isn't it chilling to think if Gore won in 2000
 

there would be over 900 families in this country that didn't suffer the loss of a son or a husband or father.


amazing and so sad to think the potential that this country could have lived up to had we had a different president in the White House.

Or things could have ended up even worse. Who's to say what would have happened had we had Gore instead of Bush?

Who's to say if Florida knew how to count ballots? Or who's to say what would have happened if Dubya's brother wasn't the governor of your state?

actually..
 

and sadly, there are many more soldiers who have lost their lives because of Iraq. The media tends to report those who were killed after major combat operations in Iraq have ended.

I think those who died before major combat operations ended are just as important, as those soldiers who were initially wounded than died.

Every soldier who died because of this war should be counted. Anything less is disrespect, imho..

I agree that we don't really know where we would be if Gore had been elected, but I can't imagine things being much worse than they are now.

I am not so sure that would have happened. I know it is not popular to think it, but the Clinton/Gore Administration was set on removing SH from power and had exercised military might to make SH comply with the UN resolutions. Moreover, Clinton and Kerry have supported W's reasons for the invasion of Iraq - they just argued against the timing of it. They say, albeit somewhat after the fact, they would have waited for the inspectors to conclude the inspections and, perhaps, have gotten more world support. Gore is also on record as thinking SH had WMD. So, while I do not think Gore would have pursued the removal of SH with the zeal that W did, I am not so sure he would not have also acted to remove him after 9/11 made it imprudent to do nothing about his non-compliance with the UN resolutions. The UN was on beard with this post 9/11 thinking with Res. 1441. Everyone recognized SH had nothing to do with 9/11. The thought process was he had WMD (which turned out to be wrong) and he could make WMD - which has mostly turned out to be correct - he could transform certain facilities in little time according to Kay. So, I fully agree the way W went about the war in Iraq was a bad thing and he should be called out for it. However, I am unsure the shared reasoning behind the basic premise for the invasion - SH refused to account for his previously admitted WMD and SH was a terrorist with, according to the 9/11 report, ties to terrorist groups including Al-Q (these were slight prior ties, but ties nonetheless, and he aided and abetted a Al-Q refugee during the Afgan. conflict). So, while again, Gore may not have rushed to war, I think it is unfair to conclude he never would have done it at all or in any manner. :cool:

Note: I make no comment on the veracity of the intelligence prior to the war. I comment only on al of our political leaders' willingness and the UN's willingness in 1441 to accept it as true. It is that somewhat bilnd reliance on faulty data that I base my conclusion that like W, Gore would have had no choice to persue some type of action against SH after 9/11 to cure the unknown and potentially highly dangerous variable security threat SH respresented and would do little to dispell. That is all I am saying. I agree the intelligence was flawed. I agree W rushed to war by strectching the truth and preying on the fears of a teriified and Muslimphobic Amercia. We agree on all of that.

Don't forget the lives of Iraqi citizens whose lives are so unimportant to the Bush administration that they've stopped counting them.

How do you figure?

I think the more important question to ask is Would 9/11 have even happened under Gore?

I was wondering when you were going to bring that up!!! :wavey:

Who can say. The Clinton administration of which Gore was No. 2 did not get OBL when they had the chance if the alleged story is to be believed. Much of the planning went on during Clinton's watch and they did not get catch them. Also, there is the evid. that the planew attacks were to have happened in April (I think - maybe May) but they got post-poned. Finally, Clinton/Gore never stopped any other OBL attack, except possibly the Y2K border stop, but I am unsure if that was OBL :shrug: So, who can say for sure.

I do think, however, Gore would have kept much of the same team as Clinton and that team specifically warned W's new team that OBL/AQ was the biggest problem. Yet, W's team, while still concerned about Al-Q and OBL - persued America's policy of the removal of SH apparently with more vigor than trying to catch OBL, who, unlike SH, had directly attacked America two or three times prior to 9/11. In the end, I do not think without a lucky break anyone from either side could have stopped OBL and 9/11 because there was never any chance to connect the remotely located dots, etc. But, all we can do is speculate - so I say it probably would have happened - sadly.

I find it amazing how those lives don't seem to matter to some people. What a troubled world we live in. :(

Debunked and debunked again. I've posted all of that here. Use the search function if you wish. If you still don't believe me, ask yourself this: Why wouldn't he get Bin Laden? It certainly wouldn't taken some of the heat off of him.

Spin - period. There is no concrete evcidence that the US knew OBL was going to fly four airplanes on a suicide mission on the morning of 9/11/01. If there is, let's see it. There were memos saying OBL wanted to use planes as weapons or something like that and that he wanted to attack the US. Well, who did not know that even without those memos - the US gets thousands of threats a day. But, to argue W knew it was going to happen that day at that time and did nothing about it is just not supported by any facts I have ever read and I assert I have read most of them :cool:

I think OBL got away. There is no concrete proof it was anything other than that. So, the rest is just speculation. I mean despite the popular OBL will be "captured" on late oct. of 2004 just in time for the election, but that theory if flawed in that W's reelection would be pretty much guaranteed by "capturing" OBL at anytime :shrug: Again, to argue that W let OBL get away in Afgan. makes for good conspiracy theory, but there are no facts (and I am talking facts :cool: ) to support that. If there were such facts, don't you think MM would have SCREAMED them in F-9/11 :shrug:

In any event, until you or anyone else can show me the memo. that said OBL was going to blow up building by ramming airplanes into them on 9/11/01 - I am standing by my conclusion that W did not know about 9/11 and did nothing about it. True, the US was caught with its pants down and out intelligence system was flawed and tainted with territorialism all of which caused the US not to be able to connect the dots that may and I mean MAY have prevented that horrible day, much like we were during all of the other OBL terrorist attacks none of which were prevented :shrug: - but to flat out say it could have been prevented and W knew this but did nothing about it and then let OBL get away for out of some loyalty to the bin Laden family is just flat out unspported by any facts I have ever read, which includes, Lord love ya, all of your prior posts :cool:

But, I still love ya anyway!!! :angel:

AND - it does not excuse the Bush Admin. for not capturing OBL - that was a failure. It also does not excuse the Bush admin. for rushing to war with Iraq, using the National Guard that was not properly trained (prison scandal is a good example), by preying on the scared out of their wits Americans. We have spent billions on billions of $$$$$ when apparently waiting a few more months perhaps could have thwarted the need for the war or at least an all out war. Again, if I had an employee who did that on some corp. scale, I would fire them immediately - who wouldn't :shrug:

EDIT: I am unsure if my response actually responded to your response. On second reading, I think you meant the debunked theory about Clinton having access to OBL and not going after him. So . . . . my response was not in response to you. But, I'll let it stay for posterity sake, etc. :laugh:

I agree though, the man who provided info. about OBL location was suspect as was the whole incident. But, there were other times, when we had a good bet on where he was but chose not to go after him because of the fear of violating another nation's sov. In hindsight, which is always 20/20, I wish we had :shrug:

Just because you guys like the democrat guys better does not mean that they would have done any better with all this terrorist stuff going on today. I don't have much of an opinion on politics, but it is certainly not a fact that 900 people would not have died in war had there been a different president. For all we know 9,000 people could have died had there been different leadership.

We'll never really know. :shrug:

No one. :o

Exactly. It is all speculation. The one thing I do think is close to the truth as we can get in the speculation is Gore probably would not have rushed to war with Iraq like W did. In my opinion, his hisotry did not support that he would rush to war. But, that is speculation and that is all it will ever be :cool:

Whose to say what would have happened if Al Snore had been a decent human being and asked for a manual recount of the entire state instead of just those counties he thought he would do better in. I get that Florida had problems and Jeb Bush and crewe were no saints. But, Gore shot himself in the foot with his calculated decision to recount only some instead of all votes. I submit recounting all votes under the same standard instead of a few counties all under a diff standard was the fairer thing to do but Gore chose not to do that - hence the USSC decision or at least a part of it. Although I do not think the USSC should have taken the case, I cannot fault their reasoning that because all votes were not being counted under the same standard it was unfair. In the end, Gore has himself to blame. Note: this does not exonerate Jeb and crewe for their bad acts. It just means Gore was not lilly white in his innocence.

the second sentence was the point of his comment not the first. the one dude said it wouldve been better but he said maybe it wouldve been worse who really know what would've happened.

You're an attorney. What, exactly would we have extradited Bin Laden to this country for?

And the research has shown that if Gore had done this he would be president today.

You're talking about 2001 now, not the right wing talking point about Clinton. :confused: Clinotn was never"offered bin Laden on a silver platter" like your friend Bill O'Reilly says. There were talks in 1996 but again, for what reason would Bin Laden have been extradited had he really been found in the first place?


Read the August 6, 2001 PDB. I think it's in the 9/11 commission report. If not, it's here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf [/QUOTE]

Why were the family members of the alleged per allowed to leave the country?
Yeah. :shrug: :laugh:

And I asked him to elaborate on that theory and apparently neither of you can. :shrug:

According to the August 6 PDB, Bin Laden was "aware" of it.

well it didn't seem a proper question to his point.....cause it was self explanatory. you dont know whether it wouldve been better or worse because it never happened and you can just predict things and present them as fact. you just dont know what would've happened had al gore been the president the past 4 years. you just dont know. is that good enough for you? most likely not. and mostlikely you have some smart ass remark and rebuttal most likely containing a rip on george bush. seems to be the trend in your posts.

Are you saying that I don't have the right to freely express myself?

Well, I am still interested in knowing what your thoughts are regarding Michael Moore telling people not to re-elect senators who supported the war, but calling for the election of one such senator to President. You left me hanging on that one. :shrug: That's OK though. If he couldn't answer it, I don't see how anyone else could.

The U.S. Cole. The U.S. embassy in Kenya. The military barracks in I forget where. The first WTC bombing. We had the grounds. There is not really a question about that - the 8/6/01 memo. supports that. The question was would an ARAB country like Saudi Arabia, The Sudan (who curently is screaming for our help mind you), Afgan., etc. give him up. Whatever Arab admin., like the House of Saud, gave him up would be risking anarachy and would be committing political suicide. OBL is a hero to many Arabs whether they openly admit it or not. In the end, Clinton could have done more but did not even though he certainly did alot to stop terrororists. AND - I still assert Clinton must share some but certainly not all of the, for want of a better word, culpability for failing to stop 9/11 because most of the planning of it took place under his, not W's, watch - after all those attacks took years to plan :shrug: Yet, all of the blame goes to W because of some vague 8/01 memo. :shrug:

True, but my point was he was IMO greedy and foolish, so he is not. Thus, he must share some of the blame :shrug: The USSC stopped the recounts because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Const. Their reasoning was not all of the votes were being counted in the same manner. For example, a handmarked ballot or hanging or dimpled chad could be counted as a valid vote in on area but not the other. How that does NOT violate the EP clause I do not see. Had Gore in his initial law suit prayed for a recount of the entire state under one uniform standard, which the USSC essentially ordered the Fla. Sup. Ct. to do in its first Order, there would have been no legal grounds for the second USSC decision. But, Gore did not do that. He picked which counties he thought were favorable to him, which was a move that showed little care and no regard for the rights of the voters in other less favorable counties. Certainly, they had the right to have their ballots examined or did they lose that right just because they lived in a county less favorable to Gore and perhaps voted against him :shrug: Like the entire election, Gore has himself mostly to blame for the recount fiasco no matter how bad the Fla. Admin acted. But, the D's will never admint that because the D's can never ever say ANYTHING that gives W any credit whatsoever - they think to do so is tantamount to sacrilege :shrug: Conversly, I tend to call it as I see it and I do not see how anyone can with a straight face and with facts rebut what I just said.

I don't mean to speak for Mike, but I think that what he is saying is that there is a tendency for you to change the subject in your replies instead of addressing the topic itself. I seem to recall this being referred to as the "Slippery Slope" in a Reason and Argument class I once took. It's used to take focus off a topic that the person does not want attention drawn to, cannot argue effectively, or that does not support their own point of view. It's not very subtle though. Used car salesman do it a lot.

Christopher, what you said is very wise in it's simplicity, and it's true as well. There really is no way of knowing "what could have been" in any situation. Life isn't like the film "It's a Wonderful Life". That's a fact no matter what political party you support. ;)

I know - but all that says is OBL wanted to hijack airplanes and he wanted to attack the US here and elsewhere as he has done before. It did not in any way provide any specifics of the attacks; it did not in any way say OBL wanted to hijack four or more planes and fly them into the WTC and the capital and Pentagon. The memo provides no specifics. I agree W's admin. and Clinton's admin. did not connect the dots (interstingly Clinton failed to connect the dots for attacks (Cole, Kenya emb. etc.) many more times than W's) - but I think you are asserting this memo. is a smoking gun of sorts that should have been this grand beacon illuminating OBL's 9/11 plans for even the most simple minded idiot to discover with ease. I just do not see how this memo. casts anything but a general light on OBL's willingingness and continued want to attack us, which was already known.

Here is the text of the memo.:

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladensince 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladentold followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told [deleted text] service at the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative'saccess to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning hisown U.S. attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he preparesoperations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

AI Qaeda members — including same who are U.S. citizens — have resided in and traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two Al Qaeda members found guiltyin the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine sourcesaid in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New Yorkwas recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns ofsuspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
______________________________________________________________

Again, this was general information. This did not in any way say - OBL is attacking on 9/11. Interestingly, as I have asserted before, that "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related" indicates W's administration was active is persuing leads. It does not in any way support the theory that W's administration was concentrating solely on Iraq and ignoring OBL :shrug: But, the D's will never admit that and many have said this part of the memo. is false and no such investigations were occuring. I think that is silly. How would anyone outside of the FBI know that and why is okay to pick the part of the memo. that supports the "W did nothing and knew about it" part of the memo. (if such actually exists which I submit it does not) and cast aside without factual basis the parts that does not? But, once again, to admit this is to give W credit for something and that is NEVER allowed under any circumstances :cool:


Innuendo once again :shrug: What did these people have to do with the attacks of 9/11? Are they part of Al-Q.? Granted some but not all were related to OBL, but OBL has been by all credible accounts estranged from his family for years even though some distant cousins attended the wedding years ago or something like that. Finally, these people were given a screening before they left, granted the screening was slight. I think we would have had to show these people people were connectd to the 9/11 events other than by estranged familial connections. Thus, while I agree on its face this smacks of conspiracy, guilt by association is not really fair and is in many ways tantamount to saying al Arabs are resp. for 9/11 :shrug:

Note: I am not saying W should not be held accountable for failing to stop 9/11. I am just saying your assertion or at least implication that it was somehow known that on 9/11 OBL would commit these acts is just not supported by any evidence I have seen, granted I and we the public probably have not seen all the evidence :shrug:

If and buts were candies & nuts
 

If Gore would've won his own homestate Tennessee, Flor-I-duh would NOT have mattered what-so-ever...He could have let Shrub take Flor-I-Duh and still would have WON the election.

But that was nearly 4 years ago...I really could care less about the 2000 voting SNAFU/FIASCO anymore, If Gore would've won Tennessee then I'm sure no one else would care either.

Brilliant - :thumbsup:

And, unfortunately, the mainstream media doesn't do their job. :(

Hogwash. :wavey:

They had a policy for Iraq that stressed regime change from within, not invading and taking over. However, that policy had all but been abandoned until the Bush administration charged in and used it as leverage to invade, even though they didn't tell the American people what the policy really said and when it had last been even looked at by the Clinton administration. Just like the myth that has been perpetuated about John Kerry advocating war on Iraq in '98, the "Clinton was set on removing Saddam" is just another myth. There's nothing to substantiate those claims but his policy of regime change from within, which I submit is 180 degrees different from what Bush and cronies advocated.

I was wondering when the talking points would appear. There is nothing to lend credence to those stories. Next. :laugh:

Ha. That's the story told by Minute Rice, who said during her 9/11 commission testimony that she didn't know her job was national security advisor. That's the story told by Asscroft, who told his staff that he didn't want to hear a peep about bin Laden or terrorist attacks. So much for shaking the trees, eh?

Why did he get away, again? Oh, that's right, Bush and Co. gave him a two month running start. ;)

:shrug:

Gore was second-in-command in the administration that warned Bush that Al Qaeda was a priority. There's no doubt in my mind that if Gore had been at the wheel, he would've jumped into action the minute that the chatter began in spring of 2001.

I explained that three times. There's quite a difference between getting rid of Bush and getting rid of seantors. Getting rid of Bush is the priority right now, surely you don't disagree.

:lol: :lol: :lol: You? Are Losing It.

The Bush administration dropped all investigations into the Cole bombing and practically murdered John Dean because of it.

I've answered your question twice. :shrug: Do you want me to call Michael on the phone?

The alleged Bin Laden offer was made in 1996. The USS Cole wasn't struck until 2000.

The alleged Bin Laden offer was made in 1996. The Kenya Embassy was strike in 1998.

Also, the 9/11 Commission report directly states there never was any offer to Clinton. :)