View Full Version : Ever wondered...
The Hitman
6 Jan 2002, 06:43
...what would have happened had Al Gore been President when S11 happened?
I know I have. I know I think that he wouldn't have used the same hardline approach, but then again, the hardline approach could be neccesary.
While I don't like Bush, and I think Gore should have been President, I think in this situation, that egomaniac Bush is a better leader than Gore.
Thoughts?
The Hitman
Sydneyfan
6 Jan 2002, 08:42
I've heard people say how if the Democrats were in power S11 would have never happened. The Bush family and the Bin Laden family have quite a long history with each other, having done oil business with each other in the past, there's also the fact that before becoming President Bush Snr. was head of the CIA, that could have something to do with it. Maybe a lot of Bin Laden's motive weren't so much his often quoted jihad against the infedel but were of a more personal nature to get back at Bush and his family. Who knows?
It seems that the Democrats are better than the Rupublicans when it comes to diplomacy but the Republicans are more adept at flexing military might.
Originally posted by Sydneyfan
I've heard people say how if the Democrats were in power S11 would have never happened. The Bush family and the Bin Laden family have quite a long history with each other, having done oil business with each other in the past, there's also the fact that before becoming President Bush Snr. was head of the CIA, that could have something to do with it. Maybe a lot of Bin Laden's motive weren't so much his often quoted jihad against the infedel but were of a more personal nature to get back at Bush and his family. Who knows?
It seems that the Democrats are better than the Rupublicans when it comes to diplomacy but the Republicans are more adept at flexing military might.
As it took more than seven years in the planning I very much doubt that who was in office at the time mattered one Iota.
USA actions have also had bipartisan support and I have no doubt that the reaction would have been the same even if mickey mouse was president, it's the reaction of a nation....not one man.
I was feeling a strange sense of irony when the attacks happened: Clinton was in Australia, Howard was in America, and George Dubya Bush was in power which immediately sent alarm bells ringing - given the attitude which the Republicans have had towards the deployment of NMD (but that's just another issue all together).
What was the question again? oh yeah America sticking its nose in...
My thoughts weren't really about what would happen if Al Gore was in power, but what would happen if Bill Clinton was still in power. As dirty as the guy was, he was a great leader for America.
The attacks would have been planned long before the outcome of the 2000 election was known surely, so it is irrelevent as to which party is in power to provoke the attack. But I can't help feeling that maybe the Democrat vs Republican argument had something to do with response and retaliation.
Dippers Donuts
6 Jan 2002, 19:36
I think the attacks would have PROBABLY still occurred regardless of who was in power...
The difference would have been the response IMO...
Bush will use this phoney war to finish Daddy's business; which means look out Iraq...Giving the amount of military hawks in his cabinet (Rumsfeld, Cheney etc) who knows just how long they will continue to obliterate alleged targets...
Gore would have no doubt responded with some military muscle, the difference being he wouldn't have used it as an excuse to settle old scores...
This phoney war saved Bush's presidency IMO...
Santos L Helper
7 Jan 2002, 08:36
Originally posted by brampta
I was feeling a strange sense of irony when the attacks happened: Clinton was in Australia, Howard was in America, and George Dubya Bush was in power which immediately sent alarm bells ringing - given the attitude which the Republicans have had towards the deployment of NMD (but that's just another issue all together).
What was the question again? oh yeah America sticking its nose in...
My thoughts weren't really about what would happen if Al Gore was in power, but what would happen if Bill Clinton was still in power. As dirty as the guy was, he was a great leader for America.
The attacks would have been planned long before the outcome of the 2000 election was known surely, so it is irrelevent as to which party is in power to provoke the attack. But I can't help feeling that maybe the Democrat vs Republican argument had something to do with response and retaliation.
Umm Brampta, could you give any examples of this great leadership?
argh I spose that's a fair enough comment
I probably have a very naive view of it all, and sitting back here in Australia I wouldn't have a clue what Clinton's domestic public policies were like. ie education policies, health policies, welfare policies, etc etc
He just strikes me as a good statesman who was good at promoting American interests internationally without waging wars on others. I think he showed courage delaying the deployment of NMD in spite of pressure from the interior. He's not as hot headed as Bush (argh it sounds grotty but you know what I mean ;))
Santos L Helper
7 Jan 2002, 20:56
Brampta, here's a view on Clinton's time in office and a comparison to Bush's start. Remember, I agree with your basic sentiment and I was shocked after reading some of this stuff.
Clinton/Gore vs Bush (http://www.michaelmoore.com/2001_0501.html)
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
Brampta, here's a view on Clinton's time in office and a comparison to Bush's start. Remember, I agree with your basic sentiment and I was shocked after reading some of this stuff.
Clinton/Gore vs Bush (http://www.michaelmoore.com/2001_0501.html)
The date of this article troubles me a little but I did read it and it was interesting in terms of finding out a little about Clinton's attitude towards environmental policy. So of course I had to read a little more from this page to determine whether or not his opinions were credible.
Another Michael Moore Statement (http://www.michaelmoore.com/2001_1008.html)
I did have to wonder when I saw an article titled "The Awful Truth vs. Sabrina the Teenage Witch" ;)
I fully take the point made with reference to the number of lobbies that have their cases to push in Congress. I did some research on interest groups several years ago and it was really quite fascinating.
Crux of the argument here is really leadership. Did the American people have more faith in the leadership of Bill Clinton than Bush the Sequal?
Oh oh here is one of my favourite quotes from this guy's page...
"as they say on the Fox Nuisance Channel, "Usama" -- I like their spelling better, like "We put the 'USA' in USAma!"
The Hitman
8 Jan 2002, 06:07
Another thing that influences us here, is how the media portrays the U.S. leaders.
Clinton was loved by the mainstream media, both here and there. Hell, he provided massive headlines, for both the right and wrong reasons. He was media friendly, and he had charisma and charm.
I agree with Brampta, Clinton was a good leader, but he did screw some things up. I know I'd rather Bill in the Oval Office now then that redneck hillbilly Bush.
The thing with Clinton - there was a lot of shady stuff going on with his brother and his brother-in-law, as well as too many scandals.
Media rules all, and it's the media's perception that makes Clinton a great President, when he was probably only a good one.
The Hitman
Funny how those who tend Labour seem to have liked Clinton/Gore and those that tend Liberal seem to like Bush.:eek:
Originally posted by Frodo
Funny how those who tend Labour seem to have liked Clinton/Gore and those that tend Liberal seem to like Bush.:eek:
:rolleyes:
I'm a political science student - I favour neither Liberal nor Labor, just common sense :D
The Hitman
9 Jan 2002, 12:13
Originally posted by Frodo
Funny how those who tend Labour seem to have liked Clinton/Gore and those that tend Liberal seem to like Bush.:eek:
Funny how I would have voted Labour yet prefer Gore and liked Clinton. Hmm... :o :cool:
The Hitman