What would Al Gore have done?

[Eric Coffey]

Yeah, Gore would be Ok, until his internal operating system and hard drive crashed. Seriously, Gore scares me.

[dd74]

Getting back to Tabs' question, which in itself is pejorative and not very well-founded because it invites conjecture in the past tense (read: waste of time), Gore's actions nonetheless, would be nothing near that of Bush's. His (Gore's) resulting answer to 9/11 would be weak at best. There would be a lot of talk, a lot of second-guessing, poor judgment and an overall scenario much worse than Bosnia or Somalia, because in the case of Bin Laden, the enemy would be laughing in our battered, blown off and humiliated faces. Clinton's foreign policy was horrible and out-of-date. Thinking he would have a legacy to uphold (though he didn't, which was his downfall as he never invited Clinton to campaign for him - a foolish mistake), Gore would maintain like-minded policy as Clinton. Let's see, while Clinton was getting head from White House aides, millions of Bosnians were comparing their Croatian torturers to Hitler, and Somalian warlords were running drugs, raping women and generally thumbing their noses at the US as it told them to (in Clinton talk) "Ya'll stop that." And even as these issues resolved (or perpetuated) themselves before 9/11, the history of inaction on the Democrats part exists - I would expect no better from Gore or Clinton. That administration was very weak on the World Stage, thinking that as long as Britain remained our lap dog, everything was fine with the rest of the world.

Bush did the absolute correct thing with Afghanistan. Iraq will need more time to see his correctitude. Thus far, I'm not convinced. Nevertheless, Afghanistan needed decisive action right away because as Tabs more or less pointed out, 9/11 did for a very finite amount of time, deeply hurt the United States. Put Gore in that scenario and we'd still be having continual terror alerts and US nationals abroad crouching in fear. Democrats make lousy foreign policy. Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton. The world is not lovesick and nice. It does, on many occasions, need to be dealt a heavy hand, but in a directed and poignant manner.

So in short answer to the three questions: 1) The world reax would be the U.S. is soft - we'd be further sufferers of terrorist action; 2) Public hatred of a hog-tied president, impotent in action and decision making; 3) We'd plummet into a depression unlike any seen, dragging Europe and Asia along with us.

Remember: Nixon stopped Vietnam after LBJ dug us deeper and deeper into it; Reagan brought our credibility back to the Middle East after Carter lost it; Bush Sr. kicked Sadamn's ass out of Kuwait, and Jr. effectively disabled Al Queda, even if Bin Laden has not yet been caught. In short, jobs got done, which in a volatile world needs to be seen.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by Eric Coffey
Yeah, Gore would be Ok, until his internal operating system and hard drive crashed. Seriously, Gore scares me.

No kidding! Did anyone see his SNL episode? That guy is a better actor than Robert DeNiro, Christopher Walken, or any of the other "actors" they've had host in recent years.

Except The Rock. That man can act.

[tabs]

Originally posted by dd74
Getting back to Tabs' question, which in itself is pejorative and not very well-founded because it invites conjecture in the past tense (read: waste of time).

So in short answer to the three questions: 1) The world reax would be the U.S. is soft - we'd be further sufferers of terrorist action; 2) Public hatred of a hog-tied president, impotent in action and decision making; 3) We'd plummet into a depression unlike any seen, dragging Europe and Asia along with us.

Ahhh DD hate to clue U, but these boards are ALL A WASTE OF TIME! Whats new? But what do you have thats better to do?

I suspect the State Department, DOD, Treasury Dept. CIA etall.. (Americas Bureaucracy) and Congress would have told Gore in no uncertain terms that he had to take decisive action or there would be no economy or country left. Therfore Gore would have
invaded Afganistan...for better or worse. Beyond that I think DD is correct.

The point of this exercise is for people who have criticized GW and the course of action he has taken. This is supposed to make those people think what the alternative was and the likely outcome of the decisions the other canidate would have made.

[RickM]

DD74, I completely agree with your post. Well said.

[dd74]

Originally posted by tabs
I suspect the State Department, DOD, Treasury Dept. CIA etall.. (Americas Bureaucracy) and Congress would have told Gore in no uncertain terms that he had to take decisive action or there would be no economy or country left. Therfore Gore would have
invaded Afganistan...for better or worse.

Interesting thought. The only problem is Gore happens to be a phenomenally bad conveyor of information. He doesn't even possess the ability at double-talk Clinton has, or forethought to consider obscuring truths with half-truths and half-truths with well-orated lies. And to maintain his constituency, if not the truth and his resolve within the American people, Gore would need to "communicate" that attacking Afghanistan is needed. But could he? Clearly? No.

1) Gore is a lousy speaker - that's a given. He huffs and puffs during debates, rolls his eyes, and looks fantastically juvenile.

2) Of Gore's inability to communicate, being a lousy speaker would render Gore's reasoning behind an attack on Afghanistan ill-explained, unclear, and not thought out, unlike Bush who poignantly said, (sic) "It is them. They did it. Here is where they are. This is why we attack."

3) Gore would have the Democrats and Republicans in a confused state of mind because of his poor communication - again unclear - and the war on terror would suffer the second-guessing I mention in my first post, rendering that war not nearly as potent as it currently is under Bush. Even if information on who instigated 9/11 were, depending upon how you look at it, as sketchy or clear cut, Gore would muddy it unlike Bush who thankfully "acted" Presidential, "acted" as angry as the rest of us, and "acted" like he wanted to vindicate the U.S.

4) Okay, the powers that be, DOD and likewise, would tell Gore what to say, but none of the decision-making would be of his own volition. By all rights, any attempt at vindication under Gore would probably lead us into a worse mess than under Bush. With Gore, the various departments used to vindicate the U.S. would become free-for-alls, and act on their own, which is what happened with Clinton's administration because Clinton had no control over the CIA, FBI, DOD, etc. Yes, he had "yes men," in those agencies, but no clear control. Only when 9/11 happened and Bush put his foot down, did any sort of coalescing begin.

Of course in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, one could argue that Bush was nowhere to be found and Guliani was, at the time, our only leader. In fact, as in-line with Bush as the media wanted to portray itself throughout the Afghan campaign, it (the media) was immediately critical of Bush only hours after 9/11, saying he was the missing president and Guliani was our true leader. All of this is a red herring; countermeasures to protect the president in case of an attack are always taken. In fact, it was quite exciting how they shuttled Jr. around from airbase to airbase, then stuck him down a big elevator shaft somewhere in the Midwest to protect his safety.

[turbo6bar]

I hope you're happy now tabs. Gore read this thread. He's pissed.

Gore News Network

[ronin]

problem with that is: will anyone listen???

[tabs]

Originally posted by tabs
Gore would have invaded Afganistan...for.... worse.

Then what your essentially saying is that if Gore had been President the country would have fallen. I would have thought the government would have gone around Gore, either leaving him high and dry in the WH, impeached, or worse. But the aspect of having no central control among the various agencies, and their free wheeling it would lead to chaos in our government.

The effects of which are:

1. Collapse of Global Security and then the Global econmy. If the USA is attacked and doesn't take decisive action to remedy the situation then the USA has no credibility....and since the USA is the only Superpower, a power vacume occurs, and it's open season not just on the USA but on everybody, cause we ain't there to stop it.

2.Politically in the USA...lynch mobs would form to lynch Gore and any supporters he might still have...The possiblity exists that the military might seize control to restore order...thus ending the Repblic.

3. The US economy and Global economies would fail....this would lead to the civil unrest as described above. It would be like dominos...the dollar would fall in value, Treasury Bonds would become worthless as foreigners pulled their money, interest rates would go through the moon, the Stock Market and Banks would collapse....and a world wide economic Dark Ages would descend on the world.

Remember each of the three areas I described above would not be acting independently of each other but would be interwined in one he!! of a domino effect. Also one other point Andrew Cuomo and Charles Daly would have been worthless...in other words the Gore administration wouldn't have a clue...it might as well be Peter Jennings...

My orginal posts on this Board indicated that the above would be likely to happen if the USA were to continue to be subject to successfull Terrorist attacks on the scale of 911. No matter who the President is. This is why I believe the war on Terrorism is do or die for this nation.

[tabs]

PS...One point of clarification...I don't see Bush as an actor...I believe he is genuine...an actor would never have used the word "crusade" in any articulation of policy toward the Islamic world. An actor would have had the fore thought to avoid such a gaff. Also just take a look at how his jaw clenchs and his beady eyes come together...focus when he hears something that makes him angry.

[speeder]

Tabs, You're imagination is a wonderful thing. Don't ever change!

And Bush's use of the word "crusade" in reference to the Islamic world was not a sign of genuine sincerity, (as in 'not an actor'), but rather a sign of dangerous, abject stupidity and complete ignorance of even "square one" knowledge of that (huge) part of the world and its history. I would rather have Gore, or almost anyone else, at the wheel right now.

Saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said, "United We Stand" in front of the U.S. flag. If it was in front of the globe, or at least NATO, for chrisakes, it would have made a rat's ass worth of sense. Idiots.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by speeder

Saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said, "United We Stand" in front of the U.S. flag. If it was in front of the globe, or at least NATO, for chrisakes, it would have made a rat's ass worth of sense. Idiots.

Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever. A country united behind its troops and leaders against "the enemy" is not an idiotic concept.

Though depending on your point of view, we may or may not be united, I don't see how you can label someone an idiot for making the statement.

[island911]

"Huh!?" was exactly what I was thinking too.

In trying to decipher what speeder is saying. . .I believe he is saying it is short-sighted to say "United we stand" in the context of just the USA . . .it should be in context of the world standing united against terrorism. (?)

So would someone kindly make speeder a bumpersticker that has the words "United we stand" coming out of the mouth of Captin Planet ?

Oh, and that American Flag thing . . . we don't need that around either. . .it just so smacks of some sort of special interest, that the WORLD just doesn't need. . .. just who do we think we are!?

[dd74]

Colin and Dr. I. : I believe I understand what Denis is saying, and he has a good point (if I am correct); because the fear abroad is Iraq may be just the iceberg's tip in a global business strategy which heavily weighs in the U.S.'s favor.

This morning Radio Pacifica, whose veracity in general I take with a grain of salt, had a guest speaker who suggested a group of Saudis that wanted to infuse Iraq with cellular phone service was disabled by the U.S. military and not allowed entry into Iraq. Why? Because the contract for cellular phone deployment in Iraq has already been awarded -- to MCI. Yes, THAT MCI.

It's becoming clear that U.S. efforts in Iraq aren't entirely gratis, but are also hinged on big business making some $$$ from the rebuilding process. And that Democracy anywhere in the Mid-East = big contracts and services.

We'll see if it comes down to an invasion of Iran or Syria. If so, they'll infrastructure will be wiped out, as is the case with Iraq, and new life-oriented services will have to be installed. If this is the case again, I'll be first in line to buy stock in MCI, GM and Ralston-Purina.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Captain Planet....BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

You slay me!

[speeder]

OK, OK. You're right. No wait, you're not.

Idiots would be people who think that the NASCAR crowd, (or whoever the 20% of registered voters who "elected" Bush is), united against the rest of the world, including our recent former close allies, = security for us.

Those would be idiots. The beautiful U.S. flag, while we're at it, somewhere along the way got co-opted by the right wing as a symbol, (and they are not even close to being a majority of U.S. citizens)!, by the type of people who freely use soldiers lives as political props. As in, "not supporting the current administration and their wrong-headed foreign policy=not supporting troops", anyone who claims this at this juncture is an idiot. Add our draft-avoidiing, aircraft carrier posing, sissy-hawk, "bring 'em on" to Iraq attackers president to the list of idiots.

He'll be looking for a new business to run into the ground around this time next year, and our grandchildren will be paying for his stupidity.

[speeder]

After re-reading my last posts, I realize that I should not have had that 2nd double-shot @ Starbuck's one hour ago. I'm unusually pissed today.

I DO NOT think that everyone expressing their patriotism on their cars is an idiot, and furthermore, free expression is what makes this country great.

As Arnold would say, "sorry if I offended anyone". The difference being that I really mean it.

[island911]

See, now I always thought that the Idiots would be people who think that the President (of the US) was somehow KING; and, as such, soley responsible for Everything. . .well, everything "bad" anyway.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

I listened to Terry McAuliffe (?) this morning on NPR basically blaming all of the world's ills on GWB...pretty sad. The economy, of course, is Bush's fault...even though the nosedive started before the '00 election.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
I listened to Terry McAuliffe (?) this morning on NPR basically blaming all of the world's ills on GWB...pretty sad. The economy, of course, is Bush's fault...even though the nosedive started before the '00 election.

That's because everyone knew Clinton wouldn't be in office anymore, and consumer confidence plummeted