Nader Said Gore Would Have Invaded Iraq On Meet The Press

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Do you agree?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. The People Who Vote Yes Have The Responsibility To Produce Evidence....

It's one more calumny from Ralph Nad(i)r....

[nborders]

14. I voted for Nader and this made me regret it

Yes, I voted for Nader, mostly because Gore was easily going to win my state (Oregon) and I wanted to send a message to the Democratic party to get their hands out of special interests.

Nader's comment made me regret that vote.

Nader just moved into "political crazy" Ala Ross Perot.

~n

[megatherium]

18. I was thinking of voting for Nader

in 2000; I live in Indiana where Bush was expected to (and did) win easily. (I wrote him in 1996, one of about 900 Indiana voters to do so.) But I had a bad feeling about him in the last few weeks about him, so I voted Gore. At least I helped Gore's popular vote margin over Bush.


Graffito seen in San Francisco on the eve of the first Gulf War: That man gives my public hair a bad name.

[Crunchy Frog]

39. I voted for Nader

and right now I want to shoot myself in the head for it.

[feistydem]

2. Nader is crazy! Under what pretext would Gore have invaded Iraq?

Saddam didn't try to kill anyone in his family. And the Republican controlled Congress wouldn't have let Gore be a "war president" if our lives depended on it.

[Bluzmann57]

3. We'll never know

since the erection,er, election was stolen from Gore.

[agingdem]

10. I have two questions...

(1)How do we find out who is backing the self-agrandizing Ralph? (2)Anyone else smell Rove rat?

[Frances]

4. This is a no brainer

No way would Gore have invaded Iraq

The press and the opposition party would never have given Gore a pass on bin Ladin. All efforts would have been focused on bin Ladin and al Qaida (sp). And rightly so.

[saltpoint]

5. Voted 'No' --

I think Gore would have had no choice but to strike back in Afghanistan. When someone flies a plane into the Pentagon, there's likely to be a military response, no matter who's in office.

Bush's Iraq disaster feels more like a Richard Perle/Paul Wolfowitz production -- that whole ratpack of neocons driving American foreign policy. My gut feeling is that Gore would not have given them a seat at the policy table.

Nader got his headline, but I don't think he'll pull as many votes this year as last time. Democrats are turning out this year in record number for Democrats. Nader will be marginalized and Bush will be crushed.

[Monte Carlo]

6. BULLSH*T.

The 'no difference between Gore and Bush' line may have worked somewhat in 2000, but we have 3+ years of history with Bush this time. No sale, Ralph.

[bluedog]

7. Nader starting his shit with Gore...

Nader is an ass...how does he know if and when...he doesn't know a damn thing and thinks he can get into other peoples minds...ignorant prick!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Talking About Shit...

Nader's not fit to wipe Albert Gore's ass...


I'd pay Nad(i)r's air ticket to Florida and say it to his face...


He's swine....

[mouse7]

37. Nader can start it. Gore will finish it.

Gore doesn't have to act like presidential now while he's dealing with Nader. Gore can give Nader the smackdown he's been waiting 4 years to give him.

[HEyHEY]

8. If "If's" were skiffs we'd all be sailors

Then we could make Nader walk the plank.

[spooky3]

9. It's incredibly arrogant for Nader to answer that q.

No one could know the answer because it is purely hypothetical. His answer was simply to justify his own decision.

The honorable answer is to say either (a) I don't think anyone can answer that question or (b) what did Al Gore say when you asked him?

[AP]

11. Not voting, but Clinton said that Gore was the person in his admin MOST

interested in attacking Iraq.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Can I Have A Cite Please?

And what does "attack" mean?


There's a big difference betwwen enforcing the sanctions and the no fly zones than mounting a full scale invasion and occupation....

[Monte Carlo]

17. I heard something like that, too...

... but Gore would never have pursued an invasion to the extent that Bush did.

[Tinoire]

30. To the extent? Or rather in the unrefined manner?

I think Gore, like Clark, like Kerry, would simply hae refined the manner in which it was done so as not to offend our sensibilities & allusions that we never attack anyone ruthlessly.

Bush, in his clumsiness, rush, greed and stupidity, simply exposed the game. That's why people like Soros hate him.

This war was inevitable and carved in stone for anyone who cared to pay attention. 8 years ago, before Dubya ever came on the scene, my father predicted EVERYTHING we are living through today and told me where to put my little investment pennies to keep them safe. "The boys will be drilling for oil everywhere under whatever excuse they can drum up" he said. And he was totally right. This... years before Dubya ever appeared.

[Tinoire]

28. You'll never get through to the "fingers in the ear" crowd

AP, your honesty does more to make me consider Edwards favorably than all the lies & head-burying posted here day in and out because I'd rather have an honest anti-NAFTA scoundrel who admits that neither he nor anyone else was misled, than all the flip-flopping lies to spare Democratic voters a truth we just don't want to handle.

Rare is the President who wouldn't have attacked Iraq because our need for oil, our fight against the Euro becoming the dominating currency of OPEC, and protection for Israel demanded that Iraq be attacked.

The Iraq war was written in stone years before Bush ever appeared on the scene & Clinton/Gore themselves not only starved & sanctioned Iraq for 8 years but sent Berger & Albright out to sound the war drums. Problem is nobody was buying it and they were booed, shouted down and protested away so the war machine went out and shopped for someone who would do the job without flinching. Enter Dubya.

==

'Things worth fighting for'
Foreign policy team visits OSU
By Mike Spahn
Daily Staff Reporter
COLUMBUS - President Clinton's foreign policy team met yesterday at Ohio State University with a rowdy crowd in a town hall meeting to discuss the current situation in Iraq.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger met for 90 minutes with a crowd that often yelled and chanted in protest of possible U.S. military action against Iraq.

<snip>

The discussion was interrupted early and often. Protesters began chanting anti-war slogans during Albright's opening comments and continued through much of the debate.

<snip>

"We will send a clear message to would-be tyrants and terrorists that we will do what is necessary to protect our freedom," Berger said.

Albright said Iraq will not easily recover from airstrikes if they occur.

<snip>

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/feb/02-19-98/news/news1.html

===

Three Dead in Ohio
An Inside Look at the Town Hall Meeting in Columbus Ohio
by
Jon Strange

From the moment the Town Hall Meeting was announced, it was clear that it was a sham. All the same, as events unfolded and details were made known, the true depravity of mainstream media and international politics was exposed. For starters, the meeting, though allegedly a public forum for discussion between US citizens and the Clinton Administration's "Defense Team": Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, was actually controlled entirely by CNN. This was not a public forum, a lesson in participatory democracy, or a chance for the people to make their voice heard, it was a manufactured event designed to increase the ratings of a corporate media giant and the ratings of a shaky presidency.

OK, so the meeting was set up jointly by the most influential news network in the world and the most powerful government ever to ignore the rights of independent nations around the globe. Did that mean we were going to be intimidated by their size and power, and timidly let this dog-and-pony show be broadcast around the world? No. Were the odds against us having any real impact on the Town Hall Meeting itself, or on US policy on Iraq? Consider:-Tickets for the meeting were distributed on a first-come, first-serve basis, starting at 2 PM the day prior to the meeting; a time inconvenient to most working people and many students (http://www.osu.edu/osu/newsrel/Archive/98-02-16_Information_on_International_Town_Meeting).

<snip>

When Secretary Albright, Secretary Cohen, and Mr. Berger walked in, our group of about 25 stood up and booed them. We kept it up, heckling Albright through her opening statements, booing her and calling her a liar. Then we unfurled the banner that my friend had snuck in, wearing it under her floor-length skirt as a "slip." It read, simple and bold,"NO WAR." Chants we had used in the march earlier resurfaced, the big one being "1-2-3-4, we don't want your racist war!"

<snip>

"Why bomb Iraq when other countries have committed similar violations?" I asked Secretary Albright. I brought up examples of Turkish bombing campaigns against their own Kurdish citizens, Saudi Arabian persecution of religious and political dissidents, Israel's brutal policies against Palestinians, and Indonesia's systematic slaughter in East Timor. Albright gave a generic response, saying that the US was aware of these situations and dealing with them. I raised my hand, and incredibly,they let me speak again. I asked whether it was anything more than political convenience that made the US label one country an "enemy" and another an "ally." Albright tried to make me look bad by saying that I was defending Saddam Hussein, which clearly I was not. Then I delivered the sound bite to end all:

"You're not answering my question, Madame Albright."

She looked stunned. She sat, silent, her eyes wide open, and leaned back into her chair as if she'd had the wind knocked out of her. It was awesome. Though I had my hand raised to go on, someone from CNN led me away from the mike. I couldn't believe I had been allowed to go on as long as I did, though they did cut my microphone off several times during my brief conversation with Albright.

<snip>

http://www.cafearabica.com/perspect/perspectold/opinion/per3dead12.html

==
(FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE)

Remarks at Town Hall Meeting, Ohio State University
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright,
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, and National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger
Columbus, Ohio, February 18, l998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman, February 20, 1998 U.S. Department of State

http://www.ccmep.org/hotnews/1998remarks_at_town_hall_meeting.htm


==
Below are a collections of articles, text, and media transcripts I snaged off the net. You will see the Clinton administation admit they could not control this event and then continue to say it, with the help of the mainstream press, went well for their war cause. The original CNN and NY Times transcripts are gone from the web! Although the event is a little dated and was reported in most major media, the following story is a great lesson in the effectiveness of a small group of people that did a little bit of homework

http://boston.indymedia.org/usermedia/text/5/th0298.html

[Frances]

12. I think Nader shot himself in the foot

by answering this question this way.

[Sandpiper]

13. What other filthy lies

Will this shameless self promoter peddle in order to divide the left?

When you say things like this, you're no better than the wingnuts Ralph. :-(

[DaisyUCSB]

19. We will never know. You need a third option

. It's impossible to know.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. It's Not Impossible....

We have a record...


Gore said he opposed the war....


It's incumbent on those arguing the contrary to prove he's lying...

[ozone_man]

21. Oil control and dollar hegemony?

Just a hunch.

The world is running out of oil. Oil is traded in dollars, but SH switched to Euros. If the other OPEC countries all switch to Euros, the dollar is destroyed. The U.S. deficit spending is pushing us to the point where we need to use military force to prop up the dollar and keep the oil flowing cheaply.

I think Democrats and Republicans serve the same masters, who probably don't care which party is in office, as long as their bidding gets done.

[Meldread]

22. Don't know. Maybe.

I don't know, and the fact of the matter is we'll never know. However, I am fairly sure that if September 11th had happened the PNAC guys would be all over Gore pushing for an invasion with Iraq. Would it have happened? I don't know, but anything is possible.

I know Gore came out against the war, but hey... that's politicians for you. If Bush had beaten me the way he had in Florida by excluding Black Voters and stuff... I'd sure as hell be against EVERY proposal he made just to piss him off.

But the fact of the matter is no one knows, and no one can say a resounding Yes or a resounding No.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Now We're Back To Proving Negatives....

NT

[Meldread]

26. No one knows what Gore would have done...

and that's a fact. Gore wasn't in office and he wasn't faced with the situation. Nader can't go on TV and say "He would have, absolutely" and someone on these boards can't sit at their computer and type "No he wouldn't have". Because the fact of the matter is *we don't know*.

I'm not supporting what Nader said and I am not supporting what you're implying either. I'm simply stating an obvious fact.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. "No one knows what Nader would have done..."

and that's a fact. Nader wasn't in office and he wasn't faced with that situation. Gore can't go on and say "He would have, absolutely, and someone on these boards can't sit at their computer and type "No he wouldn't have". Because the fact of the matter is "we don't know."


Hell, we could take out Gore's name and insert Gandhi, Jesus, or ML King....

[Meldread]

32. Exactly.

That is why I am saying no one can sit there and say he would have or wouldn't have. Even Gore himself can't say he wouldn't have or wouldn't have. Why? Because he wasn't *IN* that position. No one knows and that's the way it will be. Forever.

Nader's comments were irresponsible, but carry as much weight as someone who would say "he wouldn't have went". There is simply no way of knowing. Therefore having this argument is counter productive and moot.

[SOS]

23. Complete nonsense from Nader.

From USA Today 9/24/02:

Gore blasts Bush on Iraq war
By Susan Page and Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY

SAN FRANCISCO Ñ Former vice president Al Gore on Monday outlined a sweeping indictment of President Bush's threatened attack on Iraq, calling it a distraction from the war on terrorism that has "squandered" international support for the United States.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Don't Expect Nader Or His Slavish Followers To Let A Little Thing Like

The Facts Get In The Way Of A Good Argument...


They are in many cases as wack as the Freepers but in another direction....

[Leilani]

40. That's what I remember

Gore was speaking out against the coming Iraq war, when it was not a popular position to take.

I thought Gore & Robert Byrd were the 2 people who made the most eloquent arguments against the war.

[corporatewhore]

27. he just would have bombed iraqlike clinton and him did in 99

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. That Certainly Was Preferable To What We Have Now...

Wouldn't you agree?


And there's evidence to suggest that much of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed in those attacks...

[Old and In the Way]

33. Of course Ralph must make this assumption.

How else to underpin his thesis: there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats? The last 3 years notwithstanding, Ralph must try to make a hypothetical case to justify his entry into this race.

Ralph is a liar and lackey of the Republican Party. Disprove that, Ralph.

[Taeger]

34. The Rethuglicans ...

The Rethuglicans would NEVER have allowed Gore to invade Iraq. They would have pulled the SAME crap on him that they pulled with EVERY foreign action by President Clinton.

Beyond that, his own base would NOT have supported that action. AND, Gore WOULD NOT have trumped up evidence and taken out of context and grossly exaggerates.

[GreenArrow]

35. Council of Foreign Relations Al Gore

"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition."

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=4343

Al Gore "would" have attacked Iraq? Who knows for sure. Might have attacked Iraq? Damn straight. His criticisms of the Bush regime's actions are geared towards approach and application rather than policy, which is, that one way or another, Saddam has/had to go.

[bushwakker]

36. Those who support Nader...

should evaluate this statement and ask themselves if someone who is either this clueless or this much of a liar deserves their vote.

[Doomsayer13]

38. Bush = Gore taken to the limit

The way I see it, no Gore means no Cheny, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the rest of the neo-con cabal and that means no war.

[Zynx]

41. No. Nader is a nutjob.

[Cocoa]

42. Nader doesn't believe that

he destroyed his credibility by answering that way, and with his answer on his tax returns.