English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

IT'S GUARANTEED THEY WOULD!! CAN YOU IMAGINE THE SWIFT BOAT STYLE SMEAR CAMPAIGN HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO SUFFER THROUGH WHEN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEKING RE-ELECTION!

I AM SORT OF HAPPY BUSH&CO. WAS ABLE TO STEAL THE ELECTION AND WIN WITH A MINORITY OF THE VOTES. THIS IS A STAIN ON THEIR REPUTATION. IT WAS THE BEGINNING OF A LONG LIST OF NEOCON FAILURES THAT CONTINUE TO THIS DAY.

2006-08-07 13:11:06 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

TO MAC; TAKE YOUR MEDS. WHAT DO JEWS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS QUESTION?

2006-08-07 13:18:38 · update #1

13 answers

If Al Gore was president, as he should have been, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Maybe Gore would have taken the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) seriously and since he wouldn't have been on vacation at the time on his ranch in Texas, maybe they could have somehow found a way to prevent it. So when people say, "boy we sure dodged a bullet by having Bush in the White House instead of Gore", that's ridiculous. Maybe Gore could have prevented 9/11

2006-08-07 13:58:39 · answer #1 · answered by grrandram 7 · 1 4

Another questioner with an agenda, rather than a desire to discuss something..Imagine that...

This is a set up for Republicans to talk about how ineffective Gore would have been on 9-11, another way to cover for Bush's halting and incompetent response.

As for your "question". If Gore was President on 9-11-2001, a lot of things would have been different. Perhaps he would have heeded the Presidential daily brief from early August, 2001 that was headlined something like "Al Queda Plans To Strike US Using Airplanes" and done some more checking, or put the FAA on alert. Certainly Gore's Presidential daily briefs would have been longer, more complete. It was because Bush did not like to read that they were cut from 8 pages to 4. Gore undoubtedly would have gotten the full 8 pages.

But of course, so many things would have been different that it's so speculative to say what would have happened. Gore however, was well aware of the Al Queda group, and he had tried to have Bush's people thoroughly briefed on it during the transition in November or December 2000. The Bush people blew the Clintonites off on this, they didn't think it was important enough to listen to these security briefings. During the spring and early summer of 2001 Richard Clark became frantic because he had bits and pieces of intelligence, an overwhelming amount of these bits and pieces, that indicated a terrorist strike was imminent, but the Bush administration blew him off.

One thing for sure, we would not have gotten involved in a war against Saddam Hussein, we would not be occupying Iraq now, and we would not be following a hare brained ideology of trying to spread democracy to the middle east and possibly Cuba!
.
Since the Republican were the ones who impeached Clinton, the Dems never having tried that stunt, it is likely they would have tried to impeach Gore for some trivial thing if their digging did not produce anything of substance such as a crime or high misdemeanor. So, yes, it's likely the Republicans would have tried to impeach Gore as soon as possible to nullify his election.

2006-08-07 20:35:28 · answer #2 · answered by TxSup 5 · 0 0

I think any impeachment of Al Gore if he were president would have to do with his utter lack of response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and his inability to deal with the dozens or hundreds of terrorists attacks that would have by now taken place on American soil. If Al Gore had been president on September 11, 2001, it would now be open season on America because I sincerely believe he would have reacted to terrorist attacks on Americans on American soil the same way his predecessor did, which was to arrest some people and lob a few cruise missiles at Afghanistan. Despite George W. Bush's foibles, I thank the Lord every day that he is president of the United States. He had the courage to take the fight to the terrorists, something the Perjurer-in-Chief never did. I also thank the Lord every day that the terrorist attacks that are now happening against Americans are happening overseas and not at kindergartens, churches, synagogues, and senior centers in the United States. A million thanks also to those in uniform who are on the front lines protecting our country and our children (and even you!) from these vermin. A million more thanks to those who have given their lives in this fight and to their families and loved ones.

One more thing. Get the f*** over the 2000 election. Al Gore LOST!!

May God bless and keep you.

2006-08-07 20:22:19 · answer #3 · answered by blowry007 3 · 0 0

Al Gore: "I invented the internet."

Transcript: Vice President Gore on CNN's 'Late Edition'

BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.

Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?

GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I invented the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.


Ken Lay Bragged That Gore Had "Solicited" His Views On Global Warming.

"In an August 1997 memo by Mr. Lay to all Enron employees, the chairman said Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore had 'solicited' his view on how to address the issue of global warning 'in advance of a climate treaty to be negotiated at an internationalconference.' That memo said Mr. Clinton agreed a market-based solution, such as
emissions trading, was the answer to reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."(Jerry Seper, "Enron Gave Cash To Democrats, Sought Pact Help," The Washington Times,
January 16, 2002)

The Clinton-Gore Administration's Global Warming Agreement Would Have Helped Enron.

"The Clinton administration's interest in an international agreement to combat global warming also dovetailed with Enron's business plans. Enron officials envisioned the company at the center of a new trading system,in which industries worldwide could buy and sell credits to emit carbon dioxide as
part of a strategy to reduce greenhouse gases. Such a system would curtail the use of inefficient coal-fired power plants that emitted large amounts of carbon dioxide,while encouraging new investments in gas-fired plants and pipelines -- precisely Enron'sline of business." (Dan Morgan, "Enron Also Courted Democrats,"
The Washington Post, January 13, 2002)

2006-08-07 20:15:53 · answer #4 · answered by Boredstiff 5 · 0 0

First off, please take the "caps lock" off.

As for your question, we will never know, now will we?

People keep asking that question in one form or another, as if Bush did this stupendous job on things. No one knows how the situation would have been handled with someone else as president because GW is president. He is the only one that had to handle the situation. So how can you even ask that question, and PRETEND to know the answer?

I agree with you that GW and his cronies aren't doing such a bang up job, but this question has been asked so many times (mostly by conservatives and Republicans trying to make liberals/democrats look like they couldn't handle things their way) that it's rather sickening.

The answer: No one knows how anyone else would have handled it.

2006-08-07 20:20:05 · answer #5 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0 0

Without a doubt. Maybe they would have complained about the 2000 Election.

2006-08-07 20:16:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, seeing as how conservatives never called for Clinton's impeachment based on all the terrorist attacks that occured on his watch, no. We tend to support America during it's rough times.

2006-08-07 20:18:06 · answer #7 · answered by dasher 2 · 0 0

Yes because he would have invited Al-qaeda to a pow wow to smoke the peace pipe and sing Koom-bi-ya.

2006-08-07 20:18:05 · answer #8 · answered by Ethan M 5 · 0 0

you are an antisemite neocon is another way of saying u hate jews. u need to learn the meaning of words before u use them

2006-08-07 20:16:15 · answer #9 · answered by mac 3 · 0 0

I wouldn't, but I can't imagine the democrats in his cabinet having the know how to take care of us.

2006-08-07 20:14:28 · answer #10 · answered by jpxc99 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers