" Gore into a war with Iraq

Unlike the relationship between Bush and Cheney, Gore has a brain and comes to his own conclusions, which was in this case to forcefully oppose the war. It never would have happened with Gore in the oval office.

[edzontar]

112. How can we know that? I doubt it myself.

But Lieberrnan is deeply tied to PNAC and the Neocons, and he AAS Gore's VP.

[mzmolly]

47. He spoke out eloquently and passionately against it though...

We could say *who knows* if Nader would have invaded Canada right? But if Nader had given several speeches against a Canadian invasion, I'd say it's safe to assume he would not have? ;)

[Kimber Scott]

37. I've lost all respect for

Nader.

[onehandle]

40. Skinner. I hope your folks will be very diligent.

Trolls, Rove operatives, and just plain disrupters will be coming out of the woodwork over Nader's entry.

Please, terminate with extreme prejudice

[edzontar]

61. Why are you so afraid of them?

Nader's statement was probably self-destructive anyway---why not just debate him on the merits?

Or ignore him?

I fear that some of my friends are afraid--afraid that some of his criticism--not this one--might just hit home in the present climate.

[onehandle]

83. I'm not afraid of them...

I just don't want them wasting our time and distracting us like they did in 2000.

The GOP sent paid operatives online to keep Nader's campaign alive last time.

[ulysses]

100. !

I just don't want them wasting our time and distracting us like they did in 2000.

Folks seem to be doing a fine job of distracting themselves at the moment.

[edzontar]

110. Indeed. If Nader's goal was to disrupt, I must say he is doing a good job

I don't think he's that much of a threat this time.

[Blue_Roses]

117. Nader's comment was

stupid and unfounded. Period. He is doing this to stir the pot. He has no facts or justification for saying such ridiculous comments except to start trouble and he is succeeding.

[AbbeyRoad]

43. That's ridiculous

Let me preface my comments by saying that I'm neither a Nader hater nor supporter. As a left leaning Democrat, I would probably agree with the majority of Nader's positions. That being said, I do not think that Gore would have taken us into a war in Iraq.

I have thought from the beginning that the war in Iraq was a PERSONAL agenda for Bush. The moment that the Supreme court decided the presidential outcome, I knew we would be going into Iraq.

[crazychester]

95. I agree 100%...

Democrats have to respond to Nader by taking his issues away from him and drive home the "REAL" differences that do exist between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Future debates need to include Kucinich and Sharpton and not just the two front runners, that way many of Nader's positions are presented to voters within the structure of the Democratic Party. Also it would behoove Kerry and Edwards to contact Howard Dean and ask him not for his endorsement but rather to make a statement urging his people to support the party's nominee and not to support a 3rd party candidacy.

[ShaneGR]

49. Are you still planning on eliminating 3rd party discussion?

Please tell me it is so.

[slinkerwink]

52. I have to say that is an absolute lie about Gore

[DrFunkenstein]

53. Would Kerry Have Attacked Iraq?

I know alot of folks around here like to spin him as pro-war and Bush-lite, but I think it is pretty clear that he - and Gore - would not have taken us to war.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

89. This bogus argument has been made on DU ad nauseum

[Liberal Veteran]

58. Let me be perfectly clear WRT Nader....

Nader has declared himself an opposition candidate to my party.

In doing so, he has singlehandedly ensured that I will do every thing in my meager power to diminish him and make him as irrelevant to the election in November as possible.

I don't care that he calls himself progressive. The only thing that matters is that he is now the enemy. There will be no quarter asked and no quarter given.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

59. Maybe not Gore, but Clinton certainly would have

If Gore was very different than Clinton, then perhaps not. Would Gore have said no to pressure from his own party to take down Saddam and control the oil?

[Liberal Veteran]

66. I am not even sure that Clinton would have....

PNAC signatories in 1998 sent a letter to Clinton DEMANDING he invade Iraq.

He didn't then so why should I believe he would have later.

Having a policy of supporting regime change is not the same as a policy of open invasion and occupation.

Hell, I support regime change in America, but not by force of arms.

[buddhamama]

60. He's Wrong

Clearly He is wrong.
Nader is embarrassing himself. He's talking as if the invasion was undertaken for the reasons stated; they weren't and any informed individual knows this.
The entire War was orchestrated for reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam and WMD.

[ulysses]

96. agreed.

[citizen snips]

78. What did Nader say?

I mean what reason did he say Gore would have invaded Iraq?

[AVID]

84. Nadung called Gore a "Hawk"

then said Clinton built coalition for regime change.

[maddezmom]

90. from the transcript

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq?

MR. NADER: He would have. I think he was a hawk. He may have done it in a different way. He and Clinton got through Congress a regime-change resolution as a pillar of our foreign policy. But let me answer the points you made. They're quite provocative. Any number of third-party candidates in Florida could have affected the equation the way you just described. Libertarians got thousands of votes, Buchanan got thousands of votes, Socialist Workers Party got votes. The Florida campaign was won by Gore. It was stolen by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush and their cohorts from Tallahassee to the Supreme Court. Two hundred and fifty thousand registered Republicans in Florida voted for Bush.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4304155

[citizen snips]

92. Thanks for showing me the transcript.

:-)

[kaitykaity]

79. I keep thinking about what would

or would not have happened with President Gore.

9/11 would NOT have happened. When I saw Bush sitting in Booker for 40 minutes after the first plane hit the WTC, I knew. Why wasn't the CinC on the phone ordering war planes to fly and protect our airspace after that first plane hit?

Thus, no war in Afghanistan.
Thus, no build-up to regime change in Iraq.

So Skinner, you are correct. (Not just because you're the boss, either. :evilgrin:

[VOX]

80. Gore always pushed for a clear distinction between bin Laden and Iraq...

Nader has made an out-and-out fabrication.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,797999,00.html
Transcript of the former US vice-president's speech on Iraq and the war on terrorism
Al Gore
Monday September 23, 2002
<snip>
"...But is a general doctrine of pre-emption necessary in order to deal with this problem? With respect to weapons of mass destruction, the answer is clearly not..."
<snip>

on edit: typos

[Darranar]

85. Well, not necessarily...

Gore may be the legitimately elected president, but he does not have the powers of one. We don't know what he would have done as President, but the fact of the matter is that he had nothing to lose by condemning the war in Iraq.

I agree that Nader is being unfair here, though; no one really knows what Gore would have done.

[kiahzero]

91. Nader is a filthy, dirty liar

In other news, the sky is blue.

[Goldberg]

101. Woah, Skinner!

You're absolutely right. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[littlejoe]

103. I would have answered this post sooner, but I was laughing hard.

[corporatewhore]

108. Oh he would of just bombed it like clinton and him did back in 99

[LandOLincoln]

115. Aha! I wondered how long it would be before the

Milosevic apologists waded into the fray.

Milosevic apologists+Nader apologists=Bush enablers.

It's that simple.

[corporatewhore]

118. i was talking about iraq which was bombed back then

[LandOLincoln]

121. Sorry. I assumed you meant Kosovo. But I still think your Tweedledum/

Tweedledee analogy is specious and offensive (and entirely discredited).

Nader says the same thing, and he outed himself as a Bush supporter 4 years ago. Is that what you support?

[dawn]

116. Well, if he did, he wouldn't have done it like Bush* did.

Although I disagree with the war, period, at least Clinton used to cooperate with the UN.

[Meldread]

120. While I agree on the point....

While I agree on the point there is evidence to point to the contrary to Nader's statements, the fact of the matter is no one knows what Gore would have done. Gore wasn't sitting in the Oval Office at the time and couldn't make that decision.

I think we have little doubt that if September 11th had occurred the PNAC boys would have been all over Gore trying to get him to go into Iraq. He might have went or he might not have. Although as Nader stated, it would have been handled differently if he had went.

However, the fact of the matter is we don't know what Gore would have done. There is evidence that lends itself to the claim that he wouldn't have gone, but things change drastically when you are forced to make the decision yourself. I am not supporting what Ralph has said -- he was wrong to say it because he doesn't know. Nor does anyone who says Gore would not have went.

The fact of the matter is no one knows what Gore would have done had he been sitting in the Oval Office. Either side can argue the case of weather he went or not, but personally I prefer to spend my time doing more productive things.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

124. LOL Skinner starts a flamebait thread

Ralph Nader has proven this much this morning. The ONLY reason he entered the fray this week was to capitalize on the grief of Dean supporters and bring them into his fold by striking while their anger was still hot. Fortunately the VAST majority of Dean supporters are too smart for him.

People who HATE being USED by lying politicians should ask themselves why they are so easily USED by Ralph Nader and the Republican party.

Yes, Ralph Nader so said "IT needs to get worse to get better." It DID get worse for the people he claims to advocate for. It got BETTER for him. He's rich. He got a big fat TAX BREAK!

Ralph has taken a noble career as consumer safety advocate and relegated himself to the kind of fraud he claims to rail against.

[Doomsayer13]

127. He needed to say this to propagate his lie

Bush = Gore was his main theme in 2000 so if he had said that he didn't think Gore would've invaded then it would destroy the logic behind his entire campaign. And we can't have Ralph Nader, whose ego is comparable to the size of Texas, admiting he was wrong.

[lulu]

128. 9/11 would not have happened with Gore

as president. I don't think Bush would have been able to attack Iraq without some terrorist attack on U. S. soil similar to 9/11. What Nader is saying is ludicrous.

[incapsulated]

129. So, Skinner is gettng down with the lax rules, lol

Yeah, I'm sure he did say something that stupid.

Are we surprised? And a few still think Clark is a rethug mole. If anyone fits that description purely by his actions and statements, it's Nader. He hates the Democratic Party and would love to see it go down in flames. Is he is really enough of an egomaniac to believe that he would be the anwser, or does he just like the attention?

[Walt Starr]

130. I agree 100% with Nader on this one, Skinner

Look at the record. Absolutely I believe we would have been involved in a military action against Iraq had Gore been president. Of course, there would have been a huge difference between what we had under Bush and what would have happened under Gore. The military action would have ended up being a multi-national peace keeping force after the ouster of Hussein from power, but a military action nonetheless.

That's a far cry from a unilateral "pre-emptive" invasion, but the record shows clearly that there was a breakdown in diplomatic efforts with Iraq and some form of military action was going to be necessary.

[blondeatlast]

131. Thanks, Skinner. I heard it too and jumped out of my chair.

I'm gonna throw this in the face of every Nader apologist and supporter I encounter.

For now, for sanity, I'll leave it at that.

[Scott Lee]

134. Actually, Nader has a case

Skinner, do you know what administration launched the policy of "regime change" in Iraq under Hussein?

William Jefferson Clinton.

Do you remember who his vice president was?

[Walt Starr]

136. That's right, Scott

Without a doubt, there absolutely would have been some form of military action against Iraq during a Gore administration. It would not have been unilateral pre-emptive war, IMO, but it still would have happened.

[wyldwolf]

141. That's wrong, Scott

According to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)of 1998:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,"

To "support efforts to remove the regime" is far from unilateral war instigated and led by the United States.

The Congress urged the President "to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."

The Iraq Liberation Act said once Saddam Hussein was removed from power, the United States "should support Iraq's transition to democracy."

It was never planned (that we know of) to unilaterally invade Iraq under the Clinton administration.

Here is the official Clinton White House policy speech. It is obvious the Clinton plan was to advise and encourage the Iraqi opposition, NOT unilaterally attack Iraq.

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

[IndianaGreen]

138. Al Gore spoke forcefully against the invasion of Iraq and PATRIOT Act n/t

[snoochie]

139. I don't know

Politicians love to talk a great game. However when the chips are down they usually show their true colors.

I don't think Gore talking is evidence of much at all. It's just rhetoric.

[David Dunham]

140. Gore, who courageously opposed Iraq war, should sue Nader's pants off!!

[wyldwolf]

142. The Clinton adminstration never suggested a unilateral attack on Iraq...

... so to suggest Gore would have is stupid and completely void of factual information.

According to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)of 1998:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,"

To "support efforts to remove the regime" is far from unilateral war instigated and led by the United States.

The Congress urged the President "to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."

The Iraq Liberation Act said once Saddam Hussein was removed from power, the United States "should support Iraq's transition to democracy."

It was never planned (that we know of) to unilaterally invade Iraq under the Clinton administration.

Here is the official Clinton White House policy speech. It is obvious the Clinton plan was to advise and encourage the Iraqi opposition, NOT unilaterally attack Iraq.

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

[GreenPartyVoter]

144. Gore WOULD have attacked Iraq because the

Repub congress and scaredy cat dems would have pushed him into it.

If he didn't have enough of a spine to fight for the presidency he rightfully won, why expect he would have been able to stand up the the Repubs at any other time?