Liberals, if Gore or Kerry were in office today.......?

Question

how would things be different? And please, do not tell me they would have withdrawn the troops by now! I want serious, solid answers. How would they have handled 9/11, since by your standards what Bush has done is not sufficient? What about taxes? Immigration? Economy? Unemployment?

I hear the complaints, and yes I do spend time thinking about them and try to find merit in your arguements. I am NOT looking for name calling and nastiness, I am open to a true and honest debate however~!

Hey Tell Me Another One..... wasn't the PATRIOT Act voted upon and PASSED by our Congress. So I ask you again, what would be different?

Longhaired....OK, so what would he have done? If he were president, I would assume that he would have received all of the intelligence that Bush did. You know, all of the British, Russian, Israeli et al intelligence that said Saddam had the weapons and the capability to attack. And remember, we were a "wounded dog" at the time.

Answer 1

Kerry and/or Gore would be running through a field of daisy's holding hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il celebrating world peace.

-----

Oh, and they would have ignored the states leadership rights in New Orleans and made the DEMOCRAT governor and mayor use the written evacuation plans, which had been in place for 10 years to evacuate the city when the hurricane was known to be headed there.

------------------

And they would have known Iraq was "not a threat"--

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
September 23, 2002

Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.

The New York Times
February 13, 2002

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Senator John Kerry
March 17, 2003

"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
March 20, 2003

Answer 2

Reviewing what we know about 9/11, it's almost certain that the attacks would have taken place regardless of who was in office (preparations were underway before the election).

The genius of this country is centered in great part around its ability to achieve compromise. Think about it - the foundation of this nation is based on the balance of power, freedom of expression and rule of law. And after 9/11, under Bush, that came to and end.

Balance of power ceased to exist, with the rubber-stamp Republican Congress, and the Supreme Court bench stacked with conservatives. And the administration used this political capital to the hilt.

Freedom of speech came under the greatest assault since the McCarthy era, where disapproval of the Bush administration was voiced as unpatriotic and un-American. People label each other hatefully as 'conservative' and 'liberal', as if only one deserves to be a true American.

And the end of the rule of law, that's still unwinding to this very day - the Bush administration has demonstrated clear contempt and utter disregard for the laws of this nation. And if it becomes apparent that they have broken the law, they simply change the law, aided and abetted the Republican Congress.

People who call themselves conservatives scream and kick and yell against any and all criticism of the Bush administration, but they are themselves betrayed:

It would be hard to imagine any other administration, Democratic or Republican, that was as utterly irresponsible and perpetrated so much mismanagement as the one currently in power.

People seem to not understand that it has nothing to do with ideology or political alignment. I've heard a number of lifelong Republicans who believe that the Bush presidency is the worst in the history of this nation. It's about corruption, horrific mistakes, total incompetence in international relations and profound mismanagement. These aren't complaints. This is what's happened.

So, a snapshot of how things would be different with any other leader, regardless of political party? Maybe something like this:

-The Federal budget would be in far better shape without $1b a week for the Iraq war, enormous corporate welfare for oil companies that are making historical profits and tax breaks for the wealthy. The wealthy and corporate America would be asked to pay their fair share, and we would be in a position to do something about social security, etc.

- The average American worker, being free of such punitive tax programs as the AMT, would be able to save more, and have greater spending power, which would increase the value of the dollar and bolsters of overall economy. We would not find ourselves in 2007 teetering on the edge of another recession.

- The war in Afghanistan would be in much better shape, since the entire world would not have been alienated by an ill-advised invasion of Iraq. The US military would be free to act in areas of actual threat, such as Iran and North Korea, and they would have much greater international support, which would bring the Iranians and N. Koreans to the table much faster.

- The US would be in much better shape to address the true dangers, such as the trade deficit with China, who use virtual slave labor to produce goods for Americans, and then use the massive profits to lend us money. Clinton began a program with Cambodia where US companies would agree to buy goods that had been produced by manufacters using fair labor practices, and it worked - until thrown out by Bush.

Answer 3

TAXES WOULD HAVE REMAINED THE SAME OR PROBABLY WOULD HAVE GONE UP. REMEMBER TO THE DEMS THE WEALTHY IS ANY ONE WITH A PAYCHECK. AS FOR 9/11 GORE WOULD HAVE CURLED UP IN THE FETAL POSITION & CRIED. OR HE WOULD HAVE SAID THAT THE DUST FROM THE COLLAPSING TOWERS COTRIBUTED TO GLOBAL WARMING. IMMIGRATION WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE SINCE THE DEMS SUPPORT OPEN BORDERS. AS FOR KERRY HE WOULD MANDATE EVERYBODY BY HEINZ KETCHUP. THE ECONOMY WOULD BE IN A RECESSION BY NOW.

Answer 4

We would not have been at war in Iraq in the first place. We would have gone after AlQaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Our deficit would have been much lower by now, if we had one at all. We would have affordable health care (presuming Congress passed it. With neocons in charge doubtful) We would be giving incentives for people and companies who can bring us technology that will significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 2010.

As for 9/11, they would have had jets scrambled in time to prevent some if not all of the crashes.

The clean up from Katrina would have been complete with people receiving the help they truly needed. Levees would be a priority.

People's rights would be respected. No Patriot Act.

We would not be having hearings and investigations for some new scandal due to corruption that we have now.

I believe Gore would have been better than Kerry but even under Kerry things would be quite different then we have now. Things would be much better.

Answer 5

They are afraid to answer the question because it leads to what they inevitably know would have happened....we would have gone into Iraq, the Patriot Act would have passed, we would still be in Afghanistan.

The truth to the Radical Liberals is like sunlight to a vampire...

Answer 6

the main difference is that the government would have still been balance as opposed to what Bush had.. which was a ticket to do whatever he wanted pretty much by a Congress and Supreme Court from his own party... our government is designed to work on checks and balances... none of the 3 branches had anyone to keep them in check over the past 6 years.. and that causes failure in the government.

Answer 7

They would have gone after the one who are responsible for terrorism against the U.S., not invading countries for their own financial reasons. They would have put much much more money into making the U.S. independent from mid east oil. In short, securing America for the long term. Not screwing us like this administration has.

Answer 8

We would be kneeling on prayer rugs facing Mecca with a Koran in our hands and a sword over our heads.

Answer 9

How should we know? I don't own a crystal ball. But I have to assume that, as Democrats, they would never have allowed the PATRIOT Act to pass as written. They wouldn't have invaded Iraq without just provocation or without a plan.

Answer 10

President Gore would not have invaded Iraq.