Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djtestudo
I wouldn't trust Al Gore to have done anything post-9/11, and we would likely still be in the same position in Iraq with Kerry, since I cannot see a Republican Congress voting to do anything else with the war other then fight it out.
|
Do you really think Al Gore would have attacked Iraq? No way, Jose. That automatically means that we wouldn't have anywhere near as much debt, global terrorism would be less, a lot less dead soldiers, better relationships with our allies, and better approval presidental ratings. Also, Gore could pronounce "terrorism" instead of "terrsm" (i.e., he woulnd't make ridiculous verbal blunders day after day). Gore woulnd't have demoted Clinton's top terrorism expert, therefore 9/11 would have been less likely. It's guesswork, but I think it's a reasonable prediction.
As far as not doing anything post-9/11....what did we do? We attacked Afghanistan, now it's run by opium growing warlords (producing a vast majorty of the worlds opiates) and it's less stable than it was under the Taliban, if that's possible. We didn't go into Saudi Arabia; where the suspected 9/11 terrorists were born, raised, and trained; where the financing for 9/11 came from; one of the largest supporters of terrorism in the world. We still don't have any idea where Osama is.