Al Gore, America's only hope ...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Democrats are screwed. They spent all their time opposing. I guarantee you one thing, whoever wins, from whatever party, will be put to the test as Bush was.

And you want it to be Gore being tested?

Hell yes. Gore's got more brains than Bush, more integrity than Bush, and more willingness to listen to divergent points of view than Bush.

Not that that's saying much, of course...

[DinoDoc]

Why? Before 9/11, we have large numbers of civilians dead and large scale attacks being launched on US soil. What made those attacks less deserving of a real response?

[SlowwHand]

Nothing. Unless you're debating fools.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why? Before 9/11, we have large numbers of civilians dead and large scale attacks being launched on US soil. What made those attacks less deserving of a real response?

The only large-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that I recall was the Oklahoma City bombing — one conducted by right-wing fanatics.

Gatekeeper

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why? Before 9/11, we have large numbers of civilians dead and large scale attacks being launched on US soil. What made those attacks less deserving of a real response?

Political backing. The Republicans didn't even like Clinton's use of the Air Force in Serbia. What are the chances they'd look even slightly favorably to invasion of Afghanistan?

[DinoDoc]

Better than even odds, I'd wager. Serbia never attacked the US.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Agathon


9/11 may never have happened if Gore was in charge. Everyone knows that the Clinton WH placed a high priority on terrorism, and everyone knows that Bush basically did nothing until 9/11.

Jesus... the head terrorism guy was begging to be allowed to speak and no one took any notice of him.

No everyone knows that Clark said he (Clark) placed a high priority on terrorism and OBL. Clinton had no particular will to make it the fight of fights. Clark was as inneffectual inthe Clinton era as the Bush pre 9/11 era for differing reasons.

In the Clinton era, Clinton was so beleagured in his second term due to scandal and impeachment that his ability to provide meaningful focus to combatting terror was at an all time low.

In the Bush 9/11 era Clark was ineffective because he couldn't stand being second banana to Condi. He ended up being viewed as a whiney little prat as a consequence.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Better than even odds, I'd wager. Serbia never attacked the US.

Technically speaking neither did Afghanistan. True they harbored the attackers, but not the same thing.

[Ramo]

Dino, the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya killed 12 Americans. Are you trying to assert that embassing bombings in another continent would somehow have similar political ramifications as an attack in Manhattan that kills two orders of magnitude more Americans? If you honestly believe that, you're delusional.

Again, NO Democrat in the Senate voted against AUMF, and Gore was much more willing to use military force than i.e. Wellstone, Boxer, etc. See the vote on Gulf War I. Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan was widely applauded by the most liberal Democrats. And Gore isn't the most liberal of Democrats.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ramo, Geronimo and Imran are correct. Any president of either party would have responded and made war on Afghanistan as consequence of 3000 US civilians dead on US soil.

I do not however subscribe to any fantasy line of thinking that says a Gore WH would have had any more zeal to combat terrorism (in a pre 911 world) and as a consequence have been able to prevent 911. Patent absurdity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Ramo, Geronimo and Imran are correct. Any president of either party would have responded and made war on Afghanistan as consequence of 3000 US civilians dead on US soil.

I do not however subscribe to any fantasy line of thinking that says a Gore WH would have had any more zeal to combat terrorism (in a pre 911 world) and as a consequence have been able to prevent 911. Patent absurdity.

Agreed on all points. I do enjoy the fantasy that with a Gore Presidency 9/11 never would have happened. Yeah, and I bet the Dow would have hit 30,000 too, right?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I do enjoy the fantasy that with a Gore Presidency 9/11 never would have happened. Yeah, and I bet the Dow would have hit 30,000 too, right?

Sure, that's fantasy.

What's not fantasy is that a Gore presidency might actually have made some headway in a war on terrorism because, absent a president with a Rainman-like compulsion to invade Iraq, the U.S. could have stayed the course in Afghanistan and wouldn't have spent billions of US dollars creating a giant, open-air, Terrorism Career Fair in Baghdad.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well that's true.

[SlowwHand]

The "invasion" didn't create a damn thing. It just put it in the light.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
a giant, open-air, Terrorism Career Fair in Baghdad.

Actually, bringing them all together in the same place may make our job easier.