Do you think the US is better off now then in 2000?

[Dinner]

A simple and straight forward poll. Do you think the US is better off now or five years ago when Clinton was leaving office?

[MrFun]

Such a silly question, Oerdin.

[Zkribbler]

I still have this weird connection to Apolyton which won't let me vote in polls. So add another one to the Clinton column for me.

Clinton:
(1) Rising standard of living for the blue collars, first since the early 70's.

(2) Balanced budget

[Ninot]

I voted Clinton simply because he didn't have a large portion of the international community wary of him.

[Dracon II]

the question is, would the world be better off today if Al Gore was President?

[Colon™]

Would both the US and the world be better of if McCain was president?

[Dinner]

Clearly we would be $400 billion dollars richer since there wouldn't have been a trumped up war in Iraq. I don't see Gore's response to 9/11 being any different other then Clinton placed more emphasis in 2000 on anti-terrorism and personally told Bush that was the greatest threat which should be focused on. Yet Bush defunded most anti-terrorism efforts for no other reason then they hated everything Clinton did and if Clinton said terrorism should be a high priority then Bushies would sideline it.

I doubt Gore could have stopped 9/11 but he likely wouldn't have defunded the anti-terrorism efforts so he'd have had a better chance. Lastly, there is no way the Republican controlled Congress would have allowed the massive deficit spending under a Democratic President (strangely they're AOK with it under a Republican President though).

All in all there is a very compelling case that Gore would have been a league ahead of Bush. Hell, he couldn't have done worse.

[Whoha]

Thats pretty much it Oerdin, Gridlock is the only reason to prefer one candidate over another. But in the past democrats and republicans have worked together to screw us over so I'd not place all my hope in it.

I'm pretty sure Gore would have attempted to spend his way out of the recession, the republicans got a pretty bloody nose from the media when they tried to shut the government down in protest of such deficit spending so they'd be hard pressed to stop it.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Clearly we would be $400 billion dollars richer since there wouldn't have been a trumped up war in Iraq. I don't see Gore's response to 9/11 being any different other then Clinton placed more emphasis in 2000 on anti-terrorism and personally told Bush that was the greatest threat which should be focused on. Yet Bush defunded most anti-terrorism efforts for no other reason then they hated everything Clinton did and if Clinton said terrorism should be a high priority then Bushies would sideline it.

I doubt Gore could have stopped 9/11 but he likely wouldn't have defunded the anti-terrorism efforts so he'd have had a better chance. Lastly, there is no way the Republican controlled Congress would have allowed the massive deficit spending under a Democratic President (strangely they're AOK with it under a Republican President though).

All in all there is a very compelling case that Gore would have been a league ahead of Bush. Hell, he couldn't have done worse.

You might also add that, without the Iraq sideshow, a Gore administration might actually have paid timely attention to the real WMD threats in Iran and NK.

Also add that FEMA was an agency that worked very well under Clinton, and that the Dems were proud of; no way would they have handed it over to the likes of Michael Brown, nor sidelined it in favor of all things terroristic.

Add as well that a Democrat's Homeland Security might actually have had to do something more substantial than matching terror threats to the J. Crew Catalog Color Wheel, if only because the GOP congress and pundit machine would have roasted the Dems alive otherwise.

It's actually hard to imagine what wouldn't be better under Gore -- and I didn't even like the guy.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dracon II
the question is, would the world be better off today if Al Gore was President?

I'd give good odds that 9-11 doesn't happen under Gore.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And you'd be nuts... but we knew that already.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And you'd be nuts... but we knew that already.

hey, Bush totally ignored Clinton's anti-terror recommendations...

Bush totally ignored the warnings...

the Aug 6th memo


remember the milennium bombings foiled by one security guard?

9-11 could have been stopped by a few security guards in place because of increased security...

but we'll never know...

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you are basically saying you know it in your heart to be so, without any real facts or evidence?

Ah, the Sava we know and... well.. know.

[mrmitchell]

i dont think camden is doing better since 2000...

but it's not bush's or gore's fault

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So you are basically saying you know it in your heart to be so, without any real facts or evidence?

Ah, the Sava we know and... well.. know.

No, because I've read several books on the subject.

Richard Clarke's book was very informative. I'd recommend that for you Imran.

Clinton's top priority near the end of his term was terrorism. The most important thing he wanted to brief Bush on was the subject of terrorism. Bush basically blew him off. Bush mothballed Clinton's recommendations. He didn't keep many of Clinton's terrorism people (except for the major players). And Bush's top national security priority was missile defense. In fact, the least important priority of Bush, was TERRORISM.

And this goes to the fact that on September 10th, 2001, John Ashcroft proposed huge cuts in the FBI's anti-terrorism budget!!!

This is all fact Imran. It's public record.

I'm not going to sort through books and post this information for you. I'm not going to educate you and hold your hand. This info is on the internet. Educate yourself.

The question about Gore vs Bush being president is not about one man, it's about an entire administration. It's about entire policies, attitudes in government... how BILLIONS of dollars, how massive amounts of government resources were being spent. Or in the case of Bush, being wasted before 9-11.

Do I think 9-11 was preventable? Absolutely. Do I know for sure? Absolutely not. And I'm not saying anything is for sure. I'm just saying it is likely things could have turned out differently.

So if you want to dismiss my opinion as partisan or "the Sava we all know" then fine... whatever... be ignorant...

You are kidding yourself if you think that things would not have played out differently if we actually had competent leadership at all levels of the executive branch leading up to 9-11-2001.