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!

Everyone should watch this video!

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

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

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?

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…

“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.”

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.

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.