|
Title: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on March 17, 2010, 08:53:54 PM No.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: useful idiot on March 17, 2010, 08:58:40 PM Probably not...
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on March 18, 2010, 01:49:42 AM Completely depends on who he had surrounding him...Dick Cheney as Secretary as Defense or somewhere in the administration is not entirely unlikely. The difference is that a McCain led war would have looked, from the beginning, like the U.S. war effort in the Petraeus era. Cheney was Sec of Def under Bush Sr., yet Bush Sr. didn't remove Saddam and Cheney actually defended Bush Sr.'s decision in 1994 (after his term was over). Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Magic 8-Ball on March 18, 2010, 01:56:11 AM I doubt it.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: WillK on March 18, 2010, 04:46:22 AM I can picture him singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iraq" just like he did about Iran.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 18, 2010, 07:23:38 AM I don't see any of potential Presidents after 2001 other than Bush (McCain, Gore, Bradley) who'd invade Iraq.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on March 18, 2010, 05:02:41 PM I don't see any of potential Presidents after 2001 other than Bush (McCain, Gore, Bradley) who'd invade Iraq. Jeb Bush? Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 18, 2010, 07:44:32 PM I don't see any of potential Presidents after 2001 other than Bush (McCain, Gore, Bradley) who'd invade Iraq. Jeb Bush? Sorry for an confusion, I mean any President who took office in 2001. Jeb Bush is not an idiot, also. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on March 18, 2010, 08:02:16 PM I don't see any of potential Presidents after 2001 other than Bush (McCain, Gore, Bradley) who'd invade Iraq. Jeb Bush? Sorry for an confusion, I mean any President who took office in 2001. Jeb Bush is not an idiot, also. Jeb Bush would have likely been the GOP presidential nominee in 2000 if he won the Florida Governorship in 1994, and he thus could have become President in 2001. Bush Jr. didn't invade Iraq because he was an idiot--he did it to get reelected. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: milhouse24 on March 18, 2010, 11:22:42 PM I think Gore would have beaten McCain easily.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on March 18, 2010, 11:54:56 PM I think Gore would have beaten McCain easily. Why? McCain was perceived as more moderate than Bush Jr., was a "war hero", and didn't have a DUI story. I think McCain would have easily beat Gore. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: milhouse24 on March 19, 2010, 07:52:08 PM I think Gore would have beaten McCain easily. Why? McCain was perceived as more moderate than Bush Jr., was a "war hero", and didn't have a DUI story. I think McCain would have easily beat Gore. McCain would have won NH, but Gore would have won Florida. The Bush name probably swung a lot of people in Florida, otherwise I think they would have gone with Gore. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2010, 12:09:48 AM I think if the intelligence would have been the same, yes.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on March 20, 2010, 12:39:44 AM I think if the intelligence would have been the same, yes. Don't you think McCain would have bombed Iraq first to see if he could get some response out of Saddam? I think that as a Vietnam War veteran, McCain would have been much more cautious with war than Bush Jr. was in RL. Keep in mind that Reagan just bombed Libya instead of invading in the 1980s when Libya sropnsored terrorism against Americans. That bombing accomplished the same result as an invasion of Libya would have, but with much less time and money spent and much fewer casualties. Besides, Bush Jr.'s goal in invading Iraq wasn't finding WMDs--it was regime change, as evidenced by his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on April 04, 2010, 02:11:33 AM I voted no, but it's hard to say. I think McCain would have been more aggressive about intelligence reform after 9/11, which would mean more likely not, and he would have focused on Afganistan and Iran.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: 21st Century Independent on April 04, 2010, 07:19:41 AM I think Gore would have beaten McCain easily. Why? McCain was perceived as more moderate than Bush Jr., was a "war hero", and didn't have a DUI story. I think McCain would have easily beat Gore. McCain would have won NH, but Gore would have won Florida. The Bush name probably swung a lot of people in Florida, otherwise I think they would have gone with Gore. McCain in 2000 probably would have had a decent shot at winning back some of the blue firewall states the GOP hadn't won since 1988. I agree. I think McCain would have had a shot in Oregon, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 01, 2010, 01:59:53 PM I think Gore would have beaten McCain easily. Why? McCain was perceived as more moderate than Bush Jr., was a "war hero", and didn't have a DUI story. I think McCain would have easily beat Gore. McCain would have won NH, but Gore would have won Florida. The Bush name probably swung a lot of people in Florida, otherwise I think they would have gone with Gore. McCain in 2000 probably would have had a decent shot at winning back some of the blue firewall states the GOP hadn't won since 1988. I agree. I think McCain would have had a shot in Oregon, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania I agree about this. On a diffferent note, do you think McCain would have took the U.S. into Iraq? Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: President Mitt on May 03, 2010, 09:03:09 PM Yeah.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: The Mikado on May 05, 2010, 03:47:19 PM I think people are seriously misremembering McCain's character in 2000. He had people like William Kristol and Dave Frum in his corner saying that George W. Bush was too dovish and McCain was the hawk that could better defend American interests. McCain was absolutely surrounded by neo-conservatives. I have little doubt that he'd have invaded Iraq whether 9/11 or not.
It's just that since he lost, people like to project their beefs with Bush onto McCain and turn him into the opposite. McCain did have domestic disagreements with Bush in 2000, but on foreign policy he was, if anything, to the right of Bush. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: The Mikado on May 05, 2010, 03:54:31 PM McCain in his own words, February 2000:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html Quote KING: Senator? SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is obviously a place where this -- one of the signal failures of this administration. Although there are certainly many failures throughout the world. But I would also look very -- revise our policies concerning these rogue states: Iraq, Libya, North Korea - those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. As long... KING: And you'd do what? MCCAIN: I'd institute a policy that I call "rogue state rollback." I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments. As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security. "The New York Times" reported just a few days ago that administration officials worry that Saddam Hussein continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. Congress passed a law a couple of years ago, called the Iraqi Liberation Act; the administration has done nothing. We should help them with arms, training, equipment, radio and a broad variety of ways. Until those governments are overthrown, they will pose a threat to U.S. national security. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 05, 2010, 04:59:26 PM McCain in his own words, February 2000: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html Quote KING: Senator? SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is obviously a place where this -- one of the signal failures of this administration. Although there are certainly many failures throughout the world. But I would also look very -- revise our policies concerning these rogue states: Iraq, Libya, North Korea - those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. As long... KING: And you'd do what? MCCAIN: I'd institute a policy that I call "rogue state rollback." I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments. As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security. "The New York Times" reported just a few days ago that administration officials worry that Saddam Hussein continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. Congress passed a law a couple of years ago, called the Iraqi Liberation Act; the administration has done nothing. We should help them with arms, training, equipment, radio and a broad variety of ways. Until those governments are overthrown, they will pose a threat to U.S. national security. So basically, McCain said that he would be more active in aiding the opposition in rogue dictatorships in the hopes that they will overthrow those regimes in the future. Nowhere here did McCain say that he supports using U.S. troops to overthrow those dictatorial govts. Besides, a candidate often says one thing and does another--Bush Jr. said he opposed nation-building in 2000 yet proceeded to invade Iraq after he was elected. Thus everything McCain says here (or anywhere, for that matter) should be taken with a grain of salt and some skepticism. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: The Mikado on May 05, 2010, 05:21:55 PM McCain in his own words, February 2000: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html Quote KING: Senator? SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is obviously a place where this -- one of the signal failures of this administration. Although there are certainly many failures throughout the world. But I would also look very -- revise our policies concerning these rogue states: Iraq, Libya, North Korea - those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. As long... KING: And you'd do what? MCCAIN: I'd institute a policy that I call "rogue state rollback." I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments. As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security. "The New York Times" reported just a few days ago that administration officials worry that Saddam Hussein continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. Congress passed a law a couple of years ago, called the Iraqi Liberation Act; the administration has done nothing. We should help them with arms, training, equipment, radio and a broad variety of ways. Until those governments are overthrown, they will pose a threat to U.S. national security. So basically, McCain said that he would be more active in aiding the opposition in rogue dictatorships in the hopes that they will overthrow those regimes in the future. Nowhere here did McCain say that he supports using U.S. troops to overthrow those dictatorial govts. Besides, a candidate often says one thing and does another--Bush Jr. said he opposed nation-building in 2000 yet proceeded to invade Iraq after he was elected. Thus everything McCain says here (or anywhere, for that matter) should be taken with a grain of salt and some skepticism. First of all, you're right that we have to take things with a grain of salt. That said, that applies to any alternate history conclusion ever. What I was arguing was that McCain was clearly as hostile to Iraq as Bush and was closely advised by neoconservatives. PS: Rereading that transcript, I have to wonder what sort of domestic resistance movements McCain was considering supporting in North Korea. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 05, 2010, 05:47:34 PM McCain in his own words, February 2000: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html Quote KING: Senator? SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is obviously a place where this -- one of the signal failures of this administration. Although there are certainly many failures throughout the world. But I would also look very -- revise our policies concerning these rogue states: Iraq, Libya, North Korea - those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. As long... KING: And you'd do what? MCCAIN: I'd institute a policy that I call "rogue state rollback." I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments. As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security. "The New York Times" reported just a few days ago that administration officials worry that Saddam Hussein continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. Congress passed a law a couple of years ago, called the Iraqi Liberation Act; the administration has done nothing. We should help them with arms, training, equipment, radio and a broad variety of ways. Until those governments are overthrown, they will pose a threat to U.S. national security. So basically, McCain said that he would be more active in aiding the opposition in rogue dictatorships in the hopes that they will overthrow those regimes in the future. Nowhere here did McCain say that he supports using U.S. troops to overthrow those dictatorial govts. Besides, a candidate often says one thing and does another--Bush Jr. said he opposed nation-building in 2000 yet proceeded to invade Iraq after he was elected. Thus everything McCain says here (or anywhere, for that matter) should be taken with a grain of salt and some skepticism. First of all, you're right that we have to take things with a grain of salt. That said, that applies to any alternate history conclusion ever. What I was arguing was that McCain was clearly as hostile to Iraq as Bush and was closely advised by neoconservatives. PS: Rereading that transcript, I have to wonder what sort of domestic resistance movements McCain was considering supporting in North Korea. In regards to North Korea, maybe McCain hoped to contract some generals there who might secretly dislike Kim Jong-Il and try to have them organize a coup there (similar to what Bush Jr. tried to do in Venezuela in 2002). Still, even though McCain was using hostile language against Iraq (in this interview), Bush Jr. said in one Republican primary debate in 2000 (I beleive) that if he was elected and Saddam would be perecived as a large threat, he would order U.S. forces to remove Saddam (or something along those lines). In 2000, McCain was never nearly that specific and threatening to Iraq as Bush Jr. was that year. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on May 13, 2010, 09:40:47 AM He wouldn't have had to. Saddam would've cooperated with him the same as he would have with Reagan.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 13, 2010, 04:40:03 PM He wouldn't have had to. Saddam would've cooperated with him the same as he would have with Reagan. I agree about McCain not invading Iraq, but keep in mind that Saddam also cooperated with Bush Jr. (by allowing the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq), yet Bush Jr. proceeded to invade Iraq anyway. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on May 19, 2010, 11:17:40 AM He wouldn't have had to. Saddam would've cooperated with him the same as he would have with Reagan. I agree about McCain not invading Iraq, but keep in mind that Saddam also cooperated with Bush Jr. (by allowing the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq), yet Bush Jr. proceeded to invade Iraq anyway. That's due to what he thought was harboring terrorists and killing the innocent. I don't think it was really ever about the WMD. Sometimes scare tactics are the only way to get liberals to support something though. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 19, 2010, 07:12:49 PM He wouldn't have had to. Saddam would've cooperated with him the same as he would have with Reagan. I agree about McCain not invading Iraq, but keep in mind that Saddam also cooperated with Bush Jr. (by allowing the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq), yet Bush Jr. proceeded to invade Iraq anyway. That's due to what he thought was harboring terrorists and killing the innocent. I don't think it was really ever about the WMD. Sometimes scare tactics are the only way to get liberals to support something though. Saddam hated al-Qaeda. As for killing the innocent, why didn't we invade North Korea or Sudan if that was the case? Since the official reason for invading Iraq was the WMDs, and since Saddam allowed the inspectors back into Iraq before the invasion, but Jr. screwed up majorly by invading Iraq. It's a shame that many Democrats and Republicans were a bunch of pussies and decided to support Bush in his reckless foreign adventure. We could ahve used that money to reduce the deficit and pay down the national debt, which is what you Republicans are always saying we should do with extra money. Or we could have used that money to provide healthcare toe veryone in the U.S. for a decade. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on May 21, 2010, 12:52:50 AM And as far as we know Saddam ws playing hide and seek with the inspectors by moving the weapons around. We have found WMD but it hasn't been reported on the news other than a few seconds of clips here and there. It's not like the liberal media wants voters to think Iraq was justified.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 21, 2010, 12:55:38 AM And as far as we know Saddam ws playing hide and seek with the inspectors by moving the weapons around. We have found WMD but it hasn't been reported on the news other than a few seconds of clips here and there. It's not like the liberal media wants voters to think Iraq was justified. There were no WMDs in Iraq. I never saw a news story proving there were WMDs in Iraq after the invasion. And the media is not liberal--it was biased in favor of Reagan twice, Bush Sr. in 1988, and Bush Jr. twice. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on May 21, 2010, 12:56:19 AM Of course. McCain loved wreaking war and death and havoc on the world under the Clinton regime, why wouldn't he continue if he became "commander-in-chief" himself?
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 21, 2010, 12:58:16 AM Of course. McCain loved wreaking war and death and havoc on the world under the Clinton regime, why wouldn't he continue if he became "commander-in-chief" himself? Clinton never invaded any country. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on May 21, 2010, 12:59:47 AM Of course. McCain loved wreaking war and death and havoc on the world under the Clinton regime, why wouldn't he continue if he became "commander-in-chief" himself? Clinton never invaded any country. Yes, Clinton launched a war of aggression in the Balkans. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 21, 2010, 01:04:28 AM Of course. McCain loved wreaking war and death and havoc on the world under the Clinton regime, why wouldn't he continue if he became "commander-in-chief" himself? Clinton never invaded any country. Yes, Clinton launched a war of aggression in the Balkans. No. Clinton stopped the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on May 21, 2010, 01:14:16 AM And as far as we know Saddam ws playing hide and seek with the inspectors by moving the weapons around. We have found WMD but it hasn't been reported on the news other than a few seconds of clips here and there. It's not like the liberal media wants voters to think Iraq was justified. There were no WMDs in Iraq. I never saw a news story proving there were WMDs in Iraq after the invasion. And the media is not liberal--it was biased in favor of Reagan twice, Bush Sr. in 1988, and Bush Jr. twice. 92% of the press voted for Kerry and only 6% for Bush. Look it up. There is absolutely no way anyone can rationally believe the press to be anything but liberal. Fox News does better than the liberal media as far as ratings because they are more in touch with ordinary Americans and therefore more Americans want to watch. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on May 21, 2010, 01:15:34 AM Regardless, I think McCain would've been better qualified to handle Iraq if need be.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on May 27, 2010, 11:12:18 PM And as far as we know Saddam ws playing hide and seek with the inspectors by moving the weapons around. We have found WMD but it hasn't been reported on the news other than a few seconds of clips here and there. It's not like the liberal media wants voters to think Iraq was justified. There were no WMDs in Iraq. I never saw a news story proving there were WMDs in Iraq after the invasion. And the media is not liberal--it was biased in favor of Reagan twice, Bush Sr. in 1988, and Bush Jr. twice. 92% of the press voted for Kerry and only 6% for Bush. Look it up. There is absolutely no way anyone can rationally believe the press to be anything but liberal. Fox News does better than the liberal media as far as ratings because they are more in touch with ordinary Americans and therefore more Americans want to watch. This has to be a joke. We all have to remember that the political "commentary" (more like entertainment) shows that hundreds of people watch it to get nothing more than a laugh. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on May 27, 2010, 11:15:26 PM And as far as we know Saddam ws playing hide and seek with the inspectors by moving the weapons around. We have found WMD but it hasn't been reported on the news other than a few seconds of clips here and there. It's not like the liberal media wants voters to think Iraq was justified. There were no WMDs in Iraq. I never saw a news story proving there were WMDs in Iraq after the invasion. And the media is not liberal--it was biased in favor of Reagan twice, Bush Sr. in 1988, and Bush Jr. twice. 92% of the press voted for Kerry and only 6% for Bush. Look it up. There is absolutely no way anyone can rationally believe the press to be anything but liberal. Fox News does better than the liberal media as far as ratings because they are more in touch with ordinary Americans and therefore more Americans want to watch. This has to be a joke. We all have to remember that the political "commentary" (more like entertainment) shows that hundreds of people watch it to get nothing more than a laugh. not true Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 29, 2010, 04:05:58 PM And as far as we know Saddam ws playing hide and seek with the inspectors by moving the weapons around. We have found WMD but it hasn't been reported on the news other than a few seconds of clips here and there. It's not like the liberal media wants voters to think Iraq was justified. There were no WMDs in Iraq. I never saw a news story proving there were WMDs in Iraq after the invasion. And the media is not liberal--it was biased in favor of Reagan twice, Bush Sr. in 1988, and Bush Jr. twice. 92% of the press voted for Kerry and only 6% for Bush. Look it up. There is absolutely no way anyone can rationally believe the press to be anything but liberal. Fox News does better than the liberal media as far as ratings because they are more in touch with ordinary Americans and therefore more Americans want to watch. This has to be a joke. We all have to remember that the political "commentary" (more like entertainment) shows that hundreds of people watch it to get nothing more than a laugh. not true No, Archangel Zero is correct. Fox News is extremely biased. And I looked up your claim about 92% of the media voting for Kerry. I found absolutely nothing. In fact, the media consistenly critcized Gore and Kerry while giving Bush a free pass. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 29, 2010, 04:06:40 PM Regardless, I think McCain would've been better qualified to handle Iraq if need be. Of course. So would Gore have been better qualified. Neither of them would ahve launched a pointless war there like Bush did. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 29, 2010, 04:07:34 PM Probably although not definitely.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 29, 2010, 04:21:23 PM Probably although not definitely. Reasons for your assumption? Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on May 29, 2010, 10:27:15 PM And as far as we know Saddam ws playing hide and seek with the inspectors by moving the weapons around. We have found WMD but it hasn't been reported on the news other than a few seconds of clips here and there. It's not like the liberal media wants voters to think Iraq was justified. There were no WMDs in Iraq. I never saw a news story proving there were WMDs in Iraq after the invasion. And the media is not liberal--it was biased in favor of Reagan twice, Bush Sr. in 1988, and Bush Jr. twice. 92% of the press voted for Kerry and only 6% for Bush. Look it up. There is absolutely no way anyone can rationally believe the press to be anything but liberal. Fox News does better than the liberal media as far as ratings because they are more in touch with ordinary Americans and therefore more Americans want to watch. This has to be a joke. We all have to remember that the political "commentary" (more like entertainment) shows that hundreds of people watch it to get nothing more than a laugh. not true No, Archangel Zero is correct. Fox News is extremely biased. And I looked up your claim about 92% of the media voting for Kerry. I found absolutely nothing. In fact, the media consistenly critcized Gore and Kerry while giving Bush a free pass. I'm going to die of a heart attack from laughing so hard. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on May 29, 2010, 10:28:26 PM Regardless, I think McCain would've been better qualified to handle Iraq if need be. Of course. So would Gore have been better qualified. Neither of them would ahve launched a pointless war there like Bush did. Gore would not have the people around him that Bush did to give such advice. The guys around Bush were brilliant; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Ridge, his father, Condaleeza Rice. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: WillK on May 29, 2010, 10:41:19 PM Regardless, I think McCain would've been better qualified to handle Iraq if need be. Of course. So would Gore have been better qualified. Neither of them would ahve launched a pointless war there like Bush did. Gore would not have the people around him that Bush did to give such advice. The guys around Bush were brilliant; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Ridge, his father, Condaleeza Rice. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on May 29, 2010, 11:08:34 PM Regardless, I think McCain would've been better qualified to handle Iraq if need be. Of course. So would Gore have been better qualified. Neither of them would ahve launched a pointless war there like Bush did. Gore would not have the people around him that Bush did to give such advice. The guys around Bush were brilliant; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Ridge, his father, Condaleeza Rice. What's so funny? Those were some hardcore warhawks. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on May 29, 2010, 11:11:17 PM Regardless, I think McCain would've been better qualified to handle Iraq if need be. Of course. So would Gore have been better qualified. Neither of them would ahve launched a pointless war there like Bush did. Gore would not have the people around him that Bush did to give such advice. The guys around Bush were brilliant; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Ridge, his father, Condaleeza Rice. What's so funny? Those were some hardcore warhawks. They were hardcore warhakws alright, but they were by no means brilliant. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: WillK on May 29, 2010, 11:13:34 PM Regardless, I think McCain would've been better qualified to handle Iraq if need be. Of course. So would Gore have been better qualified. Neither of them would ahve launched a pointless war there like Bush did. Gore would not have the people around him that Bush did to give such advice. The guys around Bush were brilliant; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Ridge, his father, Condaleeza Rice. What's so funny? Those were some hardcore warhawks. Its funny to call them brilliant. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on May 29, 2010, 11:15:45 PM Some of the side deals they made? How bout that?
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: pbrower2a on June 01, 2010, 10:25:36 PM 1. President McCain takes intel seriously; he figures that when al-Qaeda is looking into jetliners as an enhancement of his means of mass death he breaks the 9/11 conspiracy.
2. He does not invade Iraq unless Saddam Hussein does something incredibly dangerous to world peace -- like a real WMD program or an effort to steal a nuke, in which case he probably has has no real choice. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on June 03, 2010, 07:58:09 PM me?
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on June 09, 2010, 12:09:58 AM I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on June 13, 2010, 11:58:09 PM I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must. Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on June 14, 2010, 11:58:10 AM I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must. Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq. No he didn't. The president doesn't have much to do with intelligence reports unless he asks for them. We went to Iraq to bring freedom to the oppressed, promote WOMEN'S RIGHTS, build schools, build hospitals, remove a dictator, and make the world a better place. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on June 14, 2010, 06:45:53 PM I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must. Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq. No he didn't. The president doesn't have much to do with intelligence reports unless he asks for them. We went to Iraq to bring freedom to the oppressed, promote WOMEN'S RIGHTS, build schools, build hospitals, remove a dictator, and make the world a better place. That's great and all, but it's a shame we had to have used our taxpayer money that we didn't even have (we were in a deficit even before Iraq) to do this. That money should have been used to pay down our debt. And if you're so eager about bringing freedom to oppressed people, then we should have invaded North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Burma before invading Iraq. And we should have taxed the rich very heavily to do this so that we wouldn't increase our deficit and debt. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on June 14, 2010, 07:42:27 PM I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must. Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq. No he didn't. The president doesn't have much to do with intelligence reports unless he asks for them. We went to Iraq to bring freedom to the oppressed, promote WOMEN'S RIGHTS, build schools, build hospitals, remove a dictator, and make the world a better place. That's great and all, but it's a shame we had to have used our taxpayer money that we didn't even have (we were in a deficit even before Iraq) to do this. That money should have been used to pay down our debt. And if you're so eager about bringing freedom to oppressed people, then we should have invaded North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Burma before invading Iraq. And we should have taxed the rich very heavily to do this so that we wouldn't increase our deficit and debt. You democrats will jump at any opportunity you can to tax someone who makes a dime more than you. We lose lives at war and all you can think of is taxing someone who makes more money than you. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on June 14, 2010, 07:48:45 PM I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must. Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq. No he didn't. The president doesn't have much to do with intelligence reports unless he asks for them. We went to Iraq to bring freedom to the oppressed, promote WOMEN'S RIGHTS, build schools, build hospitals, remove a dictator, and make the world a better place. That's great and all, but it's a shame we had to have used our taxpayer money that we didn't even have (we were in a deficit even before Iraq) to do this. That money should have been used to pay down our debt. And if you're so eager about bringing freedom to oppressed people, then we should have invaded North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Burma before invading Iraq. And we should have taxed the rich very heavily to do this so that we wouldn't increase our deficit and debt. You democrats will jump at any opportunity you can to tax someone who makes a dime more than you. We lose lives at war and all you can think of is taxing someone who makes more money than you. No, we just care about actually balancing the budget to make sure that our children have a better future and not be burdened by the massive amounts of debt that this generation has accumulated. And if a President starts a war, they better be prepared to pay for it. You Republicans are hypocrites. You claim to be fiscal conservatives yet you spend like crazy when you come into power. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on June 15, 2010, 09:53:47 AM I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must. Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq. No he didn't. The president doesn't have much to do with intelligence reports unless he asks for them. We went to Iraq to bring freedom to the oppressed, promote WOMEN'S RIGHTS, build schools, build hospitals, remove a dictator, and make the world a better place. That's great and all, but it's a shame we had to have used our taxpayer money that we didn't even have (we were in a deficit even before Iraq) to do this. That money should have been used to pay down our debt. And if you're so eager about bringing freedom to oppressed people, then we should have invaded North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Burma before invading Iraq. And we should have taxed the rich very heavily to do this so that we wouldn't increase our deficit and debt. You democrats will jump at any opportunity you can to tax someone who makes a dime more than you. We lose lives at war and all you can think of is taxing someone who makes more money than you. No, we just care about actually balancing the budget to make sure that our children have a better future and not be burdened by the massive amounts of debt that this generation has accumulated. And if a President starts a war, they better be prepared to pay for it. You Republicans are hypocrites. You claim to be fiscal conservatives yet you spend like crazy when you come into power. You sound uneducated and assumptive. I never said that I spend like Bush did. Stop using our children for your political advancements too. You democrats are ALL THE SAME. You hide behind America's youth after you can't sell your policies to those with an IQ above 35. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Bo on June 15, 2010, 01:53:31 PM I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must. Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq. No he didn't. The president doesn't have much to do with intelligence reports unless he asks for them. We went to Iraq to bring freedom to the oppressed, promote WOMEN'S RIGHTS, build schools, build hospitals, remove a dictator, and make the world a better place. That's great and all, but it's a shame we had to have used our taxpayer money that we didn't even have (we were in a deficit even before Iraq) to do this. That money should have been used to pay down our debt. And if you're so eager about bringing freedom to oppressed people, then we should have invaded North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Burma before invading Iraq. And we should have taxed the rich very heavily to do this so that we wouldn't increase our deficit and debt. You democrats will jump at any opportunity you can to tax someone who makes a dime more than you. We lose lives at war and all you can think of is taxing someone who makes more money than you. No, we just care about actually balancing the budget to make sure that our children have a better future and not be burdened by the massive amounts of debt that this generation has accumulated. And if a President starts a war, they better be prepared to pay for it. You Republicans are hypocrites. You claim to be fiscal conservatives yet you spend like crazy when you come into power. You sound uneducated and assumptive. I never said that I spend like Bush did. Stop using our children for your political advancements too. You democrats are ALL THE SAME. You hide behind America's youth after you can't sell your policies to those with an IQ above 35. I was talking about Republican politicians. And last time I checked, the Democratic Party won the last elections. Thus, the Democratic polciies can appeal to the majority of American voters. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on June 15, 2010, 02:41:10 PM I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must. Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq. No he didn't. The president doesn't have much to do with intelligence reports unless he asks for them. We went to Iraq to bring freedom to the oppressed, promote WOMEN'S RIGHTS, build schools, build hospitals, remove a dictator, and make the world a better place. That's great and all, but it's a shame we had to have used our taxpayer money that we didn't even have (we were in a deficit even before Iraq) to do this. That money should have been used to pay down our debt. And if you're so eager about bringing freedom to oppressed people, then we should have invaded North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Burma before invading Iraq. And we should have taxed the rich very heavily to do this so that we wouldn't increase our deficit and debt. You democrats will jump at any opportunity you can to tax someone who makes a dime more than you. We lose lives at war and all you can think of is taxing someone who makes more money than you. No, we just care about actually balancing the budget to make sure that our children have a better future and not be burdened by the massive amounts of debt that this generation has accumulated. And if a President starts a war, they better be prepared to pay for it. You Republicans are hypocrites. You claim to be fiscal conservatives yet you spend like crazy when you come into power. You sound uneducated and assumptive. I never said that I spend like Bush did. Stop using our children for your political advancements too. You democrats are ALL THE SAME. You hide behind America's youth after you can't sell your policies to those with an IQ above 35. I was talking about Republican politicians. And last time I checked, the Democratic Party won the last elections. Thus, the Democratic polciies can appeal to the majority of American voters. No that's only people below the age of 24. It wasn't Obama's socialist ideas either. He won because he was the furthest candidate from Bush. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: cpeeks on June 16, 2010, 02:53:53 PM You democrats will jump at any opportunity you can to tax someone who makes a dime more than you. We lose lives at war and all you can think of is taxing someone who makes more money than you. No, we just care about actually balancing the budget to make sure that our children have a better future and not be burdened by the massive amounts of debt that this generation has accumulated. And if a President starts a war, they better be prepared to pay for it. You Republicans are hypocrites. You claim to be fiscal conservatives yet you spend like crazy when you come into power. You sound uneducated and assumptive. I never said that I spend like Bush did. Stop using our children for your political advancements too. You democrats are ALL THE SAME. You hide behind America's youth after you can't sell your policies to those with an IQ above 35. God Derek you talk out of both sides of your yesterday on a post yesterday you were talking about how we had to stop spending for the sake of our children, LOL. Edited to get the quote nesting correct, and as long as that was being done, to prune the quote tree somewhat. Second edit to remove off-topic discussion of personal IQs. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on June 16, 2010, 06:32:57 PM You democrats will jump at any opportunity you can to tax someone who makes a dime more than you. We lose lives at war and all you can think of is taxing someone who makes more money than you. No, we just care about actually balancing the budget to make sure that our children have a better future and not be burdened by the massive amounts of debt that this generation has accumulated. And if a President starts a war, they better be prepared to pay for it. You Republicans are hypocrites. You claim to be fiscal conservatives yet you spend like crazy when you come into power. You sound uneducated and assumptive. I never said that I spend like Bush did. Stop using our children for your political advancements too. You democrats are ALL THE SAME. You hide behind America's youth after you can't sell your policies to those with an IQ above 35. God Derek you talk out of both sides of your yesterday on a post yesterday you were talking about how we had to stop spending for the sake of our children, LOL. I've been very consistent. Spend what's necessary. Don't hide behind America's youth to justify over spending and higher taxes. Stop saying that I said something if I didn't. Your post sounds vague. Edited to remove off-topic discussion of personal IQs. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: cpeeks on June 17, 2010, 04:47:53 PM You are far from consistent.
Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: Derek on June 23, 2010, 12:42:12 AM You are far from consistent. In fact I think you're a closet Neocon. Title: Re: Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on June 23, 2010, 01:05:28 AM Topic has degenerated into pointless off-topic bickering and locked.
|