<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2723.2500" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=2>    Is this sarcastic?  I doubt anyone could have stopped 9/11.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>However it is not widely known that indeed the Clinton administration</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>had a much harder line against al Qaeda than did the Bushies when</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>they first came in.  Supposedly the Clintonites endlessly told the</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Bushies that al Qaeda was Problem Number One, but Rummie </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>pulled back ships in the Indian Ocean (poised to strike at camps</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>in Afghanistan), because for him Issue Number One was getting </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>rid of the ABM treaty, whoop-de-doo.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>     However, I do think that Gore would not have made the "Axis</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>of Evil" speech and would not have invaded Iraq.  Even Ralph</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Nader would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Barkley Rosser</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=mike_larkin2001@yahoo.com href="mailto:mike_larkin2001@yahoo.com">mike larkin</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:05 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [lbo-talk] Re: 14 characteristics of fascism</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV> <P>Carrol Cox wrote: <BR> <P><FONT color=#990099><EM class=quotelev1>>Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: </EM><BR></FONT><FONT color=#ff7700><EM class=quotelev2>>> </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> Outside of the Democratic Party, there is no solid political party </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> that can marshal enough motivated organizers to make a difference in </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> 2004. </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> Do you have any candidate for whom you don't mind busting your own </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> ass doing campaign work for, say, at least 10-15 hours per week? </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> -- </EM><BR></FONT><FONT color=#990099><EM class=quotelev1>> </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>The question, "Does it make a difference who is in the White House?" is </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>a radically misleading question -- misleading in the sense that it </EM><! BR><EM class=quotelev1>>suppresses (as not askable) all the questions that need to be asked. It </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>suppresses, for example, the question: How important politically are the </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>50% of Americans who will not vote in 2004. And by suppressing that </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>question it objectively denies the humanity of that 50%. The election </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>will be decided by what around 1.5% to 2.5% of the voting-age population </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>do during a 30 second span of time in November 2004. </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>> </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>So, the real question is, not "Does it make a difference who is in the </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>WH?" But "Does it make a difference if leftists quit all other </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>activities to concentrate for the next 18 months on having a momentary </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>effect on how th! at 2% spends 30 seconds of their time?" </EM><BR></FONT> <P>Who the hell said anything like that? <BR> <P>Of course it makes a difference who's in the WH. I'll bet about 80% <BR>of the world's population would agree. But you & Yoshie can't admit <BR>that, so you've got to change the subject. I have no illusions about <BR>what a Democratic president would accomplish. But it would almost <BR>certainly make things slightly less bad. It would also encourage the <BR>development of more radical politics - it happened in the 60s, and it <BR>happened in the 90s too. Right now, the U.S. state is in the hands of <BR>the most reactionary, bellicose, and repressive gang in living <BR>memory. It's like Michael Savage's id is occupying 1600. But you're <BR>so lost in your own fantasy of revolution - the revolution that you <BR>have no strategy for promoting that I can see - that you can't be <BR>bothered. Fucked up. <BR> <P>Doug </P> <P> </P> <P>Well, if Al Gore had taken office, the intelligence agencies would likely have stopped 9/11, so there's one important difference.</P> <P>I am definitely feeling a lot of guilt for having voted for Nader.</P> <P><BR> </P></DIV> <P> <HR SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!?<BR>Free <A href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/*http://calendar.yahoo.com">online calendar</A> with sync to Outlook(TM).</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>