[PeteyPete]

I'm not posing this question b/c i agree w/ one single thing that Gore stands for, but b/c politics would have been a war of attrition w/ a Republican House and Senate.

I honestly believe that if Gore had won, the Republican legislators would have successfully defeated steel tariffs, CFR, Medicare expansion, some provisions of the Patriot Act, amnesty for illegals, and they would have opposed all Liberal judicial appointment.

GW has done little for us Goldwater or William Buckley Jr. conservative/libertarians...and the fact that Bush is the leader of the party, he can twist the arm of fellow republicans to vote for watered down socialist bills w/ the threat of withholding campaign support when it's time for their re-election.

If Gore was elected, we would have had a socialist President, but the firm grasp that the Republicans have on the Congress would have at least maintained the status quo...not some neo compassionate conservative agenda that acts like the Dems, just isn't afraid to kill terrorists.

I commend GW on his commitment to actively go out and kill those who want to kill us.....and i respect alot of his international agenda, but his domestic policy is just a disaster.

Where are the constitutional judges we were promised? Where is the smaller gov't? Where did the "rolling back the state" Reaganesque philosophy go?

[RWK]

PeteyPete,

I will mention only one arena where, in my opinion, Gore would have been an unmitigated disaster – and it is a critical area – the post 11 September 2001 “War on Terror”.

Right about now – over two years after the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center – Gore’s Presidential “Blue Ribbon” Commission would finally be providing its results. It really doesn’t matter what their conclusions and recommendation might include. By delay, over-analyses, indecisiveness, and over-dependence on non-aggressive “diplomatic” solutions and actions, the United States would have further reinforced the Islamic/Arabic terrorists’ perception of weakness, vulnerability and cowardliness – beliefs that were significantly strengthened by the Clinton/Gore “do nothing of substance” reaction to the USS Cole, the African embassy bombings, the destruction of Kibar Towers, and so forth.

The jihad mentality respects power and resoluteness, while it preys on perceived weakness. As our Commander-in-Chief, Gore would have fortified the determination of our enemies. In addition, the many known and classified actions already taken – both seeking and destroying terrorists and their supporting infrastructure as well as disrupting their finances, communications, support networks, and so forth – would not have been executed, for fear of offending Arabs, Islam, the UN, allies, etc. In sum, a feeble and inconclusive response – that emboldens our enemies – is the most likely Gore “anti-terrorism” policy.

[PeteyPete]

RWK, i agree wholeheartedly, and support our president's stand to kill terrorists....i'm just hoping that someone can provide me w/ a silver lining to this pitiful domestic situation.

I can think up some Machiavellian scheme about how he's increasing spending and decreasing gov't revenues in order to "starve the beast" as many economists put it. Some people hold true to this belief that he's doing this to expedite the eventual insolvancy of social security and Medicare. We can sit around and dream up these convoluted schemes to support our beliefs, but this President is increasing gov't dependancy, and acting like a Socialist.

I genuinely like GW as a person. If he drank, i'd love to sit back and drink a beer w/ him....but i can't ignore the facts anymore. Now he's talking about giving social security to illegal immigrants who migrate back to Mexico....***!?!!? I didn't go to school and bust my azz to get a job to pay for Juan and Filomena down in some 3rd world sh*hole.

The more I think about it, the more I agree w/ Gephardt; this guys is becoming a "miserable failure", not b/c he's not a big enough socialist, but to those of us who believe in what conservatism stands for.

[Mark Tyson]

Gore's a socialist? I think that's a little extreme, but anyway...

I think Gore would have done pretty much the same thing as Bush with regards to the Taliban. There was so much public pressure to retaliate for 9-11 that I think no president, even a loon like Kucinich, would have failed to respond with force.

I think President Gore would not sign a bill preventing firivilous lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and he would probably push hard for renewal of the AWB.

I doubt Gore would have gone after Saddam.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I am going to partially agree with PeteyPete here.

Bush has done damage to the country by promoting social programs, and expanding the government, for political purposes. I figured that this was all a game that we could roll back once he won a second term. Now I am queasy with disgust. The Campaign Finance Reform bill, which was passed with the idea that SCOTUS would kill it as unconstitutional, has been upheld. :banghead: So much for the 1st Amendment. Silviera Vs Lockyer stands in the 9th circus. The 2nd Amendment is on shaky ground as well. Patriot Act and clones...the 4th Amendment is shrinking. Racial preferences were upheld for at least 25 yrs :confused: . Education was expanded so that Teddy could then back stab. Medicare.....oh my. Social Insecurity to illegals?

The Socialists are still feeding the "gimme" generation even though they are not in supposed to be in power. I fear we are spinning ever faster into the Alice's rabbit hole.

Gore post 9/11? I partially agree with Mr. Tyson on this. Any President would have been forced to act in Afghanistan. Iraq is doubtful. The War on Terror would be stuck in a blue ribbon commission. Can anyone say Kyoto? If Gore was president, we would not have an economy with which to fund any war on terror or pollution:barf:

[AZLibertarian]

In a word....no.

I'd agree that Gore would have had to react after 9/11, but I'd have to speculate that the scope of his reaction might be to toss some cruise missiles at some caves and declare success. He's never really had any stones, IMO. Anyone remember "No Controlling Legal Authority"?

Domestically, Gore would have been the same disaster I think he'd be internationally. We'd be whining about hydrogen cars, or the homeless, or some other such rot, rather than just letting people live their own lives.

W has disappointed me more than I would have liked on his domestic agenda. Ya'll have pointed out my major beefs with him. I guess he might say this is the compassionate part of his "Compassionate Conservatism", but it still feels like he's playing the Clinton Triangulation Game. In the next few months, I'd expect to hear what his vision is for a second term, and it will be interesting to see where he goes with it. This, and the AWB, will weigh heavily when I vote next November.

In the War on Terror, he's been absolutely perfect. I'm not in the least worried about Iraq. We're less than a year into a 50-year committment to make that part of the world democratic and stable. It will happen, if the D's can get it through their skulls that this isn't just about Halliburton, Thanksgiving-Day-Trips, or whatever else has flown into their bonnet this week.

[Bob Locke]

Would We be in a Better Place if Gore Won?
No.

But I don't think we'd be in a substantially worse one, either.

In truth, we might be better off in terms of many domestic issues, because if Gore had tried to push through half the expansion that Bush has managed to get passed the GOP in Congress would have been up in arms and blocked it.

[JohnBT]

"GW has done little for us Goldwater or William Buckley Jr. conservative/libertarians..."

Goldwater and Buckley? I'm not sure I understand. There's a significant voting block of people who think of themselves as Goldwater-Buckley followers? Heck, I remember when Goldwater ran and he didn't do too good as I remember it.

Anyway, no on the Gore thing. For a million reasons. Mostly because it would be seen as a validation of Clinton and his actions and policies.

John

[Monkeyleg]

"Heck, I remember when Goldwater ran and he didn't do too good as I remember it."

Yep. And do you remember the TV ads that Johnson ran against Goldwater? Or what the press was saying? It all boiled down to the idea that Goldwater would use nukes in Vietnam, or anywhere else that he could.

As for the original question, no. Gore couldn't decide what to wear without doing a poll and, even then, he kept changing his mind as well as his wardrobe.

GW's biggest fault is that he thinks if he tries to reach an accord with the other side--campaign finance, education, prescription drugs, immigration--that he'll get some cooperation. It doesn't work that way. He does best when he digs in, or when he pretends to be placating his opponents and they find themselves exactly where he wanted them to be.

That said, I had high hopes for the man. Absent signing a renewal of the Black Rifle ban next year, I'll probably vote for him, but not with the enthusiasm that I had in 2000.

[cloudkiller]

Hmmm:

Fiscal policy: If Gore had continued Clinton's fiscal policy we probably wouldn't have done the dual "tax cut and spend more" than Bush seems to favor. No tax cuts would have sucked for many of us, but the deficit would probably be more under control. There would have been no budget signed, however. Government would have partially shut down like it did a few years back.

Foreign policy: Yes, I think we would have acted after 9/11 though probably not in the same fashion. Definitely no Iraq. Gore doesn't support the oil interests in the US the same way as Bush, and isn't supported by them. Probably would have used the conflicts in the Mideast as a way to promote his environmental/renewable policies and Kyoto (anti-fossil fuels). Probably would have met with mixed success in this regard. Might have diffused some tension in Mideast by pushing against hardliners from the Sharon government. However, the presence of Lieberman on that ticket might have actually led to more Arab backlash against the US. Who knows?

Domestic policy: Gore would NEVER have gotten away with passing the Patriot Act. The Republicans and most conspiracy theorists on the right would have immediately screamed "UN-Commie takeover!" to any attempts by a Democratic administration to restrict rights in the same way. It is one of the most tremendous ironies of the current administration.

[JoshM]

How would President Gore handle the Washington Sniper incident ?

Under President Bush aside from the usual suspects [VPC, certain media outlets] there seemed to be no call for further gun control

With President Gore I'd expect he would not let the opportunity to pitch Brady law II slip by.

[Monkeyleg]

Oh, for crying out loud. We're all free here to criticize, but let's be honest.

"...but the deficit would probably be more under control."

When the stock bubble broke in 2000, so did the collection of taxes on investments. Big time. Then, when 9/11 hit, companies cut expenditures back to nearly zero. No expenditures, no sales, fewer workers=fewer taxes.

The Federal government made some token efforts to cut spending, but nowhere near enough to offset the loss of revenue. That situation creates deficits. Not GW's cowboy hat, nor Al Gore's smiling face.

Wars cost money, more money than countries can usually collect in taxes--unless, of course, they seize the country they conquered and bleed it dry. Therefore, they issue more bonds. WWII wasn't a profit-maker, nor was Korea or Vietnam. Wars drive the government into debt, and it takes at least a decade to repay that debt.

And one thing I applaud Bush for is killing the Kyoto Accords. Our businesses would have been strapped by the strictest environmental regulations, while China, Mexico, India and other countries would have been given a license to pollute. And no costly environmental regulations for them. Where do you think industries would gravitate?

[PAOLO721]

Would We be in a Better Place if Gore Won? by petey pete

That question gets a very large NO from me. Al Gore was and is an inept statesman and would have made a horrible POTUS.

I might add that, that is not just my opinion. You know in the arena of politics, nobody and I mean nobody, knows you as well as the folks in your own home state. Al Gore as a sitting vice-president could not even carry his own. W easily carried the great State of Texas.;)

[Lone_Gunman]

I think we would have been better off, even though Gore would really be a terrible president.

Having the House, Senate, and Presidency all controlled by one party is bad, because they actually are able to pass laws that screw us over instead of just fight with each other for political power.

Instead we get the Patriot Act, Medicare Reform/Drug Benefit, and Campaign finance reform.

It is almost as if the Republicans are trying to see just how many of the Bill of Rights they can revoke.

I am going to do my part to break the Republican monopoly in 2004.

[seeker_two]

Would We be in a Better Place if Gore Won?

Two words....


EXECUTIVE ORDERS


:what:

[gunsmith]

To the excellent post(so far) pro/con: Is that as a gunowner I feel pretty
let down.
If things do not improve I will not vote for GW's re-election.

[w4rma]

Here are a few stories about Clinton's attempts to combat terrorist forces and the brick walls he ran up against:

April 24, 1995 The American Civil Liberties Union today said that the “counter-terrorism” proposals suggested by President Clinton Sunday evening threatened to repeat the mistakes of the past and erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty.
…
http://www.aclu.org/news/n042495.html

April 18, 1996 Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism . . . The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.
…
http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

July 30, 1996 Paris -- A Fact Sheet from the July 30 ministerial meeting of the P-8 (the industrialized nations of the world plus Russia) notes that President Clinton for three years has led an international campaign to combat terrorism in concert with the P-8 as well as with allies in the Middle East and elsewhere . . . Following is the official text of the Fact Sheet.
…
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/p8_facta.htm

July 30, 1996 President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess . . . But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures . . . Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.
…
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

August 25, 1998 The August 20 bombing of Osama bin Laden's terrorist bases in Afghanistan and the alleged bin Laden-funded chemical weapons production facility in Khartoum, was a decisive and appropriate U.S. response to the atrocities in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and President Bill Clinton should be commended.
…
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/schenker.htm

March 21, 2000 US President Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he would take up with Pakistan military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf the issue of terrorism in the Kashmir valley.
…
http://www.indiainfo.com/news/2000/03/21/clin

March 22, 2000 Clinton is pushing General Musharraf to use his influence with Afghanistan's leaders—the Taliban—to bring Bin Laden to trial . . . Even if Musharraf could convince the Taliban to give Bin Laden up, there is an abundance of anger, frustration and weapons in the region, left over from the Afghan war, when thousands of extremists came together to bring a superpower to its knees . . . That militant network has built up in this region over two decades of conflict. The president believes America must get deeply involved in South Asia to crack the terrorist problem, a process Clinton continues throughout this week.
…
http://www.kdka.com/now/story/0,1597,1747

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8734-2002Jan19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62725-2001Dec18

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/24/pentagon.budget/

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

http://www9.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2.htm

http://online.securityfocus.com/news/201

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/01/page-a-01-23.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61219-2001Oct2


And don't forget how GW stopped ongoing terrorist investigations:

FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11
Greg Palast and David Pallister
The Guardian Wednesday November 7, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.

US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.
…
They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to “back off” from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

“There were particular investigations that were effectively killed.”
Only after the September 11 attacks was the stance of political and commercial closeness reversed towards the other members of the large Bin Laden clan, who have classed Osama bin Laden as their “black sheep”.

Hart-Rudman
Not only did Clinton's actions prevent Y2K terrorist acts (eg, a bomber headed off on his way to the celebration in Seattle), but much more occurred in his administration to ward off terrorism ~ only to be scuttled by the Bushistas:

Commission warned Bush
But White House passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.
by Jake Tapper

Sept. 12, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- They went to great pains not to sound as though they were telling the president “We told you so.”

But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.
…
Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. “Frankly, the White House shut it down,” Hart says. “The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day.”

“We predicted it,” Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. “We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999.”
…
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

The Gore Commission
also known as the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.
http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/gorecom.htm

Here is what seems to have happened to the recomendations of the Gore Commission:
We begin our news with a quote: “The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements. The Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose.”

If you think that comes from a recent Bush White House report, guess again. In the summer of 1996, shortly after the crash of TWA flight 800, President Clinton asked Vice President Al Gore to chair a commission on improving air transportation safety. As a result, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, commonly known as the Gore Commission, conducted an in-depth analysis of the U.S. commercial airlines' safeguards against terrorist attacks. In its final report, which is what I quoted from a moment ago, the Gore Commission found that security measures used by U.S. airlines were extremely inadequate, and made over 50 recommendations to improve security.

What happened? Well, the Gore Commission demanded tougher airline security, but airlines and conservatives said no. Specifically, the airline industry dismissed the threat of terrorists, and attacked the commission. Indeed, the day after the final report was published, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association fought back with a legislative action of their own that claimed the Gore Commission existed simply to thwart the will of the Republican Congress.

And conservative ideologues rejected the proposal on “cost-effectiveness” grounds. OK, so how much are 6,000 lives worth - not to mention the dollar value placed on the World Trade Center, a portion of the Pentagon, an economic recession, and America's security?
http://www.d28dems.org/pspeak/psE85.htm

For instance, the commission, headed by then-Vice President Al Gore, wanted airlines to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems to detect potential terrorists.
http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0110/06/nation-312052.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=25100&forum=DCForumID35

I think that what Shrub is doing is *creating* terrorism and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people and whole families.
Before 9.11:
Bush defunds international organizations that provide abortions or abortion counseling to poor women.
Bush postures over North Korea.
Bush pulls out of the Kyoto treaty.
Bush makes a gaffe over Taiwan/China policy.
Bush returns the world to a Cold War-level arms race.
Bush rejects a protocol to enforce germ warfare treaty.
Bush denies Africans AIDS drugs through international aid agency.
Bush isolates United States in denying support for Kyoto treaty.
Bush officially rejects germ warfare treaty protocol.
Bush announces that the United States will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Bush skips an international conference on racism.
After 9.11:
Bush tries to end arms sanctions.
Bush proposes trying suspected terrorists with military tribunals.
Bush abandons ABM treaty.
Bush plans to store--rather than destroy--nuclear weapons slated for reduction.
Bush invents the “axis of evil.”
Bush tries to limit Congressional probes of September 11 terrorist attacks.
Bush releases his laughable global warming plan.
Bush makes the possibility of using nuclear weapons much more likely.
Bush lifts restrictions on aid to Colombia.
http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html

The center of Shrub Inc's rhetoric (and actions) in their anti-terrorism campaign has been to turn the grey areas into either bright white or dark black. “Axis of evil”, “With us or against us”, “Good verus evil”. Their rhetoric can be easily manipulated by savy hawks in order to justify war or an escalation in their current war against another group of people.

For example, Sharon's recent speech sounded alot to me like one of Shrub's speeches with references to bin Laden replaced with references to Arafat.

Also, lets not forget that Shrub has NOTHING substantial (he hasn't even tried!) to decrease the suicide bomber attacks on Israeli innocents. Nothing. Contrast this misadminstration to the Clinton/Gore administration where Arafat was THE foreign leader who *most* visited the White House.

Also, I should mention that Clinton managed to help Palistine and Isreal come closer than anytime in the past 30 years to a permanent peace treaty between their people. And look what Shrub Inc. did to try to undermine this:

…
In 2000, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and President Clinton were meeting at Camp David, Perle made news when he warned Barak not to let Vice President Al Gore become involved in the peace summit, for fear it would boost Gore's election prospects. He also told Barak to “walk away” from a peace plan if it left the thorny issue of a divided Jerusalem unresolved. Working as an advisor to candidate Bush, Perle warned Barak he would urge the Texas governor to condemn any peace plan that gave the PLO a foothold in Jerusalem. The Bush campaign quickly distanced itself from Perle's remarks.
…
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/05/perle/index.html

Anger at peace talks 'meddling'
Political scandal in US as Bush advisers tell Israelis to be ready to walk out of Camp David negotiations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,342857,00.html

You’re Invited to the War Party (“Bush at War” book review)
By Georgie Anne Geyer

Ever since his Watergate revelations, which helped evict a president and change the United States for all time, for better or worse Bob Woodward has stood as the major force in a new genre of journalism. He talks, wheedles, and, using government officials’ personal ambitions and dreams of political eternity, implicitly threatens his way into the often closed corridors of power—there, he is a master at getting a certain number of figures who try their best to remain aloof and unknown to tell their stories. The proposition, understood if not explicitly spoken, is that this book, as his former ones, will tell the story—you miss out on leave on this journalistic port, fellow, you miss the whole historic ship!
…
First of all, Bush at War is really about the decision-making process in the upper levels of the Bush administration—the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon—from the exact morning of Sept. 11th. It begins with a profoundly worried George Tenet, head of the CIA and, from all of the space he gets in the book, obviously one of Woodward’s best and favored sources. That very morning, Tenet is wondering about when Osama bin Laden, whom he has been desperately tracking, will strike the U.S. Then “it” happens—and from then onward, the book delineates day-by-day, and sometimes hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute—what supposedly went on in meeting after meeting. From all accounts that I know of, Woodward’s interpretations are exactly right; it is the quotes that are so bothersome.
…
Another time, he says to Woodward, “I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

At still another point after the Afghan war has started, the president says to his staff, “Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum.” And Woodward ends the book with another quote from the president, in which he again reflects the obsessive chaos theory of the neoconservatives surrounding him like sentinels and for whom Iraq has become the sina quo non of political existence: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.” Whew.
http://www.amconmag.com/01_13_03/geyer7.html

[PAOLO721]

In my humble opinion, 9.11 would likely not have occured under a President Gore by w4rma

You are probably right. I mean why bother when they would have had an ally in the oval office. :what:

[w4rma]

PAOLO721, my opinion is that President Gore would have enacted some or most of the Hart-Rudman/Gore Commission proposals which would have increased the likelyhood of preventing 9.11.

It is my understanding that Bush decided to play politics when he first got into office rather than try to enact (and therefore give Clinton/Gore credit) the Gore Commission's proposals until he was forced to after 9.11.

[Thumper]

w4rma,

You have my condolences on your candidate's loss.

Wonder why Dean hasn't left his "spider hole" today; we've heard from Kerry, Lieberman, and CLark... :D

Seriously, w4...how upset WERE you when you heard the news?

[PAOLO721]

PAOLO721, my opinion is that President Gore would have enacted some or most of the Hart-Rudman/Gore Commission proposals which would have increased the likelyhood of preventing 9.11.

opinions vary ;)

[CZ-100]

President Gore

There is NO such thing, and there will be NO such thing! :D

Get over it. HE lost. :neener:

[kbr80]

Would We be in a Better Place if Gore Won?



NO!

[Lone_Gunman]

If Gore had won...

we would have no Patriot Act, Medicare drug bill, and campaign finance reform.

[w4rma]

Thumper, I when I heard the news that Saddam was captured I was extremely happy. Now Bush can stop pretending that capturing/killing Saddam = "Mission Accomplished". Now, maybe, Bush will change his tactics and deal with the *real* problems in Iraq and Afghanistan and Osama bin Forgotten and Al Queda.

Statement by Governor Dean on the Capture of Saddam Hussein
WEST PALM BEACH-- Governor Dean issued the following statement this morning:

"This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.

"Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them.

"This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the UN, NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort.

"Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty."

Posted by Mathew Gross at 10:50 AM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002683.html

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

We must do everything possible to bring the UN, NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort.

The UN was never in it. How can they get "back" in it. They were offered the opportunity but declined.

Our money.
Our blood.
Our call.

"Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty."


Today???????????????????????????????
or, Duh!
:barf:

[Sean Smith]

Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts were a joke. His responses to the multitude of Al-Qaeda attacks during his term were somewhere between feeble and non-existent. Objective, historical fact... w4rma's fantasizing about Clinton and Gore's stellar leadership qualities (hee hee!) notwithstanding. Saying Gore would have prevented 9/11 is basically an appeal to magic. And unfortunately, it appears that that is all the Democratic party will have to offer in 2004.

[w4rma]

Sean Smith, the 9.11 massive national security failure happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. How folks can spin that into some kind of partisan success is beyond me.

[Ala Dan]

What a joke! :D Yep, a REAL Viet-Nam veteran; army
newsman type. :uhoh: If elected, he may vacate the
oval office in favor of the press briefing room? :( I'd
say this country most definitely would be worst off
if that idiot got elected. :)

My sig line says I'm a UT football fan; that doesn't mean
I'm a AL GHORE fan! ;)

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[ravinraven]

Too bad Clinton was not still "in" on 9/11. The whole mess would have been solved by now. He'd have lobbed a couple missiles into the desert, blown up a couple camels, tucked another intern under his desk and declared victory. Can't "W" learn from this great leader??

I read somewhere on this site today that Dean is angling for an endorsement from Saddam. Any word on Saddam's reply??

I've been jabbing my loony left friends with this line today: "Loonywood is in a crisis. They are running out of grief counselors." Some of them are getting real mad at me.

This whole 9/11 and WonT has served to wake up a hell of a lot of people and caused them to notice just who is anti-liberty and who is pro-liberty. It's damn scary for the left, methinks.

Whatever anyone thinks of W--and he's far from perfect--I do think we need him to stay in and finish, if it's possible, this WonT although it'll probably take 50 years. At least get us a good start on the finish.

And another thing. How come it is that "ph" is pronounced as "f" in all cases except in the name Gephardt. Wouldn't Gefart be more appropriate??

rr

[grampster]

ravin,

:D :D :D

[w4rma]

This whole 9/11 and WonT has served to wake up a hell of a lot of people and caused them to notice just who is anti-liberty and who is pro-liberty.… Viet Dinh (http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/vietdinh.htm), the former assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department. He helped draft the Patriot Act …
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec03/patriot_8-19.html

…
In May 2001, with the appointment of Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh (http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/vietdinh.htm), Attorney General John Ashcroft restored the name of the office as the Office of Legal Policy and confirmed its principal policy role within the Department.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/history.htm

A Chilly Response to 'Patriot II'
Feb. 12, 2003

Unlike its hastily passed predecessor, the Justice Department's wide-ranging follow-up to the Patriot Act of 2001 is already facing intense scrutiny, just days after a civil rights group posted a leaked version of the legislation on its website.

The legislation, nicknamed Patriot II, would broadly expand the government's surveillance and detention powers. Among other measures, it calls for the creation of a terrorist DNA database and allows the attorney general to revoke citizenship of those who provide “material support” to terrorist groups.

Privacy advocates said the bill “gutted the Fourth Amendment,” while prominent Democratic senators, including Patrick Leahy, ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, immediately chastised the administration for its secrecy.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57636,00.html

Patriot Act II Resurrected?
Aug. 21, 2003

Congress may consider a bill that not only expands the government's wiretapping and investigative powers but also would link low-level drug dealing to terrorism and ban a traditional form of Middle Eastern banking.

The draft legislation -- titled the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or Victory Act -- includes significant portions of the so-called Patriot Act II, which faced broad opposition from conservatives and liberals alike and embarrassed the Justice Department when it was leaked to the press in February.

The Victory Act also seems to be an attempt to merge the war on terrorism and the war on drugs into a single campaign. It includes a raft of provisions increasing the government's ability to investigate, wiretap, prosecute and incarcerate money launderers, fugitives, "narco-terrorists" and nonviolent drug dealers. The bill also outlaws hawalas, the informal and documentless money transferring systems widely used in the Middle East, India and parts of Asia.

A June 27 draft of the bill, authored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/) (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by four fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, has been circulating in Washington, D.C.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60129,00.html

… link to a draft of the Victory Act (http://www.libertythink.com/VICTORYAct.pdf) (89 pages, pdf) …
http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/003693.html

Bush Signs Bill Expanding FBI Authority
…
The changes were included in a bill authorizing 2004 intelligence programs. Most details of the bill are secret, including the total costs of the programs, which are estimated to be about $40 billion.
…
* authorizes agencies to continue research on computerized terrorism surveillance projects formerly operated by the Defense Department. Those projects were widely criticized on civil liberties grounds, prompting Congress to remove them from the Pentagon.
…
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-intelligence-bill,0,7800436.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=663544

[Thumper]

Once again, watching a liberal struggle for moral footing borders on hilarity:

w4rma said:
Thumper, I when I heard the news that Saddam was captured I was extremely happy. Now Bush can stop pretending that capturing/killing Saddam = "Mission Accomplished".

You claim to be happy. Why? Because a mass murderer is in custody? Because it may signal a decline in the number of troops at risk? No, the only good you can see here is an opportunity to twist it for political purposes.

Priceless! :D

[w4rma]

Thumper said:
You have my condolences on your candidate's loss.

Wonder why Dean hasn't left his "spider hole" today; we've heard from Kerry, Lieberman, and CLark... … the only good you can see here is an opportunity to twist it for political purposes.Statement by Governor Dean on the Capture of Saddam Hussein
WEST PALM BEACH-- Governor Dean issued the following statement this morning:

"This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.

"Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them.

"This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the UN, NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort.

"Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty."

Posted by Mathew Gross at 10:50 AM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002683.html

[Thumper]

Certainly wasn't my FIRST reaction, is my point, w4rma...get it?

I am delighted, however, at the egg on the face of your candidate.

:evil:

[w4rma]

Dean handled the situation as a statesman should. NBC has a video (http://g.msn.com/0VD0/00/00?m=n_dean_saddam_031214&csid=Msnbc) up of his response, also, Thumper.

As for my response, maybe you're a little to genteel for me, but I'm rather blunt. Unfortunately I don't expect a reduction in attacks on our servicemen. :( And, Saddam was one of many mass murdering tyrant/dictators, one down, many many to go, right?

Now, Thumper, are you saying that we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam from power? Is the mission accomplished now?

[Thumper]

Absolutely not, w4rma...but this is certainly a giant leap toward stability in the region.

Something the democrats have always refused to recognize: We are not in a War On the Perpetrators of 9/11. We're in a War on Terror.

It's a War on the guy who sheltered Abu Nidal.
It's a War on the regime that paid Hamas' homicide bombers' families.
It's a War on the those who, time and again, have sworn the destruction of the U.S.

Was Hussein a powerful enemy of the United States? Absolutley.
Was he a powerful contributer to continued instability in the area that spawns terrorism? Absolutely.

Is it a remarkably good thing that this administration decided to put an end to his sorry ???? Absolutely.

Your false delight at the capture of Saddam is rendered transparent by your latest question.

(Go Army.)

[w4rma]

So, Thumper, we didn't invade Iraq because Bush said Saddam had 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents?

Source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

[Thumper]

Covered ad nauseum...and I don't want to hijack the thread.

Suffice to say, IF Gore would have won, his handling of the post 9/11 world would have been an unmitigated disaster.

[ravinraven]

Two quick questions about the patriot acts before they shut us down for being too far OT.

I. What will SCOTUS say about the constitutionality of the acts?

II. What would such anti-liberty lights as Hitlary do if she ever gets her hands on those acts?

rr

[Thumper]

I. Hopefully the USSC will get to crush the Patriot Act before too long.

II. Hillary? If Hillary gets the keys to the Patriot Act, I'll be heading for Calumet. !!!WOLVERINES!!!

:evil:

[fallingblock]

Would have been a disaster! A genuine Clintoon-clone disaster:eek:

************************************************************
"the 9.11 massive national security failure happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. How folks can spin that into some kind of partisan success is beyond me.
************************************************************

Ho-Ho-Ho.....The national security failure was engineered by the Clinton-Gore "team", at least give them the credit.:D

Howard Dean made a stab at blathering and weaseling, but he betrays his statist self with the blather about the U.N.:scrutiny:

[Dilettante]

It's very hard to guess how somebody will react to an event like 9/11. Bush surprised a lot of people.
During the campaign he sounded like an isolationist. Now he's the most activist president (internationally) that we've had in decades.
On the day of 9/11 he seemed scared and unsure of himself. A lot of people who voted for him were very worried.
Just a few days later he was a different man--resolute and ready.

Gore has also surprised (disappointed) me since 2000. I thought he would take Clinton's position ("this might work, let's hope it does") or Lieberman's ("I thought we should do this all along").
But I think Gore's position on Iraq is a cynical, partisan political position. If he were President it's hard to guess what he really would have done.

I am sure that he would have sent the military into Afghanistan. If he didn't want to do it, he would have had Holbrooke lecturing him in front of the cabinet: "If you don't do this, obviously I will resign and never have anything to do with you again, but you will also go down in history as the worst President of the United States ever--a bigger disaster than Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, and Nixon all put together."
The great thing about having no backbone is, you have room to borrow somebody else's. :)

[Dorrin79]

Not a lot to add, but in a nutshell:

I think that, domestic policy - wise, Gore might have been better. Not in terms of his ideas etc, but because he would have been blocked at every turn by the Republican-controlled Congress. With Bush, a lot of really stupid legislation and spending items have been passed in large part because they are suggested by a President of the same party as the majority in both Houses of congress.

Gridlock rules, when it comes to keeping the Government in check.

:D

Foreign policy, on the other hand, would have been an unmitigated disaster. Caving to the Paleostinians, half-hearted cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan, no Iraq war, signing the ICC, Kyoto, you name it...

Since it seems to me that of late, foreign policy is a bit more important than it was in the Clinton years, I'd have to say I prefer Bush in the White House over Gore.

But not by nearly as much as I did when I voted for him in 2000.

[TallPine]

I finally found this on the deep dark recesses of my hard drive: :)

Sept. 11 in a parallel universe

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
As we enter into the Christmas season with the perspective of Sept. 11, even President George W. Bush's political enemies have exhibited uncharacteristic joy this season that Al Gore was not elected. Have you ever wondered why? Perhaps these reports from a "parallel universe" will aid your understanding:
Sept. 11 – President Al Gore today addressed the nation following the freedom fighters' attacks on the U.S. World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon that killed thousands of American citizens. The president said he was "sorry that so many people from other cultures felt such animosity and distrust toward the United States" that they felt this was the only way to, "enter into a dialogue with us about our actions in the rest of the world."
The president, looking tired and drawn, told the nation, "I've prayed about this, and I don't believe that we are to respond with violence. Besides," he said, "no one has claimed responsibility and we don't know who the perpetrators are." The president went on to encourage those responsible to identify themselves so that the United States could "enter into a dialogue" with them about America's role in the world." Israel, Britain and Germany condemned the attacks, while France and Canada termed them "regrettable," but cautioned against a military response. China extended its sympathy to the victims, but said the U.S. "had it coming."
Sept. 18 – Attorney General Janet Reno, who only this summer agreed to stay on as the top law enforcement officer in the new Gore administration, promised that "we will find these individuals and bring them to justice." She also announced that the FBI would be prohibited from using racial profiling during its investigation. "Even though Arab men who violated our immigration laws appear to have been involved, anyone could have done this," said the attorney general. "We need to investigate everyone."
Sept. 25 – John "Condom" Smith, head of the AIDS group Act Out and President Gore's new choice to head the Centers for Disease Control announced that an investigation into anthrax spores found in several letters was underway after infections at a Florida newspaper. OSHA stepped up enforcement efforts against the newspaper for safety violations that they said led to the infections, and a prominent trial lawyer announced a lawsuit against the company for creating a hostile work environment. "If you have to give employees notice before laying them off, certainly you have to give them notice before infecting them with anthrax," said the attorney.
Oct. 1 – President Gore announced the collapse of talks with several unnamed liberation organizations after Los Angeles International Airport was destroyed by what the president described as a "rather primitive" nuclear blast. It was unclear if the device was delivered via an incoming international flight. Surrounding areas are being evacuated. And in Portland, Ore., officials said that state law prohibited them from identifying or quarantining three suspected smallpox victims, "although we do hope people will not be in direct proximity to them while they're still infectious," said Dr. Ima Hemlock, head of the state's recently combined Suicide and Medicaid Office.
Oct. 5 – President Gore announced today that the United States was severing diplomatic ties with Israel. "It is a difficult decision to turn our backs on our friends," said the president. "But recent events have made clear that world peace and the greater good sometimes require difficult choices and sacrifice." Separately, China announced that Taiwan was now annexed to the mainland and its citizens in the process of being "repatriated." Russia announced that it was resuming its former borders under the old Soviet Union, with the exception of East Germany, "which never worked for us anyway," said a Kremlin spokesman.
Oct. 7 – A group of heavily armed freedom fighters today seized The Hague in the Netherlands, executed European diplomats, and announced that United States citizens would be tried "in absentia" in the World Court for crimes against humanity. President Gore acknowledged that "mistakes had been made," but said that he hoped his punishment as "a lawfully elected official" wouldn't be too severe, citing his record on the environment. Former President Clinton and the nation's foremost law-school luminaries stood shoulder-to-shoulder on the U.S. Supreme Court steps and pledged to work with what they called "The Hague's new administration, to insure that justice is done."
Oct. 8 – Defense Secretary Hillary Clinton pledged "never to use U.S. military forces in anger or hostility," promising instead to obey "all lawful orders from international bodies, even those whose goals or methods we might disagree with." Mrs. Clinton reminded a WorldNetDaily reporter that "sometimes the process is more important than the actual outcome."


Craige McMillan is a commentator for WorldNetDaily. He is the founder of CC&M, an exciting new initiative to reshape the way America looks at and interacts with people of faith

[PAOLO721]

Sean Smith, the 9.11 massive national security failure happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. How folks can spin that into some kind of partisan success is beyond me.by w4rma

"9.11 massive national security failure" Massive national security failure? Hardly! It was an attack on our shores by factions which were emboldened by the limp wristed responses to terrorist acts commited during the Clinton administration. Such as the attack on the Cole among others. The terrorist were probing our responses and decided to kick it up a notch or two on 9/11. Someone forgot to tell them that there was a new sheriff in town ;)

They never in their wildest dreams imagined that W would respond as he has. Maybe they confused us with the French, who knows. Well, anyways I am sure now that they have seen us do in a matter of months in Afghanistan what the Soviets could not do in 10 years. They have also seen us bring freedom to the Iraqi people and the Tyrant who murdered their citizens to justice. They have seen the POS who urged and paid them to strap bombs to their bodies and give up their lives for a "cause", pulled from a hole in the ground without the testicular fortitude himself to even fire a single shot in anger to save his own worthless ???.

Is it over? Hardly! Do we still have enemies who would kill us all if they had the chance? Absolutely! Are those enemies as likely to strike us now knowing the full might and resolve of the US military awaits their next attack? Well, that question can only be answered with a wait and see.

Molon Labe, NEXT!;)

[Sean Smith]

Sean Smith, the 9.11 massive national security failure happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. How folks can spin that into some kind of partisan success is beyond me.

HINT: Clinton ignored Al-Qaeda instead of trying to kill them for 8 years after multiple attacks. 9/11 happens & Bush promptly takes out the entire country of Afghanistan.

[greyhound]

Something the democrats have always refused to recognize: We are not in a War On the Perpetrators of 9/11. We're in a War on Terror.

I swore I wouldn't participate in Dean or Bush bashing, but this is policy:D

IMHO, this is the key question: is the WoT a "police action" as suggested by John Kerry? It seems a certain faction wants the 9/11 perps "tracked down and broght to justice". I will bet that would have been Gore's response. Problem with this is that it does nothing to change the underlying problem: militant Islam.

The other approach is to do something radical and attempt to change the social and political values in the Islamic/Arab world. This is much more dangerous and risky, and involves real "war" not trials. In particular it involves bucking the UN, which somehow has wormed its way into the US psyche as conferring "legitamacy". (In my opinion, the UN is almost as much a hinderance to our winning the WoT as the Islamists.)

That's what needs to be resolved: do we need to be at war at all?

A certain percentage of our poulation just wants the whole thing to go away so we can return to 9/10/01.

[gburner]

Since Algore is really a strawman in this debate...The difference between Dean and Bush is the difference between a wishbone and a backbone.

Dean reminds me of a muppet...no original thoughts, but can be made to say some clever and insightful things. You just gotta pay attention to voice behind the dummy. :barf:

[harpethriver]

You gotta be kidding. Al Gore learned "how to tell the truth" from his father who opposed the "Civil Rights Bill" and Bill ("depends on what your definition of is is")Clinton. At least we know where "W" stands-right or wrong. Before Al met Bill he was pro 2A(I believe NRA member) and anti-abortion. Couldn't pass the liberal litmus test so like a chameleon he changed colors- not because he believed it was the right thing to do-rather because he could run as Clinton's v.p.(AKA stooge). Then he could fulfill his father's wishes and be closer to the presidency he was groomed for. Having a keen sense for the obvious the good voters of Tennessee saw Al for what he is(and isn't)and voted for "W" instead of our "homeboy". Al couldn't carry his own home state, otherwise he's prez. Yeah "W" isn't perfect-who is? Sure I disagree with him on some things-there never will be a perfect person. I respect your right to your opinion, but if you're even wondering whether we're better off with Al as prez then methinks you may be gettin' the real good stuff and not sharing.

[Correia]

Something else to think about, if Gore had won, the liberal supreme court justices that are currently hanging on by their finger nails would have already retired so that Gore could appoint some younger judges to take their place.

And we also don't know if the repubs would have the stranglehold they have on congress right now if Gore had won either. So in theory it wouldn't neccesarily be dem prez, and both houses repub, but rather it could be dem, and two houses evenly divided.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very ticked at my own party right now. All of American politics has taken a huge leap to the left. Frankly both parties disgust me, just the dems are worse, and trying to rewrite history so that they look good is just silly.

As for Gore preventing 911. Whatever. During Clinton we had the Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing, two African embassies, and a bunch of other assorted plots and problems.

Our solution to this was to bomb a drug factory in Sudan and bomb the hell out of some camps in Afghanistan. Unfortunatly the aspirin factory turned out to be innocent, and one of the camps was filled with Pakistanis that were allies of the US.

We had multiple chances to kill Bin Laden during the Clinton era, including an offer to have him picked up and turned over to us by the Sudanese government, much like Carlos the Jackal was turned over to the French. We didn't take them up on the offer.

We gutted our intelligence gathering abilities by not utilizing any foreign agents who might have violated people's human rights, like that isn't common in the 3rd world.

Arafat was a constant visitor to the White House, to bad he was a terrorist scumbag piece of trash then, and remains so now. Kissing one terrorist's butt can only encourage all of the others.

[straightwall]

Gore would have sent the Taliban to sesitivity training and Sadam would still be Supreme Ruler in Iraq because guns make Gore uncomfortable. Gore couldn't even win his pro-gun homestate of TN!

After campaigning on the virtues of small government, I am dismayed that George W. had NEVER met a spending bill he didn't like. And thanks GW for giving us back our huge budget deficit.

:barf:

We need to STOP being the World Police Force and quit handing out billions of our tax dollars a year in aid to foreign nations. If they are gonna hate the USA, then let 'em hate us broke.

:fire:

[mrapathy2000]

:barf:

he would probably appease the terrorist to get them off our backs. :barf:

[Henry]

"Would We Be In A Better Place If Gore Won?"

Now I get it. This is a humor post. Pretty funny!

[buzz_knox]

No.

9/11 would have happened, if for no other reason than because under Clinton, nothing was ever done to go after Bin Laden. After the '93 WTC attacks, the embassy bombings, the Cole attack, Clinton still made a decision not to go after Bin Laden. All this "Clinton tried to be tough on terrrorism but the Republicans wouldn't let him" is a flat out lie. Clinton made an overt decision when given Bin Laden on a silver platter to let him go. That is what emboldened the 9/11 terrorist to act. All this crap about "Gore would have implemented this or that plan" ignores the fact that the 9/11 plot was carried out before any gov't plan could have been put in place in a "peacetime" environment.

As for what would have happened post-9/11, there would have been committee after committee to ascertain what occurred, and it would have been treated as a law enforcement matter. Once (and if) Bin Laden were identified (iffy because would Gore actually allow him identified knowing that Clinton had let him go repeatedly?), we would have demanded that anyone who had him extradite him. When Afghanistan (assuming it came forward and admitted his presence there) refused, you really think that internationalist Al Gore would have invaded and conquered that country to get him? No way.

Simply put, Al Gore is a nightmare as is and President Gore is an abomination I can't conceive of happening.

[w4rma]

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable
NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003

(CBS) For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission.

The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.

Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.

© MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55118

[kentucky bucky]

You gun owners that even suggest that the rabid leftist Al Gore would have been anything but pitiful as a president astound me. Bush bashing has become a obsession for liberals around the country, and the idea of serious gun rights advocates getting in lockstep with leftist pansies disgusts me. George Bush hasn't done everything in my agenda, but he is on the right track. I can tell by the liberal nut cases that are frothing at the mouth.

God bless George W. Bush

[PAOLO721]

By Kentucky BuckyI can tell by the liberal nut cases that are frothing at the mouth.

There is an old adage about lawyers preparing for trial that advises, "If you can't pound the facts, pound the law; if you can't pound the law, pound the facts; and, if you can't pound either, pound the table."

The Libs are now hitting the table with a sledge hammer :banghead:

When was the last time you heard one mention the "Bush economy?" Not lately:rolleyes: Now they are saying in desperation that the economy is "growing too fast." It's just sad really. :neener:

[Steel]

Would We be in a Better Place if Gore Won?

Yes, if you desire a godless, secular, socialist remnant of former America, with a decaying military, diminished sovereignty, higher taxes, increase in the welfare state, et cetera.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Here ya go. Mark Steyn weighs in. Roll out the visqueen:D

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004441

And, of course, it would not be complete without disembowlment by Ann Coulter.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20031218.shtml

[JohnBT]

Would I be in a better place if Gore had won?

Yeah, probably Costa Rica. :)

John