Let's count the ways America would be better if Al Gore was President

[billbuckhead]

*The guy with the most votes would have won thus reinforcing our democracy instead of undermining it with a least the appearence of a coup.
*9-11 wouldn't have happened.
*We wouldn't be in Iraq making historic porno snuff films
*A dollar might be worth a dollar instead of .8 of a Euro or half a gallon of gas.
*Solar power would be subsidized instead of gas guzzlers.
*More jobs would still be in America
*We wouldn't have a record public debt
*We would probably have built a better hubble than phasing out the one we got.
*Americans would still be welcome abroad
*Gray Davis would still be Governor
*Max Cleland would still be Senator
*Black Box voting would be more transparent
*Government in general would have been more transparent

Add your own

[forgethell]

1. The others may be true, but

#2 is total b.s. It wouldn't have mattered who was President. Those 9/11 bastards hated (and hate, America. The Iran hostage cirsis happened on Carter's watch. There were numerous acts of terrorism while Clinton was President. All Americans are in danger until the problem of fundie, whacko, murderous Islamic nutjobs, who have hijacked a peaceful religion, is solved.

[H2O Man]

5. It is always risky to speculate .....

... but, for sake of discussion, I respectfully ask if -- even if we agree that we indeed DO face an enemy that hates America, and hence will kill each and every person on DU with no more remorse than if they kill the Sean Hannity fan club -- is it possible (even if not likely) that a democratic administration MAY have paid greater attention to the growing threat than did the bush administration?

Second, your last sentence is very interesting. I would appreciate if you would expand upon it? I find it interesting that we have been friends with some of the "now" extreme Muslim forces. I doubt that we're looking at friendship at this point. But what, if anything, could or should America do to try to take the first step in a process that could lead to reconciliation?

I ask both questions in all sincerity. While I do not accept the bush definition of the reality of our relations with the Islamic world, we must recognize we live in a dangerous world. We do not want to have people killed, not in this country, or in the Middle East. Clearly, we need to have a focus on national security. But what steps do we take to resolve the growing probability of WW3?

[forgethell]

8. Fair enough questions.

It is indeed difficult to speculate. However, is it possible (even if not likely) that a democratic administration MAY have paid greater attention to the growing threat than did the bush administration?. I suppose anything is POSSIBLE, but I consider it extremely unlikely.

There are only 24 hours in a day, which means every person, even the President, has to assess the situation and prioritize his time and resources appropriately. Obvioulsy * made a mistake. But I don't think President Gore would have decided this issue any differently.

I mean, novelists and spys often speculate about improbable scenarios, such as flying airplanes into skyscrapers. But the government CANNOT respond to every one. Even if they had the physical resources to do it, do we want the restrictions onour civil liberties that would be entailed? Suppose President * had ordered that no Mid-Eastern looking men could board a plane without intense scrutiny. He would have been crucified. Hellfire, he hasn't even done it now, when we know what could happen. Israel does it, and experiences very few plane hijackings. When was the last time that you heard of one. Entebbe??

So why would President Gore have done it? What happened was just too unlikely, in my opinion. Further, the threat did not start the day * took office. Something like that required years of planning. Which occurred, most likely, in Clinton's term. Why didn't the administration pay attention then?? Because, IMO, it was just too unlikely a scenario, until it actually happened. And I think that it would have happened on President Gore's watch just exactly like it actually did. This is just my opinion, of course.

Second, your last sentence is very interesting. I would appreciate if you would expand upon it? I find it interesting that we have been friends with some of the "now" extreme Muslim forces. I doubt that we're looking at friendship at this point. But what, if anything, could or should America do to try to take the first step in a process that could lead to reconciliation?

My statement: All Americans are in danger until the problem of fundie, whacko, murderous Islamic nutjobs, who have hijacked a peaceful religion, is solved.

I am assuming here that you want to know how I would suggest "solving" the problem?? Thank God, it is not my responsibility!! That's what we elect Presidnets for. So, the November election will be very important for the future of this country.

Let me digrres a second to your other point. Yes, we were in bed with some of the Islamic extremists. AT the time, as I understand it, the government considered that they were a lesser threat than some of our other enemies. You know, sort of the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend" paradigm. So what? they hadn't killed 3000 Americans in one day, then. Have you never lost a friend because they betrayed you? I have. They are no longer your friend then, and all that you had with them before is gone. Also, nations DO NOT HAVE permanent friends. Only permanent interests. I forget who said it, but it is self-evidently true. We live in a Hobbesian world.

NOw, to return to a "solution". Well, I don't know that "reconciliation" is a viable option. I wish that it were. What do they want? there are numerous answers, from our policy about Palestine, to the fact that they wish to convert us all to Islam. Anyway, I am not sure that we should make the first gesture towards, "reconciliation". That reeks too much of giving in to extortion. This is always, always, always a bad and foolish idea. It just invites more.

So I don't know the solution.

[H2O Man]

11. Good answers. Thank you.

Perhaps the only thing I disagree with would be that only spies and novelists would think of flying a jet/plane into a building. Rather, those who have an understanding for other cultures may have noted that the kamikaze pilots did just this. The tactic was not new, or particularly beyond the scope of what could have been anticipated.

While I would note that the relationships between individuals are not by nature an accurate measuring stick for relationships between nations, I am curious who betrayed whom in our relationship with the militant Islamic extremists? While it is, of course, impossible to remove the Palestinian question .... it seems fair to say that the USA has had the history of imposing its will on the Arab world, including extracting their #1 natural resource, to our almost exclusive benefit.

I'm not sure if they have tried to force their religious beliefs on us. The bush administration believes the United States is a Christian nation, and that Israel is a Jewish state, but has expressed grave concerns that Iraq will become an Islamic state.

In his greatest speech of conscience, (A Time to Break Silence), Martin luther king, Jr. said, "The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours." I believe that we could take this statement about Vietnam, and apply it to Iraq. And, so long as Halliburton is in charge or Iraqi oil resources, it's unlikely that we will move in that direction. And perhaps this is the greatest danger of citizen thinking that it is up to "leaders" to decide the course our nation should follow.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. I enjoy talking to people who have well thought out opinions, even when they are different than my own.

[forgethell]

12. I enjoy it, too.

Still, the plane thing seemed unlikely. It still seems unlikely to me, even after it happened. Even if it was anticipated, the specific details would not be, I think. As for betrayal, well, I guess both sides have their own opinion, but I consider a sneak attack to be the worst sort.

the USA is a Christian nation, in the sense that the vast majority of its citizens profess the Christian faith in one form, or another, to a greater, or lesser, degree. Legally, and constitutionally, of course, it is secular. Israel, in my understanding, is legally Jewish, but I do not really know. I do beleive that there are Christians and Muslims living peacefully in Israel. The threat to both Israel and the United States is coming from governments that are Islamic. Freedom of religion is very slight in these countries. I won't give any links. If you are interested in pursuing the subjects, a Google search will turn up numerous references.

[billbuckhead]

7. They hate America cause were stealing their oil and imposing puppet govern

ments. Bush treats Israel like an R&D department on keeping Arabs down, Gore, even with Lieberman wouldn't have done that. Also the Clinton administration stopped many big terrorist operations because they were more vigilant than this Bush misadministration. Al Gore wouldn't have been taking a monthlong August vacation when all of officila washington had it's hair on fire about an impending attack. I have to think the combination of a less repressive policy toward Arabs and more vigilance and hard work at home would had a better result.

[forgethell]

9. Well, I think you're wrong.

See my other post. As for the "less-repressive" policy toward the Arabs, you may not have noticed that every time they seem about to get something (in Palestine), they go crazy with their killings. That's because they think they can run the Israelis into the sea. Things quite down when they are "repressed". That does not mean that I approve of repression, only self-defense.

Naturally, we do need more hard work and vigilance. But it is ridiculous to think that because * went to Texas, that he was out of touch with what was going on. He has a staff to inform him of urgent events. Besides, his job is not to acquire all the information himself, but to ensure that the appropriate decisions are made, based on the information he receives. And to have the kind of organization in place that could give him the right information. Which he didn't have, but that was a problem that stretched back beyond him, beyond Clinton, beyond Bush 41, and Reagan.

And anyway, saying President Gore would have done better, or worse, for that matter, is sheer speculation, with no basis in fact, and no way to test the hypotheses.

[JamesA1102]

10. Gore wouldn't have cut $64 Million from the

anti-terrorism budget and demoted Richard Clarke as Bush did. Gore wouldn't have ceased Predator drone surveillance flights to track bin Laden or reassigned the cruise-missile equipped submarine stationed in the Indian Ocean with the specific mission of targeting bin Laden or reassigned the AC-130 gunships on scramble alert that could be on top of bin Laden after a six hour flight or suspended the special forces operations targeting bin Laden already based in Uzbekistan for the purpose (a treaty that was crafted and signed by Bill Clinton). All if which Bush did prior to 9/11.

[forgethell]

14. Tactics.

President Gore might well have chosen different tactics than did *. But would they have worked better? As well? Worse? We'll never know.

[kiahzero]

13. If a competent President were in office

it could have been prevented, just like the Millienium plot.

[forgethell]

15. So a competent President

would never make a mistake, never be out-smarted by an enemy, never overlook anything? That's God, not President *, not President Gore, not President (knock-on-wood) Kerry. I'm totally convinced that there will be another attack, not just before the election, but after it, no matter who is in office.

[kiahzero]

20. A competent President would have taken certain steps

One of those steps, forcing the Principals to pull any relevant information out of their organizations, would have resulted in the relevant pieces being put together. The Phoenix memo, the hijacker who was turned away by the FBI; the information was all there. All it would have taken was it being put together.

[AntiCoup2K4]

16. Bullshit.

Wake up. 9-11 was the "new Perle Harbor" called for in the PNAC agenda. And yes, the spelling was intentional.

[coloradodem2005]

2. People would still have jobs.

Thousands of people would still have lives (as in be alive).

[Massacure]

3. The envrionmental policies would have been left standing.

[tcfrogs]

4. I don't know about Gray Davis

Might have happened with Gore as Pres.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. I believe that Gore would have stopped 9/11

Gore would have spent as much time as Clinton fighting Osama Bin Laden. Gore would have done what he could: he wouldn't have ignored presidential daily briefings saying that Al Qaedia is likely to strike US. Bush* messed about with "missile defense" whereas Gore would have been tracking Al-Qaedia.

Clinton managed to stop the millennium bombings which I think would have happened under Bush* if he was president at the time.

[JayS]

21. "Clinton managed to stop the millennium bombings"

We have an alert Canadian to thank for this.

[Just Me]

17. OBL would be captured or dead regardless of whether 9/11 occurred.

We would not be in a clusterfuck in Iraq.

Tens of thousands of lives would still exist.

The rest of the world would not be viewing us as pariahs.

We would actually be winning the war against extremists because we would be part of an international effort.

There would be a helluva lot less protests *LOL*!!!

[MasonJar]

18. The warnings were there; Bush decided to ignore them. Gore

would have been on top of the pilot training and the aliens from Saudi. The Clinton/Gore team left a dossier on the terrorist threat, but Bush would not use any idea of Clinton's. Ergo the stupid flailing in the dark because the brilliant were cheated out of the election.

[jpgray]

19. Al Gore is a DLC whore, and would do the same things as Bush

Wait, I got trapped in a time-warp back to the arguments I heard from leftist editorials in 2000. ;-)

Those arguments are actually quite similar to those being leveled at Kerry currently. I think there is a conception among the Democratic strategists that going to the middle wins elections--for better or worse, that's where our candidates seem to be going, despite evidence (recent in Gore's case, not-so-recent in Kerry's) that the candidates are more liberal and progressive than their respective campaigns would indicate.

It is amusing to see those same leftists embrace Gore now that he has made that awesome speech--they will studiously ignore his unequivocal support of Kerry and his campaign in that same speech, however. :) People were wrong about the sort of man Al was in 2000, and it is a damned shame he isn't executing the office of the presidency right now.