How do you think Al Gore would have dealt with Sept,11, 2001?

Question

Would he have actually D O N E anything about the murder of 3000
civilians? Except talk?
I can't see that he ever did anything in the 8 years he was VP

Answer 1

He would have done what most good Democrats, would do.
And that is spin it

Make the opposition party (Republicans) the bad guy.

Which is what the Democrats and their legion of followers continue to do, even today.

They will do and say whatever they have to say to avoid taking responsibility for the 1992- 2000 debacle that was the Clinton
White House.

Now that Madeline Albright is in the Foreign Relations Consulting Business, all we hear from her was how proactive Clinton was, about foreign relations ---- right

Bombing an aspirin Factory ?

Clinton and his minions were more concerned with facade
and having all nations love him

Gore worked for Clinton and did nothing to stem the tide of Global terrorism.

Why would he have done anything even remotely proactive
after 9/11 ?

Gores answer to the Terrorists would have been throwing money at them and hoping they would go away, and blame the Republicans.

I'm sure whatever house or senate hearings that would have taken place after 9/11 in a Gore White House, would have blamed W's Dad for the attack or blame Newt or blame W's Mom

very lame Party Gore belongs too

Answer 2

I do not think that the bombing would have occurred. He would not have had to deal with it. I think that the people that Clinton had in roles in the intelligence community would have survived the transitions for the most part and the awareness that was prevalent before Bush came into office would have stayed in the forefront. Gore was aware of bin Laden. He had encountered the name on multiple occasions as a a Senator in Committee hearings. He had been part of an Administration that had already bombed the training camps of the al- Queda.

I doubt Gore would have gotten every single relative on bin Laden out of the United States under Government protection within 48 hours of the bombing. Like "the Shrub" did.

With the Bush family ties to the Saud royal family (a group of people bin Laden hates) and the Bush family ties to the CIA, you have to really wonder what things would have been like. I feel that Bush being President fueled the fire for any attack that occurred. His proven ignorance of International Politics and out right white washing of existing pre-9/11 intelligence regarding the impending attack demonstrates that Bush didn't sparkle.

Answer 3

Of course he would have done something. Do you honestly believe he would have done things differently? Of course Al Gore would have done things in precisely the same way, except for one thing.

The only difference is he wouldn't have made the leap from Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein. That is probably the only difference.

I think you must be either really young or politically naive, because you overlook the fact that all presidents have advisors who are experts on those issues who advise the president when something like that comes up.

You can't, for example, suggest to anyone that there are Democrats in the FBI or CIA who would suggest something different to Al Gore than the Republicans in the FBI or CIA who would suggest something entirely differently. That does not make sense.

Given what happened on Sept. 11, Al Gore or George Bush, or Bob Dole or anyone else would have made exactly the same decision given the same sets of circumstances that President Bush had, when he got that information.

I think it is really foolish to presume that the people who the President depends on are so biased by party loyalty that they can't see the forest for the trees.

The only people I know who are characteristically biased along party lines are young people between the ages of 15 and 30. Party affiliation is not for loyalty. It is for building consensus and for for building a power coalition. When situational ethics come up, like Pearl Harbor for Franklin D. Roosevelt or Sept. 11 for President Bush, party loyalty is about the farthest thing from their minds.

Get a life, dude. Hating the Democrats might be fashionable, but it doesn't do much for critical thinking skills.

Answer 4

GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL

Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results.

Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.

Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!

Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.

So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.

Joe...


KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.

Answer 5

I imagine that he would have invaded Afghanistan as well. The American people wanted a response after September 11th, and as the President, he would have been forced to provided one.

I'm not a huge fan of Gore by any means, but I have to say in his defense that a VP can't really do much even if he wants to.

Answer 6

Gore?
we would be in a much much better postition.
here is why, this is very important.

1)During the summer of 01 before Sept the CIA knew something was goint down.......they prepared a PDB.
Gore wouldn't have been on vaction

2) Gore wouldn't have brushed it off, would have continued meeting with his anti terrorism chief. Bush never once met with him. not once.

3) And when we went into Afganistan, there was a breakdown between the CIA and teh Dept of Defence....

ie Rumsfeld didn't like taking orders from teh CIA, the CIA was ready to strike Osamas camp in Afganistan.
the DoD did not support the CIA and send in real ground forces.....Osama got away at the battle of Tora Bora.

NO Rumsfeld, we would have sent in troops into Tora Bora to really capture Osama...

CHECK THIS OUT>>>>>

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

everything you need to know.

Answer 7

He wouldn't have had to deal with it. He would have still had the anti-terrorism group that was established in the Clinton White House in place, not put on the "back burner" while his administration was more concerned with getting their oil and gas buddies some more government hand outs. Gore wouldn't have ignored the warnings about "Bin Laden determined to Strike in the US." He would have listened to Richard Clarke when he warned that Al Queda was up to something "major", and had the FBI and CIA intensify their efforts to find out what Bin Laden was up to.

Answer 8

Your comments beg the question, who were the perpetrators of 9/11? Do you have solid proof of who did it? Not some hogwash that doesn't survive the scrutiny of science. Give us some irrefutable proof who did that and I can tell you what Gore would have done after that.

Answer 9

No one can be certain but I suspect he may have been concerned when his national security adviser told him that Bin Laden was was planning to hijack an American commercial flight. He may have been decent enough to grant the families and loved ones of the victims a 9/11 Commission to answer their questions without making them fight for it.

Answer 10

I think that CIA , Department Heads of Terrorist ,and Gore would of been on the deck out by the duck pond smoken stogies learning all he could to fix the problem...

I don't think he would of walked away...