How would Al Gore have handled September 11, 2001
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:39:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  How would Al Gore have handled September 11, 2001
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: How would Al Gore have handled September 11, 2001  (Read 16579 times)
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 16, 2007, 10:15:15 PM »

I've wondered this ever since 12:00 am September 12, 2001.  First, would there have been a 9/11 if Al Gore were in office, and Second, how would he have handled it.  Would he have gone into Afghanistan.  Don't mention Iraq, because we know he wouldn't have.  Would he have gone elsewhere, like into Pakistan?

Feel free to elaborate as much as you want.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2007, 01:56:50 AM »

He obviously would have surrendered to the terrorists and declared America to henceforth be known as New Arabia.

Seriously though, I have a feeling he'd still have invaded Afghanistan, but that he would have stayed there until the job was done and would not have invaded Iraq, making his re-election less in doubt than Bush's was.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2007, 01:14:06 PM »

We saw how well Clinton/Gore handled the 2-26-93 attack...do you even remember Clinton speaking about it?

OH YES:

"Before I lay out our new economic policy, let me first address the incident at the World Trade Center." - President Clinton 2/26/93

First of all, why did Clinton call it an incident rather than attack?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2007, 01:45:56 PM »

1. Yes, 9/11 would have happened because Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton made some serious errors in foriegn policy that could not easily be repaired in a mere 9 months.

2. He probably would have invaded Afghanistan in the sense that Clinton invaded Bosnia. He wouldn't have invaded Iraq because George Tenet wouldn't have given him the bogus info about WMDs that he gave Bush.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2007, 02:49:37 PM »

We saw how well Clinton/Gore handled the 2-26-93 attack

Agreed; he did quite well, considering all of those who planned and carried it out were caught and brought to justice. More than can be said about 9/11.

As to your second point, the economy and deficit were quite large problems when Clinton took office after 12 years of Republican Presidents, and compared to the small number who died in the WTC attacks, Clinton's emphasis at the time was certainly appropriate.

If we want to get into a battle of quotes, we could pull out Tom Delay and others ridiculing Clinton for going after Bin Laden, since it was distracting from the real problem facing the country at the time, which was of course the Lewinsky affair.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2007, 03:56:51 PM »

First of all, why did Clinton call it an incident rather than attack?

Obviously because Clinton was a terrorist sympathizer and closet Muslim who actually worked with the terrorists to orchestrate the attack in an attempt to cede U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2007, 08:56:05 PM »

For one, Gore would not have used 9/11/01 as an excuse to call anyone who criticizes the Gore Administration, a traitor.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2007, 11:08:11 AM »

For one, Gore would not have used 9/11/01 as an excuse to call anyone who criticizes the Gore Administration, a traitor.
...and wouldn't have gotten away with it if he had.
Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2007, 03:10:39 PM »

Well, as the Afghanistan plan had been prepared back in the 90's, I think he definitly would have gone in - aftern 9/11 if not before in an attempt to get Bin Laden.

He might also have used the "political capital" in an effort to raise fuel standards and create a 'manhattan project" for creating cleaner energy sources which relied less (or not at all) on outside sources.

Now, how the republicans might have handled Gore being in office durring 9/11 is a different matter.  Would they have put aside partisan differences for the sake of national unity, or would they have screamed for impeachment and blocked any sort of prosecution of the war on terror unless they could use it for their political advantage.   Sadly, their history over the past decade points strongly toward the latter.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2007, 11:47:23 AM »

We saw how well Clinton/Gore handled the 2-26-93 attack...do you even remember Clinton speaking about it?

OH YES:

"Before I lay out our new economic policy, let me first address the incident at the World Trade Center." - President Clinton 2/26/93

First of all, why did Clinton call it an incident rather than attack?

Yes, let's ignore the fact they were caught and brought to justice and just focus on what he called it at first. 
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2007, 02:13:41 PM »

We saw how well Clinton/Gore handled the 2-26-93 attack...do you even remember Clinton speaking about it?

OH YES:

"Before I lay out our new economic policy, let me first address the incident at the World Trade Center." - President Clinton 2/26/93

First of all, why did Clinton call it an incident rather than attack?

You know, I was under the impression that you judge how well someone handles something by what the person does about it, not by what the person says about it.

But then again, you're a Republican... Tongue
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 30, 2007, 04:40:46 PM »

1. Yes, 9/11 would have happened because Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton made some serious errors in foriegn policy that could not easily be repaired in a mere 9 months.

I see Saint Reagan made no mistakes. Meddling in the Iran-Iraq War definitely wasn't a mistake. It certainly wasn't the cause of all of the US's later problems in the Middle East that don't relate directly to Israel.
Logged
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2007, 01:43:17 PM »

Probably gone after Afganistan, made some progress, made some mistakes, probably a few like the Bush Admin. probably a few of his own. He probably would have been raked by the Republicans, just as Bush is being raked now.


In other words, both parties suck, both partake in as much partisan hackery as they can get away with, let's not pretend "my party is slightly less bloated and self centered than YOUR party"
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2007, 04:27:38 PM »

I think it is a fair bet for Afghanistan YES, Iraq NO.

I also think he would have tried to do something with Isreal.  For the 'war on terror' He would have focussed more on diplomacy and law enforcement and much less on military. And he would have made 'energy independence' a big issue. Probably would have gone for some version of the Patriot act, but not gone for the warentless wiretaps or GITMO kind of stuff.

THat is probably also how George Bush Sr. would have done things and Clinton and Kerry and pretty much any president except Bush
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2007, 10:34:02 PM »

1. Yes, 9/11 would have happened because Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton made some serious errors in foriegn policy that could not easily be repaired in a mere 9 months.

I see Saint Reagan made no mistakes. Meddling in the Iran-Iraq War definitely wasn't a mistake. It certainly wasn't the cause of all of the US's later problems in the Middle East that don't relate directly to Israel.

I didn't say he didn't make mistakes. It's just that his mistakes weren't as vital as Carter and Clinton's mistakes.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2007, 03:36:36 AM »

Yes... like inflaming the Cold War so to be able to act like the knight in shining armour.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2007, 10:31:17 AM »

(1) Of course 9/11 still would have happened.

(2) Domestically, little would be different in the Homeland Security sense.  We'd still have had ridiculous color-coded warning systems, or something similar, and we'd all be needlessly scared out of our minds.  Gore would have likely put forward and signed a watered-down version of the Patriot Act, expanding federal powers to fight terrorism.

(3) Abroad, the U.S. would have gone into Afghanistan almost immediately.  We'd have stayed out of Iraq, though I can imagine there being pressure to extend the war there by Congressional Republicans.  (Quiet at first, but getting louder around the 2002 midterms.)
Logged
AndrewTX
AndrewCT
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,091


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2007, 12:13:58 PM »

I believe that we wouldn't have gone into Afganistan sooner, but Gore still would have begun a search for Bin Laden. We wouldn't have had gone to Iraq in 2003, and a good chance the Republicans would be holding atleast on chamber of Congress.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2007, 09:46:29 PM »

We saw how well Clinton/Gore handled the 2-26-93 attack...do you even remember Clinton speaking about it?

OH YES:

"Before I lay out our new economic policy, let me first address the incident at the World Trade Center." - President Clinton 2/26/93

First of all, why did Clinton call it an incident rather than attack?

Like Clinton would have sat there listening to "My pet goat".
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2008, 11:51:17 PM »

I think he would have gone into Afganistan, and not Iraq. Osama would not have been found by 2008 still. gore couldn't have articulated the term War on Terror.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2008, 02:25:47 PM »

Depends on who he surrounds himself with when he becomes President. Liberal internationalists or people like Lieberman.
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2008, 01:51:46 PM »

We saw how well Clinton/Gore handled the 2-26-93 attack...do you even remember Clinton speaking about it?

OH YES:

"Before I lay out our new economic policy, let me first address the incident at the World Trade Center." - President Clinton 2/26/93

First of all, why did Clinton call it an incident rather than attack?

Because at that moment (the day it occurred) the details were not certain.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2009, 04:16:20 PM »

One needs some assumptions:

1. That al-Qaeda would still have plotted the 9/11 attacks or something similar.

2. That the CIA would have figured that something was going wrong, and that al-Qaeda figures were up to no good. A favorite modus operandi of al-Qaeda was well-known, and that was the use of transportation equipment as suicide weapons.

3. That President Gore would have paid attention to CIA reports of a major security breach.

4. That he would have asked the right questions of what terrorists could do with a hijacked jetliner (such as "What damage could someone do with a hijacked commercial jet turned into a missile?)

These assumptions would have held for Gore or McCain.

9/11 could have been disrupted with mass arrests of known al-Qaeda operatives in the US. That would have been the best of all possible situations. Bad news: such would have been an excuse for harsh regimes in Russia and China to crack down on real and imagined Islamic insurgencies, causing even greater loss of life than on 9/11 over a wider period of time.

Pick your poison.
     
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2009, 08:34:50 PM »

1. Yes, 9/11 would have happened because Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton made some serious errors in foriegn policy that could not easily be repaired in a mere 9 months.

I see Saint Reagan made no mistakes. Meddling in the Iran-Iraq War definitely wasn't a mistake. It certainly wasn't the cause of all of the US's later problems in the Middle East that don't relate directly to Israel.

I didn't say he didn't make mistakes. It's just that his mistakes weren't as vital as Carter and Clinton's mistakes.

No; they were worse. Lebanon made us more enemies in the region than Carter and Clinton combined.
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2009, 08:38:12 PM »

He would have blamed global warming.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 13 queries.