Hillary and Al on Getting Out of Iraq

[Zandor]

"...avoid the moral mistake of doing even more harm to those people in the manner of our leaving than we did in the manner of our invasion. And, tragically, it is possible to do even more harm if we are not alert to the ethical choices that we have to make as we prepare to leave."

"...doing it responsibly and carefully, because taking troops out can be just as dangerous as bringing them in. And we've got to get out of Iraq smarter than we got in."

[againes654]

1. Do you just like starting new threads

to see if you can make it to the greatest page? You never answer anyones questions.

What is your point with this thread? That we should stay in Iraq long enough to give Iran enough rope to attack them?

[Zandor]

3. There is anger over Hillary's Iraq position

and salivating for Gore to run. From what I see, his position on Iraq would not be decidedly different than hers.

[Dr Fate]

5. One main difference is Gore actually has the CREDIBILITY to say this. He opposed the invasion.

Gore opposed the invasion from the get-go.

We can trust someone who was 100% right on Iraq all along to do it right.

We are not so sure that someone who was "fooled" by Bush and 100% wrong on Iraq so far to do it right.

If Gore ran, there could be none of this "She was for the war before she was against it" type crap.

[Guaranteed]

35. That's exactly it. nt

[againes654]

6. BUT HE ISN'T RUNNING

she is. There is a big difference.

Do you work for Hillary's campaign in any way? You really only comment on Hillary threads, and when you get answers you don't like, you start a new thread.

[Zandor]

10. "Do you work for Hillary's campaign in any way?"

I am a supporter and work for her informally, not with the campaign.

You're incorrect, much of my posting didn't concern Hillary.

[againes654]

12. Dude, I can use search

and more than 75% of your posts are to a Hillary thread.

[Zandor]

16. Doubtful

But thanks for your interest.

[movonne]

14. There are a few in here who cannot find anything wrong with her.,I

find something wrong with all of them and do not,you fly into a tizzie when some find flaws..and sometimes I think is this person working for or against her...he keeps all these things going on and on...

[Dr Fate]

8. One difference is Gore has been 100% correct- and honest about Iraq.

We might be able to trust him to make the right judgements- no one ever "fooled" him.

[Zandor]

13. 100%? Really?

You agree with this?

"The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the President deserves credit, just as he deserves credit for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Do you disagree?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

20. So you're done with cali, it's Dr Fate's turn to be scrutinized now?

[Zandor]

21. It's called debating

They're big people.

[Bluebear]

22. You're calling them out to other posters, not debating them.

It's obvious and it's rude.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. That's not what it's called.

[Dr Fate]

26. LOL! I'll argue on my own behalf, but thanks anyway. n/t

n/t

[movonne]

17. Well now I know you are from the other side...

[Zandor]

19. Explain, please

On edit: My purpose in this thread is to 'gore' a supposed 'savior' candidate and make people realize Hillary is quite similar and an excellent candidate in her own right.

[againes654]

29. Probably

and since so many here have disagreed with him, he will probably start a new thread. I would put him on ignore, but it is actually funny. I enjoy watching the Hillbots trip over themselves trying to convince me I am a horrible American if I don't vote for Hillary.

[Dr Fate]

30. Looks like you might be right- he turned tail.

And I truly hope I have not spoken too soon- LOL!!

[againes654]

31. He has done this on

at least 3 threads just today.

[Dr Fate]

25. He was opposed to the invasion from what I recall. plus, I need a link.

I would trust him before I would trust anyone in the "I was fooled" crowd. He was opposed to the invasion- one of the few big named DEMS who were.

I dont see a link-could you please provide a link so we can read everything he was saying, in full context?

I hope he decides to run either way...

[Zandor]

27. You said he was 100% right on Iraq

The statement is not ambiguous.

I'm just trying to bring some of the Gore fever down a bit.

http://www.california4gore.org/Al_Gore_Iraq_War.html

[Dr Fate]

28. Read your own link next time. He wasnt "fooled" into supporting preemption-but 100% correct.

If he does run, I'll support him over Hillary unless it turns out he's a Satan worshiper or something! LOL!!!

From your link that you forgot to read:


The way we went to war in Iraq illustrates this larger problem. Normally, we Americans lay the facts on the table, talk through the choices before us and make a decision. But that didn't really happen with this war -- not the way it should have. And as a result, too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price, for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments, and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm's way.

I'm convinced that one of the reasons that we didn't have a better public debate before the Iraq War started is because so many of the impressions that the majority of the country had back then turn out to have been completely wrong. Leaving aside for the moment the question of how these false impressions got into the public's mind, it might be healthy to take a hard look at the ones we now know were wrong and clear the air so that we can better see exactly where we are now and what changes might need to be made.

From before the war:

The foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of what may lie before it. Such consideration is all the more important because of the Administration's failure thus far to lay out an assessment of how it thinks the course of a war will run - even while it has given free run to persons both within and close to the administration to suggest that this will be an easy conquest. Neither has the Administration said much to clarify its idea of what is to follow regime change or of the degree of engagement it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place.

By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network - much as we manage to squander in one year's time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine - of preemption.

The doctrine of preemption is based on the idea that in the era of proliferating WMD, and against the background of a sophisticated terrorist threat, the United States cannot wait for proof of a fully established mortal threat, but should rather act at any point to cut that short.

The problem with preemption is that in the first instance it is not needed in order to give the United States the means to act in its own defense against terrorism in general or Iraq in particular. But that is a relatively minor issue compared to the longer-term consequences that can be foreseen for this doctrine. To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq if the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

[Zandor]

Your clarification

You seem to nowbe saying now he was right about preemption - not all things Iraq.

Perhaps more importantly, his plan for Iraq = measured and gradual withdrawl - is similar to Hillary's.

[Zandor]

34. Your clarification

You seem to nowbe saying now he was right about preemption - not all things Iraq.

Perhaps more importantly, his plan for Iraq = measured and gradual withdrawl - is similar to Hillary's.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Clinton did it too.

Is there some way you can work Chappaquidick and Byrd into this thread?

[Zandor]

4. ????

[Emit]

7. I think Obama said something similar. n/t

[Bluebear]

9. "Hillary and Al", isn't that just the cutest!

[Zandor]

11. Wasn't he Bill Clinton's VP? Or am I mistaken?

:)

[Think82]

24. I'm sorry but if you don't mention BIDEN'S PLAN WHICH PASSED

you are not really talking about HOW to get out of Iraq. It's a false debate. For more info:

http://www.joebiden.com/newscenter/pressreleases?id=0176

[Spoonerian]

32. I don't know which of these 2 attitudes is more sickening.

Both Gore and Hillary's stern and snippy impudence towards these raped and pillaged makes me want to vomit.

Its one thing to witness the blockading and bombing of a country for 17 years, the killing of millions and the creation of millions of refugees. But add to it, having to watch the victims of these war crimes be told that Gore/Hillary must ease their way out of their mass murdering ways--LEST THEY DO "EVEN MORE HARM TO THOSE PEOPLE" has to be the most stenchful, gagging, puke-inducing thought ever. I'd like to take both of them and put them in a car inching its way up toward one of their Iraqi checkpoints. That might be one way to make them wish they had inched the checkpoints out yesterday!

[mmonk]

33. There's no way to make a wrong right.

Last month was one of the worst for Iraqi civilians. Our presence isn't helping them have a better a life.