If Gore had won...

[bruzzes]

I pose this speculative question.

If Gore had won the 2000 election, how would he have dealt with the aftermath of 9/11, and describe the state of the economy and foreign affairs his policies would have brought.

Would the US be in a more secure position regarding terrorism?
Would the economy have recovered without the tax cuts?

[Coriolis]

I pose this speculative question.

If Gore had won the 2000 election, how would he have dealt with the aftermath of 9/11, and describe the state of the economy and foreign affairs his policies would have brought.

Would the US be in a more secure position regarding terrorism?
Would the economy have recovered without the tax cuts?A very tough question, Bruz, and probably not one that can be answered without a measure of partisanship.

Would we be safer? Let me try to answer this way (with some important caveats, as well):

Because I am of the view that taking the major focus off Afghanistan in 2002 to refocus on Iraq was extremely detrimental to the war on terror, and given the current state of affairs in Iraq as a result of the Iraq war, I have to conclude that the current administrations strategy has not worked to make us safer.

I don't think Gore would have invaded Iraq. So that's part of the answer.

The caveats are as follows:

Would Gore have launched a full-blown multilateral attack on the Taliban and al-Qaeda, as Bush did, immediatly following 9/11?

Would Gore have focussed his energy on North Korea's and Iran's budding nuclear weapons programs?

Affirmatives would be needed for both the above in order for me to state unequivocally that we would indeed be safer.

EDIT: I didn;t address the domestic issue, but will try later when time permits.

[eakes]

If Gore were president:
The US would be in negotiations with Afghanistan for permission to go after OBL.
Sanctions would have by now been lifted from Iraq and SH would be well on his way to having nuclear armament.
The US economy would be languishing in recession. There would have been no tax cut but there would probably be talk of a tax increase to provide additional money so the government could spend it to help the economy and create a 'jobs program'.
The same, if not more, IT jobs would have been transferred off-shore.
With Gore's support California would have passed the recent law granting driver's licenses to anyone who wants one.

[rhobite]

Gore would have responded to 9/11 with a Clinton-style remote attack in Afghanistan. Cruise missiles, UAVs, and probably special forces only for ground combat. Would this have been more effective at finding bin Laden? I don't know. I don't think any strategy was guaranteed to find him after 9/11. I believe invading and overthrowing Afghanistan was the right move, but invading Iraq was wrong. I am confident Gore would not have invaded Iraq, this would've saved billions of dollars that could be used on homeland defense. UN weapons inspections were working, and they should have continued.

Yes, I believe Gore would have made us safer from terrorism, because the only way to reduce terrorism is to have less of a presence in the Middle East. We still need to support Israel's fight against terror, and assist with building Afghanistan, but Iraq was clearly a mistake that galvanized the extremists against us.

[ethics]

You folks really believe that Gore would not attack Afghanistan after demanding OBL's head? I do. I think he would have been pressured by everyone and I don't think Gore is a pacifist as much as Kerry is.

He would have ordere an attack on Afghanistan, everyone would have been with us, and he would have stopped there. He would not have gone after Saddam.

Good or bad is up to your views on the war, but that's what I feel would have happened.

[eakes]

I do not believe Gore would have instigated a ground war against Afghanistan. He would have followed the pattern set by Clinton - a few weekend 'camel bombings' would have been the sum total of a military campaign. The rest would have been diplomacy - trying to 'talk' the Taliban into giving up OBL.

[ethics]

Clinton fired those missiles over a foreign attack, albeit on the US Embassies in Africa. This was our planes, our Pentagon, and our WTC with over 3,000 dead. I seriously doubt ANY President would have just sat there and lobbed a few missiles from our boats.

[Steve]

I think Gore would have gone further than that but there's one aspect of the Iraqi invasion most people don't mention.

I have grave doubts that Pakistan would cooperated to the extent that it did (and that's of debatable quality) if Iraq had not been invaded.

Afghanistan was one thing and I do wish we could have finished up the job there before moving on to Hussein (which was also necessary). But I have little doubt the "insurgents" we're seeing in Iraq right now would instead be in Afghanistan, concentrated along the border of Pakistan, with little or no Pakistani cooperation in killing them, had we not invaded Iraq.

And I don't believe Gore would have taken on Hussein.

As to the domestic financial aspect of it Gore would probably have had either a neutral or slightly negative effect on the markets and economy. There were simply too many other factors at play for me to guess better than that.

[eakes]

Clinton set the stage with his response to the first WTC attack - a criminal action, hunt down the responsible parties and bring them to trial.
Certainly 9/11 was a much more serious event than the first WTC attack, but I believe Gore's response would have been the same as Clinton's. As time progressed and other events unfolded, there could possibly have been pressure from the public and congress for military action of some kind, but the 'call to action' would not have been initiated by Gore. He would reluctantly go along, but one should not expect such leadership from Gore. I also believe that either Clinton or Kerry would have followed the same path as projected for Gore if they were president at the time of 9/11.

[bruzzes]

I agree with ethics that Gore would have responded in a somewhat similar way as President Bush after 9/11. The difference lies in whether it would have been successful in the totality of the current situation in Afganistan.

I do not believe that Gore would have targeted the Taliban that resulted in regime change. I doubt seriously, whether he would have made the decision to ally with the various warlords and tribal leaders.

Putting ground troops in Afganistan, without the co-operation with the warlord leaders would have resulted in an ineffectual outcome.
I also doubt that Pakistan would have been on board, as it would mean a compromise of the old foreign policy of non-cooperation with a terrorrist nation, and the "realpolitik" policy of thee previous administrations. Without a declaration of a similar "Bush Doctrine " and a radical shift in foreign policy, terrorists would still be subject to mere criminal legal laws. Most terrorists caught would still be in the legal system with years of litigation still pending and no major retaliation for 3000 people killed. This would likely have moved us farther behind the war on terrorism as it would have enabled the terrorists another victory as the Taliban Regime would still be in power. Remember, regime change and no safe havens is a Bush Doctrine.

Saddam, would still be in power, with sanctions perhaps extended by the UN. But as we saw, those sanctions were being eroded by our so called allies, Russia, Germany and France, with the helpful direction of a corrupt UN.

As we know, there would be no tax cuts in a Gore Administration, and we would be wallowing in a severe recession without them.

Oh, we might have actually have a surplus, and programs galore would be created to resolve the domestic mess, but I believe there would have been serious consequences for the American people in regards to global terrorism.

I don't agree with Bush entirely, but without the change in foreign policy, the substance of pre-emption and the steadfastness to see it through, we would still be holding hands with a corrupt UN with allies who hold a knife to our back.

[ethics]

We must remember that each President is only as good (or bad) as his advisors. It wasn't Bush's idea to use warlords; I think people give Bush way too much credit here.

Would Gore's advisors not see a very convenient mean to use the country's troops, the ones that know it, thrive off it? I don't know but I would bet there's a good chance they would.

And let me ask you something on Gore NOT ousting Taliban, or target them. OBL was held and protected by the Taliban, why go in to Afghanistan at all if you are not going to target the Taliban? How else would you hunt someone like OBL in a foreign country that doesn't want you to be there?

[mers2]

I do believe Gore would have attacked Afghanistan and driven the Taliban out. 9/11 was a major attack on our soil. It's funny, but prior to 9/11 it was wondered if Bush would measure up to a crisis. One cannot make judgments based prior 9/11. I do not believe, however, that Gore would have invaded Iraq. As to Steve's remark that Pakistan would not have cooperated if we had not invaded Iraq, Pakinstan cooperated with us when we invaded Afghanistan. Their cooperation had nothing to do with Iraq.

[el scorcho]

Stating that Gore wouldn't have done A or B in foreign policy is to argue on extremely tenuous claims because there is zero firm evidence to back it up. Bush did not bat an eye towards the Taliban before 9/11, and I remember them being in the news quite prominently (destroying sacred non-muslim religous artifacts in Afghanistan for instance) in the weeks right before the strike. Bush disdained publically the concept of 'nation-building' before he was elected president, and none of his policies up till 9/11 offered any change of mindset. 9/11 changed this administration and it no doubt would've changed some of Gore's attitudes as well.

Also, where did this foreign policy on 'non cooperation with a terrorist country' come from? That is what 'realpolitik' is my friend - a pramgatic form of politics, and it's one that has been practiced for <b>decades</b>. Regardless if it has been a democratic or republican administration we've always turned a blind eye to a country's internal affairs so long as they were committed with us in whatever action we undertake.

On tax cuts you are right though - we probably wouldn't have had them. The added revenue would be doing wonders for our federal deficit though.

[Fiona]

I seriously doubt ANY President would have just sat there and lobbed a few missiles from our boats.I remember early in the morning on 9/11/01 some of the first utterances of not just me, but many people in town and on tv and radio. One was, "Thank God Gore didn't win!"

I remember thinking, Here we go, WWIII, to hell in a handbasket... but knowing it was inevitable... They had finally attacked us, on homeground... and there is no way we will sit still and tolerate it! We have an image as a superpower to protect, by golly! I remember discussing, whether or not Gore would have acted. The general concensus was, he would have executed some piddly attempt at Blowing OBL off the face of the planet, most likely failing and that would be it.
I agree with most of what Eakes has had to say :)

[bruzzes]

Also, where did this foreign policy on 'non cooperation with a terrorist country' come from? That is what 'realpolitik' is my friend - a pramgatic form of politics, and it's one that has been practiced for <b>decades</b>. Regardless if it has been a democratic or republican administration we've always turned a blind eye to a country's internal affairs so long as they were committed with us in whatever action we undertake.

On tax cuts you are right though - we probably wouldn't have had them. The added revenue would be doing wonders for our federal deficit though.

What form of policy? ;)

Again, a speculative answer, as was mine.

Do you really think we would still have a surplus if Gore did not go to war? There would be so many programs on the federal level to create jobs due to the Depression we would have been in, it would make your head swim. But I bet that Senate raise would have gone through.

[mers2]

I remember early in the morning on 9/11/01 some of the first utterances of not just me, but many people in town and on tv and radio. One was, "Thank God Gore didn't win!"

I remember thinking, Here we go, WWIII, to hell in a handbasket... but knowing it was inevitable... They had finally attacked us, on homeground... and there is no way we will sit still and tolerate it! We have an image as a superpower to protect, by golly! I remember discussing, whether or not Gore would have acted. The general concensus was, he would have executed some piddly attempt at Blowing OBL off the face of the planet, most likely failing and that would be it.
I agree with most of what Eakes has had to say :) Again, this is a judgement based on pre 9/11 data. Bush himself during the campaign of 2000 criticized the usage of troops in Bosnia and other places and came out firmly against nation building. If you used that criteria to judge him you'd never guess he'd be doing what he's been doing since 9/11. It's either total partisanship or turning a blind eye to reality to actually believe that Gore would not have attacked Afghanistan and gone after Bin Laden in the wake of 9/11.

[Fiona]

It's either total partisanship or turning a blind eye to reality to actually believe that Gore would not have attacked Afghanistan and gone after Bin Laden in the wake of 9/11.I don't think "I" said he wouldn't have gone after him... I think he would have been forced to. Don't MAKE me say that I think Gore is a spineless idiot... it doesn't suit me :) ...and it isn't partisanship, so I must be blind ;)