> Right after 9.11, a number of people insisted that, because the dems have
> such a drive to prove how tough they are, Gore probably would have done
> what Shrub did in Afghanistan and possibly worse.
>
> It seems unlikely, though, that Gore would have gotten us into
> Iraq--particularly given what we are learning re: the obsession with Iraq
> among the Busheviks.
Gore may've fought a multilateral war. If not, he would've continued with business as usual in Iraq (e.g. sanctions etc.). Even given the chaotic post-war environment in Iraq, I'm not sure that that would've been better.
> Also, a lot of people dismissed the idea that this was about oil. Given
> Clarke's revelations, this doesn't seem like such an absurd idea any more.
What do Clarke's revelations have to do with the "war for oil" argument?
-- Luke
> Counter arguments? Did I mischaracterize the positions once taken on the
list?
>
>
> Kelley
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk