Is this sarcastic? I doubt anyone could have stopped 9/11. However it is not widely known that indeed the Clinton administration had a much harder line against al Qaeda than did the Bushies when they first came in. Supposedly the Clintonites endlessly told the Bushies that al Qaeda was Problem Number One, but Rummie pulled back ships in the Indian Ocean (poised to strike at camps in Afghanistan), because for him Issue Number One was getting rid of the ABM treaty, whoop-de-doo.
However, I do think that Gore would not have made the "Axis of Evil" speech and would not have invaded Iraq. Even Ralph Nader would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: mike larkin
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: 14 characteristics of fascism
Carrol Cox wrote:
>Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>>
>>
>> Outside of the Democratic Party, there is no solid political party
>> that can marshal enough motivated organizers to make a difference in
>> 2004.
>>
>> Do you have any candidate for whom you don't mind busting your own
>> ass doing campaign work for, say, at least 10-15 hours per week?
>> --
>
>The question, "Does it make a difference who is in the White House?" is
>a radically misleading question -- misleading in the sense that it >suppresses (as not askable) all the questions that need to be asked. It
>suppresses, for example, the question: How important politically are the
>50% of Americans who will not vote in 2004. And by suppressing that
>question it objectively denies the humanity of that 50%. The election
>will be decided by what around 1.5% to 2.5% of the voting-age population
>do during a 30 second span of time in November 2004.
>
>So, the real question is, not "Does it make a difference who is in the
>WH?" But "Does it make a difference if leftists quit all other
>activities to concentrate for the next 18 months on having a momentary
>effect on how th! at 2% spends 30 seconds of their time?"
Who the hell said anything like that?
Of course it makes a difference who's in the WH. I'll bet about 80%
of the world's population would agree. But you & Yoshie can't admit
that, so you've got to change the subject. I have no illusions about
what a Democratic president would accomplish. But it would almost
certainly make things slightly less bad. It would also encourage the
development of more radical politics - it happened in the 60s, and it
happened in the 90s too. Right now, the U.S. state is in the hands of
the most reactionary, bellicose, and repressive gang in living
memory. It's like Michael Savage's id is occupying 1600. But you're
so lost in your own fantasy of revolution - the revolution that you
have no strategy for promoting that I can see - that you can't be
bothered. Fucked up.
Doug
Well, if Al Gore had taken office, the intelligence agencies would likely have stopped 9/11, so there's one important difference.
I am definitely feeling a lot of guilt for having voted for Nader.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030606/1efaa5ae/attachment.htm>