Full Version: Al Gore and Modern History
This question requires some speculation on behalf of the debate's participants. There are no real sources to give background information on the topic, but it is a memory firmly lodged in our national conscience. September 11th was a tragic day for everyone in this country, but some people have asserted that it was an entirely preventable circumstance. Some people have gone so far as to say George W. Bush knowingly allowed or simply ignored intelligence pointing to the attack. But would things have turned out any differently if somebody else had been sitting in the Oval Office?
Please check all partisan politics at the door.
And so, a historical "what if?" scenario:
1.) Would 9/11 have occurred if Al Gore had been president?
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
Please check all partisan politics at the door.
And so, a historical "what if?" scenario:
1.) Would 9/11 have occurred if Al Gore had been president?
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
1.) Would 9/11 have occurred if Al Gore had been president?
Undoubtedly. Bush hadn't been president long enough for 9-11 to have had anything very much to do with him, and the plans must have got underway while Clinton was still in office.
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
The USA and her allies would almost certainly have gone into Afghanistan in much the same way as they originally did in 2001.
However, I don't believe that a Gore-led USA would have gone into Iraq. The focus would have remained on al-Qaeda and therefore would have stayed mostly on Afghanistan and the wilderlands bordering Pakistan. Any additional pressure, which would have fallen short of invasion and been political and economic in nature, would have fallen on Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt, which are the places where most fo the A-Q impetus originally came from (but which are all now our "allies" in the WoT).
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
There would be a concerted international effort to contain, disrupt and eventually eliminate AQ, but I doubt that it would have been described as a war (much less a War), and I think that the scope would have been limited to AQ and not stretched to include regime change in Iraq.
This is all hypothetical, however.
(edited to correct my atorciuos tpying siklls)
Undoubtedly. Bush hadn't been president long enough for 9-11 to have had anything very much to do with him, and the plans must have got underway while Clinton was still in office.
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
The USA and her allies would almost certainly have gone into Afghanistan in much the same way as they originally did in 2001.
However, I don't believe that a Gore-led USA would have gone into Iraq. The focus would have remained on al-Qaeda and therefore would have stayed mostly on Afghanistan and the wilderlands bordering Pakistan. Any additional pressure, which would have fallen short of invasion and been political and economic in nature, would have fallen on Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt, which are the places where most fo the A-Q impetus originally came from (but which are all now our "allies" in the WoT).
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
There would be a concerted international effort to contain, disrupt and eventually eliminate AQ, but I doubt that it would have been described as a war (much less a War), and I think that the scope would have been limited to AQ and not stretched to include regime change in Iraq.
This is all hypothetical, however.
(edited to correct my atorciuos tpying siklls)
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jan 11 2008, 12:06 PM) 
1.) Would 9/11 have occurred if Al Gore had been president?
Yes.QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jan 11 2008, 12:06 PM)
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
Oddly I think that there would have been more attacks abroad. Under Al Gore there probably would have been a lot less focus on Homeland Security and almost no color coded levels of alertness. This could have possibly, maybe, probably not though allowed some of the home brewed plots to have been successful. Honestly most of the home brewed plots were pretty moronic and had very little chance of actually working. I mean seriously who thought an attack on a US Military base WITH GUNS was going to be a success. In NEW FREAKING JERSEY! I'll tell you, really stupid people. Really stupid people don't generally pull off very effective attacks.QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jan 11 2008, 12:06 PM)
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
Probably not. It would have been more of an FBI/CIA Law Enforcement type of operation which I think would have been very ineffective. I point out the Twin Towers are gone now. You may remember we have in jail the perps of the first attack.I'm not completely illogical on the topic - I respect the role of Law Enforcement agencies - I just think when crazies are faced with going to jail vs. having their countries obliterated even they can be reasoned with. Citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan ARE turning over crazies.
1.) Would 9/11 have occurred if Al Gore had been president?
I would guess "yes"- that being said- it also had a greater likelihood of the attack being foiled due to continuity of communication, and well, competance that the GW administration has NEVER shown.
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
We would have a much calmer and safer world. We would have never gone to Iraq, and I have no doubt we would have Bin Laden in jail or dead, and AQ would be a near non-existant entity. Gore is much smarter and more competant, by any yardstick, and would have not made the same idiotic resource wasting behaviors as this admin. I doubt very seriously if Gore would have wasted the worlds empathy towards the 9/11 attack as GW has done.
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
Um, how about competantly? Nixon has shown us that an administration can be corrupt, yet competant. GW has shown us how disastrous being both corrupt and incompetant can be. I don't believe Gore is corrupt like Clinton, and he is beyond competant, into the near genious level of organization and translation of data into needed action.
He would have not been so stupid as GW to call it a "War on Terror", and then go naming nation states as "the axis of evil"
- nor would we see "color coded threats" and "duct tape" panics.
We wouldn't be wasting trillions of dollars in a black hole of foreign nation building, especially without making other countries our allies in this, including monetary support (which GH Bush was able to do) - and we wouldn't have the patriot act, nor would we have torture, rendition extrajudicial killings.
And on and on. The worst we would have is the Republicans trying to take credit for all the good he has done, and trying to find some personal, private behavior they can impeach him for.
I would guess "yes"- that being said- it also had a greater likelihood of the attack being foiled due to continuity of communication, and well, competance that the GW administration has NEVER shown.
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
We would have a much calmer and safer world. We would have never gone to Iraq, and I have no doubt we would have Bin Laden in jail or dead, and AQ would be a near non-existant entity. Gore is much smarter and more competant, by any yardstick, and would have not made the same idiotic resource wasting behaviors as this admin. I doubt very seriously if Gore would have wasted the worlds empathy towards the 9/11 attack as GW has done.
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
Um, how about competantly? Nixon has shown us that an administration can be corrupt, yet competant. GW has shown us how disastrous being both corrupt and incompetant can be. I don't believe Gore is corrupt like Clinton, and he is beyond competant, into the near genious level of organization and translation of data into needed action.
He would have not been so stupid as GW to call it a "War on Terror", and then go naming nation states as "the axis of evil"
- nor would we see "color coded threats" and "duct tape" panics. We wouldn't be wasting trillions of dollars in a black hole of foreign nation building, especially without making other countries our allies in this, including monetary support (which GH Bush was able to do) - and we wouldn't have the patriot act, nor would we have torture, rendition extrajudicial killings.
And on and on. The worst we would have is the Republicans trying to take credit for all the good he has done, and trying to find some personal, private behavior they can impeach him for.
1.) Would 9/11 have occurred if Al Gore had been president?
With just a few minor changes, the 9/11 plot might have been foiled. I think the attempt would have been made, but may not have been successful had Gore been in the oval office. That said, I think further attempts would have been made until one was successful.
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
Almost anything would have been better that what’s been termed Bush’s “cowboy” type diplomacy.
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
Had a terrorist plot occurred under Gore, I think there would have been a response. It might not have been called a “War on Terror,” but we might well have gone into Afghanistan, but not Iraq.
With just a few minor changes, the 9/11 plot might have been foiled. I think the attempt would have been made, but may not have been successful had Gore been in the oval office. That said, I think further attempts would have been made until one was successful.
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
Almost anything would have been better that what’s been termed Bush’s “cowboy” type diplomacy.
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
Had a terrorist plot occurred under Gore, I think there would have been a response. It might not have been called a “War on Terror,” but we might well have gone into Afghanistan, but not Iraq.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jan 11 2008, 02:59 PM)
We would have a much calmer and safer world. We would have never gone to Iraq, and I have no doubt we would have Bin Laden in jail or dead, and AQ would be a near non-existant entity. Gore is much smarter and more competant, by any yardstick, and would have not made the same idiotic resource wasting behaviors as this admin. I doubt very seriously if Gore would have wasted the worlds empathy towards the 9/11 attack as GW has done.
As usual, typical CR, no facts. No links. Shoot from the hip.
I'll pose some follow up questions to your post.
1. How on earth would Gore have captured Bin Laden? Why haven't we now? He invented the internet... but I doubt he'd know where in world Waldo... I mean Bin Laden is.
2. If we were attacked 5 times under a similarly minded president (Clinton), why would Gore have not been as bad or worse? After all, he is the champion of science that someone else made up and of course the inventor of the internet.
3. Didn't Congress vote for the war in Iraq? Isn't the Democrat held congress still in Iraq????
The facts don't add up CR. I don't like GW either, but your logic is flawed. Wasn't Al Gore partly responsible for our lack of action against Bin Laden BEFORE 9/11????
Seriously. Get a grip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Presiden...d_States#Duties
Here are some duties of the VP.
If we had opportunity to get Bin Laden when Clinton was President, when Bin Laden wasn't in hiding, why could Gore have done it now?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/010903clinton.html
We all know the story... we didn't kill Bin Laden when we could. Gore was the VP then... hmm....
From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
In 1965, Gore enrolled at Harvard College, the only university to which he applied. He scored in the lower fifth of the class for two years in a row[11] and, after finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors, found a passion for government, and graduated with honors from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government
Lower fifth??? You're right. He's a freakin genius.
QUOTE
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999
Again... I'm no GW fan, but let's be objective about what would've been different... I can't say anything points to Al Gore as much more of a winner here.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jan 11 2008, 01:06 PM)
1.) Would 9/11 have occurred if Al Gore had been president?
Probably, although it was a good point by CR that the continuity between the Clinton and Gore administrations might have made a difference. Just a little action here or there, and things might have been different. Maybe that intelligence report doesn't sit on Gore's desk, unread....
QUOTE
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
I, too, think that he would have taken some action against Afghanistan, but none against Iraq. So the difference would likely be that we would have more forces in Afghanistan, more allies around the world, and we wouldn't be going into such monstrous debt to stretch our armed forces out way too far. Richard Clarke is still employed and still effective.
QUOTE
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
If there was such a successful attack on America, of course there would be a big push to combat terrorism. I doubt you would see anything like the Patriot Act passed, or even suggested, under Gore's leadership.
How about this possible scenario (under Gore): He gets into office, and instead of cutting taxes for the rich in 2000, President Gore pushes through his alternative energy agenda and forces automakers to accept increased mileage standards. Now, in 2007, Gore's America is much better positioned to wean itself off of Middle Eastern oil. Iraq, still under sanctions, is AQ-free, and still there to balance against Iran. Afghanistan, as the main focus of our armed forces, is probably further along than it is now toward wherever it is heading. Jon Stewart's job of lampooning the government is much more difficult. And Republicans, led by Rush Limbaugh, are busier than ever telling everyone how bad things are under a Democratic president, and what a great job Bush would have done had the election not been stolen from him by activist judges.
BTW, Aevans176 - why all the hate? What has Gore done to deserve it? It's not like he was president and did a lousy job. Hating Gore is like a democrat hating Bob Dole.
1.) Would 9/11 have occurred if Al Gore had been president?
Yes
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
Per the request to check the partisanship at the door, I'll give Al Gore the chance to respond to these questions himself. He did that back on 23 Sept2002 (my 50th birthday) in a speech before The CommonWealth Club. He lays out his plan to combat terrorism and although there are significant differences from the course Bush has followed, there are some striking similarities. Let's examine some of them.......
Ok, so Gore would have declared a "War against Terror" in some fashion, and he indicates he would have initiated military actions in Afghanistan. That's similar to what Bush did.....
With respect to Iraq however, he goes on to say the following......
Ok, he sees Saddam as a threat and recognizes that we need to take him out at some point, but not with the urgency that the Bush Administration did. Fair enough.
Not far from the position of Bush at that time. And then we come to this passage......
This sounds an awful lot like the McCain position on Iraq. It's an interesting speech.
My speculation after having read what Al Gore had to say back in 2002 is that there would be a GWOT by a Gore Administration, more aggressive in Afghanistan, less so in Iraq, and quite possibly less aggressive overall - but only by a small margin. I don't think Gore would have followed the Clinton doctrine and been satisfied with using a million dollar missile to blow up a 10 dollar tent.
Aquilla
Yes
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
Per the request to check the partisanship at the door, I'll give Al Gore the chance to respond to these questions himself. He did that back on 23 Sept2002 (my 50th birthday) in a speech before The CommonWealth Club. He lays out his plan to combat terrorism and although there are significant differences from the course Bush has followed, there are some striking similarities. Let's examine some of them.......
QUOTE(Al Gore)
To begin with - to put first things first - I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than was predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism.
Ok, so Gore would have declared a "War against Terror" in some fashion, and he indicates he would have initiated military actions in Afghanistan. That's similar to what Bush did.....
With respect to Iraq however, he goes on to say the following......
QUOTE(Al Gore)
I believe that we are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion. If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first. Especially if you're in the middle of a gunfight with somebody who's out after you.
Ok, he sees Saddam as a threat and recognizes that we need to take him out at some point, but not with the urgency that the Bush Administration did. Fair enough.
QUOTE(Al Gore)
Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does indeed pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Not far from the position of Bush at that time. And then we come to this passage......
QUOTE(Al Gore)
Two decades ago, the Soviet Union claimed the right to launch a preemptive war in Afghanistan, we properly encouraged and then supported the resistance movement, which a decade later succeeded in defeating the Soviet army's efforts. Unfortunately, however, when the Russians left, we abandoned the Afghans, and the lack of any coherent nation-building program led directly to the conditions which allowed the Taliban to take control and to bring in Al Qaeda and give them a home and a base for their worldwide terrorist operations. That's where they planned the attack on us a year ago September 11. Incredibly, in spite of that vivid lesson, after defeating the Taliban rather easily, and despite pledges from President Bush that we would never again abandon Afghanistan, we have done precisely that. And now the Taliban and Al Qaeda are quickly moving back in. A mere two years later after we abandoned Afghanistan the first time, Saddam Hussein launched his invasion of Kuwait. And our decision following a brilliant military campaign to abandon the effort prematurely to destroy Saddam's military allowed him to remain in power. This needs to be debated and discussed by the Congress. What this tells me is the Congress should require, as part of any resolution that it considers, some explicit guarantees on whether we're proposing to simply abandon the Iraqi people in the aftermath of a military victory there or whether or not we're going to demand as a nation that this doctrine of "wash your hands and walk away" be changed so that we can engage in some nation building again, and build the kind of peace for the future that our people have a right expect.
This sounds an awful lot like the McCain position on Iraq. It's an interesting speech.
My speculation after having read what Al Gore had to say back in 2002 is that there would be a GWOT by a Gore Administration, more aggressive in Afghanistan, less so in Iraq, and quite possibly less aggressive overall - but only by a small margin. I don't think Gore would have followed the Clinton doctrine and been satisfied with using a million dollar missile to blow up a 10 dollar tent.
Aquilla
1.) Would 9/11 have occurred if Al Gore had been president?
Of course, it was planned under Clinton.
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
The terrorists would have lectured on how the WTC explosion and plane crashes increased global warming. Osama bin Laden would have receive the Noble Peace Prize though.
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
No, there would be a Global War on Global Warming.
silly thread
Of course, it was planned under Clinton.
2.) How would the past six-seven years of history have been changed by Gore's leadership?
The terrorists would have lectured on how the WTC explosion and plane crashes increased global warming. Osama bin Laden would have receive the Noble Peace Prize though.
3.) Would there be a global War on Terror, and if so: How might it have been conducted differently under Gore?
No, there would be a Global War on Global Warming.
silly thread
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.