Hard to tell. If he followed the Clinton path, he would have tried to take a remote way out, bombing and missile attacks on Afghanistan. I tend to doubt if he would have sent ground forces into Afghanistan like George did. He would have been no more successful than Bush at finding Osama.
There would have been no War on Terrorism, and we wouldn't have taken out Saddam. He would still be in charge of Iraq, making billions off of the UN scams, supplying various terrorist groups with funding and safe harbor, and Al Qaeda would be stronger than it is now. The tenuous contacts detailed in the 9/11 Commission report between Iraq and Al Qaeda would probably have developed into stronger ties and we would be facing even deeper issues than we do now.
2007-03-30 01:57:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by thegubmint 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
I am quite sure he would not have loaded an airliner full of Saudis (and Bin Laden relatives), whisking them out of the country before anyone could ask them one single question.
I also don't think he would have squandered the opportunity that presented itself for some sort of world (or a big chunk of it) togetherness against terrorists. Unlike Bush, who smugly looked into the camera and said, "You're either with us, or against us." It just isn't that simple, that black & white -- life never is.
His bravado, such as it was/is, was soon overshadowed by his shallowness. Nothing has changed since then, except that
there will now be some oversight provided by Congress, who prior to the '06 elections just rubber stamped everything, with no regards to what the experts like the general who said they would need several hundreds of thousands of troops going into Iraq, only to be fired for merely telling them the truth, How's that for honoring a life long soldier, who had bravely fought to defend this country? Has that General received an apology? No sir, because as Bush said not to long after that, he couldn't recall not even one mistake that he or his admin had made. sheesh. You can't make this stuff up; You wouldn't want to.
2007-03-30 01:58:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by c.n. 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Gore would have handled it EXACTLY the same way. In many ways, it is a shame Bush is our president. If Gore had done what Bush had done, Gore would have the support of most Democrats and ALL Republicans. The war would be over now.
2007-03-30 01:40:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Gore lost the votes in his residing house state via stating his plan for banning all gasoline powered automobiles via 2003. All he had intentions of doing is enforcing environmental applications by using fact the utmost human beings making an investment in the democratic campaign that 365 days have been environmental lobbyists. same ones as a rule investment John Kerry's campaign besides. the priority is democrats push the 'anti conflict' information to the front of the information as u.s. ignores the spending applications they bypass that advance our taxes. i could overall prefer to work out a sparkling political social gathering style that may no longer as corrupt as the two that are in Congress and making a mockery of our great united states.
2016-12-08 14:24:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The true Bush detractors are going to tell you the 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore were elected, because Bush orchestrated it.
HAHAHAHAHA
Gore would have rolled over and done nothing, just like his wuss buddy Clinton. Maybe, he would have ordered the launch of one or two cruise missiles.
2007-03-30 01:43:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Probably still talking about it, making threats, depending on the UN to do something. Hell, they cant even get together to condemn Iran for the capture of the Britt's. To many of the member countries have an Axe to grind or, a political reason not to do what is right.
We would also be looking at TV to see where the latest attack in the US happened today.
2007-03-30 02:02:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by bigmikejones 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not sure of what is immediate moves would have been , but I am sure of one thing. He would not have gotten us in a war in Iraq with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Something that will go down as the biggest mistake in foreign affairs in our nation's history.
2007-03-30 01:43:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Frank R 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think its a shame we didn't have someone better to vote for besides gore and bush, but to answer the question I think at least for the first few years -Iraq he would have handled it the same
2007-03-30 06:21:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Justin H 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Hate to use a SNL thing here, but Gore would of locked those terrorists in a "locked box" and only he and his vice president would know where the key to that locked box is......
2007-03-30 01:44:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
First of all, I firmly believe that we would not have been attacked under a Gore admin. They (Clinton admin.) were very focused on foreign terrorism and prevented all [major] prior efforts.
But to play along with your premise, it would have most likely been a direct and [mostly] covert assault on Al Quaida, namely Usama Bin Laden and group. one must remember that it was the Clinton admin. that first experienced al quaida 1993 twin tower and successfully prevented terror attacks and were fully aware of that organization, hence the 1998 missle strike on training camps in Afghanistan.
2007-03-30 02:44:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by william r 2
·
1⤊
1⤋