And, for that matter, if you listened to what McCain said about Viet Nam... (We should have stayed until we WON) McCain applied exactly the same thought process to Iraq... defeat the enemy.
When I have said in the past that I didn't see differences in the military policy campaign promises of McCain and Obama,
[/quote]
Olive
Later I will post links and quotes that go directly to the pont (you know me
) But for the moment, I would like to raise just a couple of issues.
First, you say "I didn't see differences in the military policy campaign promises of McCain and Obama, "
Would you say that view is the result of any detailed research into their respective positions? Or is it possible that you are are so enervated by current Obama policies in this respect that you simply make a reflexive assumption that things could not be worse under McCain? Think about it.
As I said, I will later post links that go directly to the point that you raise.
In the mean time, there is this other issue. You provided some quotes from me. I would like to refresh and expand the context within which those quotes were written.
As it turns out, it is a little difficult to be entirely certain what policies McCain would have chosen.... just as it is impossible to know what would have happened in Iraq had we not invaded. And for this reason, I feel it is interesting to go back and look at Bush vs Gore.
At the outset, let us remember that during the Bush vs Gore campaing, there were lots of people who said... "it makes no difference between the two of them" Nader was one of those, and perhaps Olive was also of that opinion? Regardless, it is a historical fact that many people did express that opinion at that time.
In a recent radio interview , newscaster Amy Goodman challenged Ralph Nader for saying in 2000 that it didn't matter whether Gore or Bush won.
Nader denied saying that, which immediately raised our interest here at PolitiFact. We could've sworn we remembered Nader repeatedly saying there was no difference between the two. In fact, we thought it was a central theme of his 2000 campaign.
Here's the full exchange, from the June 18 broadcast of Democracy Now!:
Goodman: "Ralph Nader, you said in 2000 it doesn't really matter whether Gore or Bush is president. Do you feel that way today?"
Nader: "I didn't say that. I said the similarities between Bush and Gore tower over the dwindling real differences that they're willing to argue over."
Now, we are in a position to look back at the choice of Bush vs Gore with 20-20 hindsight. And we can ask whether it actually did make a difference to elect Bush and not Gore? Would Gore have invaded Iraq? I doubt it. Would Gore have given away all the budget surpluses in tax cuts for the rich? I doubt it.
So... what can we say about the people who said at the time there is no difference between Bush and Gore? The most generous thing that we can say is that they were absolutely and completely incorrect!!!!! Given the closeness of the election, it is not far fetched to say that such people swung the election to Bush by not voting for Gore.
It certainly was the right of people to vote for the candidate that they actually preferred.... Nader. But, as it turns out, this was not a choice without consequences for our country.
And, in the case of Bush Vs Gore.... it seems to me that one near certain consequence of the "there is no difference" attitude was in fact the Bush invasion of Iraq.
Olive, that was the point I was making when I said that it seemed to me that you were indifferent the unintended war related consequences of your view that "there is no difference"
OK, I will provide links later to address the specific point about difference between McCain and Obama... I am sure you are anxious for that.
