If President Gore had failed to prevent 9/11 as Bush did, how would the media have treated him?

Question

Considering how they have ripped into Al Gore even when he has proven to be right (over and over and over) it seems likely the media would have blamed him for 9/11 if he had performed as disgracefully as Bush did that day.

But the Republican Bush got a free ride.

Answer 1

They would have thrown him under the bus, just like they are now after he won the Nobel prize. It's obvious the media is extremely biased to the right. One can see how obvious it is when one tune's into CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS etc etc.

Answer 2

I'm a liberal / libertarian (strange combo, I know), but as much as I hate, hate, hate the Bush/Cheney administration I don't fault them for not stopping 9/11.

9/11 was a terrorists masterpiece and it would have happened regardless of who was president.

And I think most people and the media seem to understand that. I've read some articles criticizing Bush for not stopping it but it seems like those arguements never gain traction.

In theory the media might have been a bit harsher on Gore because they could say that his presidency was a continuation of the Clinton/Gore era, and thus they could have made the argument that Al Queida planned the whole thing and carried it out during Clinton/Gore.

But despite the shameless politicalization of 9/11 the fact remains that Al Queida and radical Muslim terrorists DON'T CARE whether Democrats or Republicans are in office and contrary to Bush/Cheney assertions they aren't "afraid" or intimidated by harsh rhetoric from Republicans. Most of them don't even know the difference between one party or the other. They simply regard America as their enemy and they want to attack us.

What I do think would have been very different is Gore's approach. I believe that he also would have attacked Al Queida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But I believe after that he wouldn't have gotten us into the quagmire in Iraq.

Answer 3

President Who? I know an ex Vice President Gore, but not a President Gore. See, despite what you whiny libs have been crying about for 8 years, our President Bush WON the election. Your liberal organizations like the NYTimes and the ACLU counted and recounted those votes and tried really hard to prove that our President Bush stole the election, but they discovered that he actually won the popular vote.

Further, our President Bush did not "perform disgracefully" as you so desperately want to believe. While the Secret Service wanted to take our President elsewhere, he INSISTED that he be taken back to Washington. Now, if you're still referring to how he didn't jump up and scream at the kindergarteners "Oh my God! We under attack! It's a tragedy!" and scare the hell out of them, but remained calm, instead, I don't see how anyone with reason can think that is acting "disgracefully."

Further, allow me to point out that the person who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore, refused it because of the continuing unwarranted scare of global warming.

Answer 4

Who is President Gore? Did I fall asleep for like a hundred years or something?

Answer 5

its nobody fault but the cia and fbi,they could have prevented it but they did nothing.i'm liberal but i think the liberal media shouldn't have attacked bush because of 9/11 and the conservative media shouldn't blame the clinton admnistration ,if u want to blame some1 blame the people in charge of protecting this country,no not the president he's just a spear head,blame the cia,fbi,and nsa.

Answer 6

They would have ripped into him same as they did to Bush. People are never happy with the people in charge they will blame them for something.

Answer 7

The media ripped into Gore? Have you lost your mind? He has media lipstick on his zipper! If 911 had happened under him, it would have been deemed unstoppable. He would still be discussing whether or not to invade Afghanistan with the UN, and having a hard time deciding whether we should add more sanctions to Sadaam.

Answer 8

in no way attempting is WORSE! as a results of fact in case you think of roughly it, you ought to surely try something new and fail at it top away, yet failing is what helps you learn! Failing helps you artwork out a thank you to appropriate the errors! as a results of fact if we in no way failed faster or later in our lives, needless to say each and every little thing we've completed is in simple terms too complication-free for us! and there is incredibly no longer something relaxing approximately something being way too complication-free for us! think of of this as a video pastime. in case you fail at a undeniable point a great form of cases, this is okay, as a results of fact as you artwork out further and extra approaches to edit what you're doing incorrect, you could in simple terms beat that time! yet once you in no way attempt to conquer that time, then once you invite a buddy over to play an identical pastime and you're hopelessly failing to pass that time, you would be embarrassed! in case you in no way try, you will in no way understand. yet once you fail, a minimum of you might have some potential to conquer your previous errors! base line: in case you do no longer try, you will fail immediately. yet once you attempt to fail, you will at last learn how to get solid at it in case you preserve at it.

Answer 9

Gore was blaming Clinton for everything long before the rest of us starting blaming Bush for everything.

Answer 10

They would have ripped the Republican controlled Congress.

Answer 11

I see nothing disgraceful in what Bush did. Perhaps you can give us particulars. Gore would have been handled with kid gloves, as the lib media does with most bleeding hearts.