Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to re: You didn't actually write anything of substance

re: substance
Tom Brosz — (archived)

Everything I said in that post are published positions of the Democratic leadership. Take it up with them.

As with the other posts, I get an endless load of abuse, but not one person will answer the question of how exactly the "Enlightened" would be dealing with this.

I probably have a much better idea of what a hypthetical Gore or Kerry presidency would have done with this than you do. I've looked up position papers, speeches, and other documents, and the response of the Clinton/Gore administration to terrorism is a matter of record.

Although the myth has been built up that Gore would have been all about anti-terrorism, the only time he got a chance to really act on it was here. You can read the results.

I know Gore would not have invaded Iraq. I also suspect he would not have started a ground war in Afghanistan either, restricting the action to aerial attacks that were that administration's tactic of choice in Bosnia, Desert Fox, and elsewhere.

It is obvious from everything he's saying now that Kerry's first act as president would have been to flee Iraq. You can agree or disagree with that position, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist.

From the responses, or I should say lack of them, it seems the abstractions are going clean over your heads. I would have thought the use of the gorilla and wolf pack metaphors spoke for themselves to show the glaring contradictions of these statements.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (59 posts)