On Sep 6, 2004, at 6:47 PM, JDG wrote:
This might have been fair if many of these things would likely have been
any different under a Gore Presidency (i.e. Gore wasn't going to mention
Saudi Arabia in his State of the Union addresses either.)
So you believe it would be "fair" to balance actual historical fact against speculations on how things "would likely have been"? (Uh, based on whose assessment of what's likely, BTW?)
What's unfair is trying to judge possible performance against what actually has/has not happened -- because in the world of the *possible*, why, anything is. For instance, you say (probably correctly) that Gore wouldn't have brought up the Saudis as a threat to US safety in his address; contrarily someone else could assert that Gore would have caught Bin Laden by September 13, 2001.
Since neither statement is testable nor falsifiable -- nor is any other assertion that could be made about the Gore presidency -- offering Gore's chimerical "might haves" in the name of being "fair" is, to put it kindly, disingenuous.
-- WthmO
It's OK to take the flags down now and begin trying to think again. --
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
