Saturday, July 07, 2018

Drunk Hag in Sweden tries to talk politics

What do you say?  What do you say to this?

Remember when Al Gore wasn't Liberal enough? Gore was a Corporatist... Sold out to Wall St. If Al has been elected We would not have gone to Iraq We'd have addressed global warming Tax cuts would not have happened But, Al Gore was not Liberal enough, so we got Bush instead

First off, you're not a 'gurl,' you're a woman so grow the hell up.

Al wasn't liberal enough.  Like Hillary, he chose an idiot for his running mate.

But as for the nonsense that Al wouldn't have invaded Iraq?

A) You don't know it, whoring liar.

B) Based on the evidence we do have, Al would have done the same damn thing.

From his 2002 (February) speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.
As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.
In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.

Here's Patrick Martin (WSWS) covering that speech:

In a speech February 12, his first major political address since the US Supreme Court stopped a vote count in Florida and handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, the Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, declared his full support to the Bush administration’s plans for expanded warfare in the Middle East. Gore called for a “final reckoning” with Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
The former vice president spoke in New York City before a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations, the think tank that publishes Foreign Affairs and has long exercised important influence on foreign policy, whether the occupant of the White House was a Democrat or Republican.
Gore specifically solidarized himself with the “axis of evil” rhetoric in Bush’s State of the Union speech. Bush’s bellicose language—particularly his singling out of Iraq, Iran and North Korea—has been widely denounced in Europe and criticized even by several congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.
“As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table,” Gore said. “There is value in calling evil by its name. One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president of the United States.”
Gore made a bow to European criticisms of Bush’s unilateralism, and presented himself as an advocate of a more inclusive style of foreign policy. He called for attention to underlying causes of global unrest, including poverty, ignorance, disease and political oppression, warning, “What we deal with now is today’s manifestation of an anger welling up from deep layers of grievance shared by many millions of people.”
But the basic thrust of his speech was to demonstrate how far the Democratic Party’s titular leader would go in identifying himself with the aggressive militarism that now dominates Washington. Gore declared, “I also support the president’s stated goals in the next phases of the war against terrorism as he laid them out in the State of the Union.” The 2000 Democratic presidential candidate thus backed the worldwide campaign of military force, covert provocations and diplomatic bullying that is being waged in the name of the “war on terrorism.” He endorsed Bush’s shift in the focus of this campaign from terrorist groups to governments allegedly engaged in the development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Al should have been president, the Supreme Court made a mockery out of the elections, no question.  He was elected.  That said, he refused to fight for his votes and allowed not just the Supreme Court to steal from him, but also the Bully Boy Bush campaign -- and even his own running mate Lieberman.

At any rate,  stop pretending that Al in the White House would have meant no invasion of Iraq.

The record doesn't back that up.  Even his September 2003 speech was more against unilaterally attacking Iraq.  His opposition to "first strike" fades, pay attention to the speech, the minute an international coalition is put together.

The Iraq War was wanted.

By We The People? 

Hell no.

But the reason the news media sold it so hard was because it was wanted and was wanted with bi-partisan support.

Like Barack Obama, Al would have goneafter war in an 'elgant' manner that appeased many -- because we're so removed from violence we only react to words and demenor. 

You can see that with regards to the opposition to Donald Trump when he's doing the exact same thing (for example, immigration) that Barack did before him.

The Iraq War was wanted by Big Oil. 

Al was a coporatist and he would have fallen in line.  If he hadn't?  His extra-marital affairs might have been exposed further.  For someone who took a nasty view of Bill and Monica, I find it hilarious that at the time I met him, in 1992, he was having an affair with E (while married to Tipper).

For more on this topic, see Andrew Steele's "Why Al Gore would have invaded Iraq (and what it tells us about Syria)" (2013, GLOBE & MAIL).

Big Oil wanted it and Big Oil got there way and would have unless Ralph Nader had been elected.  (I supported Al in the 2000 race -- that's campaign appearance and financial donations.)

Now it may be too much to expect that a drunken American hag in Sweden would know reality.   Certainly a smart person wouldn't make a drunk, fallen down photo of themselves their main Twitter photo.

So we've established that she's an idiot.  Can we ship her off to a convention of Village Idiots (presided over by Bully Boy Bush?) so she can speak with others of her ilk?

By the way, she has a list of things Hillary did in 2008 that Bernie didn't do in 2016.

She leaves off one, Bernie didn't call for the front runner to be assassinated.

If you'll recall, everyone from Keith Olbermann to the National Lawyers Guild's Marjorie Cohn insisted Hillary did that.

Maybe drunken hag should have been aware of that.  DNC leaders should have.  Hillary could not overcome to 2008 and only an idiot would have thought she could.

The following community sites updated:

  •  9 hours ago