So being measured is a bad thing? We need someone mad and half-cocked?
If Al Gore had an agent come to Camp David in August 2001 telling him that an attack from al Qaeda was imminent and that the threat involved airplanes, I’m pretty sure that Al wouldn’t have said “You’ve covered your ass, now leave!” He would have taken his job just a bit more seriously than did that draft-dodging, coke-snorting alcoholic and there’s a good chance he would have stepped up the intelligence effort and prevented the attack, and two wars, and the economic meltdown. The national debt would have been paid off and we’d have had two decades of Clinton-Gore prosperity to be thankful for.
I’m sure Gore would have avoided such an involvement pre-9/11, but the office of POTUS is a powerful influence that changes things. I suspect the power of the office might have pushed him into the breach, as I believe it did to Bush.
Much like the Ring changed Frodo. In Bored of the Rings, he found himself strangely…constipated.
Actually, yes. What was needed was a massively disproportionate reaction. Seen from a cold-blooded, rational standpoint, the only proper response to 9/11 would have been to increase airport and border security; anything else would have been an overreaction and counterproductive. But we needed, and still need, to send our enemies the message that we will react vehemently to attacks such as the ones we suffered on that day. I don’t think Gore’s reaction would have been vehement at all. And yes, maybe we don’t get involved in Iraq or Afghanistan as a result. But we also don’t curtail Al-Qaida.
Actually Bush’s actions in Afghanistan were rational and measured. He didn’t carpet bomb the place, or send in hundreds of thousands of troops. The first part of the war was special forces agents along with the anti-Taliban factions.
He dropped the ball by putting all the resources into Iraq, instead of capturing bin Laden when he could.
Saddam never threatened Gore’s father. And Gore would not have advisers pissed off because Bush the elder didn’t finish off Saddam - Bush the elder not being a total nitwit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Daily_Briefing_on_bin_Laden,_August_6,_2001
To be fair to Clinton btw, when they tried to give him a useless briefing like that one he bitched people out until they actually gave him good info.(Something Bush didn’t do btw.)
Specifically, Gore would not have an administration filled with PNAC neocons, whose central goal was war with Iraq. BTW, Romney will have a lot of PNAC neocons in his administration.
I agree with most of the consensus here. We still have 9/11, we still have Afghanistan, but no Iraq, although the low level war and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi children continue to pose a serious PR problem for the United States to the present day.
I also think Gore wins reelection fairly easily in 2004. Assuming he continued Clinton’s policies, we still have a balanced budget(which got out of balance in 2002 and maybe 2003 by a small amount due to recession).
The big question is whether Gore sees the housing bubble and the financial chicanery and acts. I think it unlikely, since finance was never his strength. He’s more likely be focused on national security, the environment, and government efficiency issues. So we probably still get the housing crash, which means that John mcCain beats Hillary Clinton in 2008. But even with the real estate crash, McCain inherits a decent hand: the budget is not too far out of balance, Osama bin Laden is probably already dead due to the focus on Afghanistan, and we aren’t bogged down in Iraq(just Afghanistan). The economic challenges would still be steep, but we wouldn’t have the anxiety of a $1 trillion deficit in the process thanks to spending restraint and no Bush tax cuts. That would give McCain leeway to do major stimulus if that’s the way he wanted to go.
Barack Obama keeps his powder dry until 2012. In 2008, the country was dying for change. Running to succeed a Democratic President wouldn’t play to Obama’s strengths as a campaigner.
I suspect most likely not. Some of the accelerants that fed the collapse were arguably spilled by the Bush administration. Tax reliefs for the top bracket allows more money to float up out of the working economy and into the cloud of investment abstraction. With more play money to throw around, the players devise new games, and sometimes everyone loses. My feeling is the Gore administration would have been a tad more active in financial regulation and oversight, so the downturn would have been somewhat slower, shallower and possibly later. His people would not have seen it coming because it would have been much harder to see (signs of the crash were on the radar years in advance, just no one who could throttle it wanted to admit it was serious).
It seems likely a Gore administration would have ended in '05, so how McCain would have acted is kind of an open question. Would the financial crisis have happened a few years later, early in McCain’s second term? How bad would it have been?
It takes a true conservative to call thousands of dead children a PR problem.
Clinton was not a finance guy either, but during his term we resolved several potentially major economic crises. Gore is way smart enough to see a problem when it is brought to his attention by had advisers, and he doesn’t have the ideological blinders which would prevent action. Krugman was calling the crash years before it happened, though even he didn’t realize how bad it was going to be.
There wouldnt have been the Iraq debacle, costing billions nor the tax cuts, costing even more billion. Yes, there would have been a recession, since that was caused by things outside what the Oval Office can do. But the deficit would be much smaller. America would be less hated. They would have come to some CO2 compromise, likely a mild one, but the evironment would be better besides that.
I mostly agree, but the recession would have caused a deficit. Just not the huge one we have now.
911 still occurs. Bluntly put, once the mujaheddin were in the US it was almost certainly too late to stop them.
I do wonder thought if the Republicans would have reacted differently to a 911 happening under a democratic President. I can see Rush Limbaugh and a bunch of other blaming “Clinton/Gore” for this and whipping up the base to demand investigations which would either have damaged Gore or blown up int the Republicans’ faces the way the Monica Lewinsky hearings did.
Richard A. Clarke has suggested perhaps not. Al Gore might well have paid more attention to available intelligence, and/or might well have had someone more competent than Ms. Rice to advise him on National Security. I cannot shake the feeling that 9/11 was just what Bush wanted, so that he had cover to put in the PATRIOT act and a believable excuse for attacking the guy who threatened his daddy. What Gore would have done in the wake of the attacks is almost certainly not those things, and the country would be better off for it.
The problem was that shutting down Al Qaeda required some pretty major actions (like the invasion of Afghanistan). And the political consensus for this was never going to exist until after a major terrorist attack occurred.
Just sayin’ that one of the valid reasons for going to war in Iraq was that the situation there could not continue as it was indefinitely. And our Iraq policy was not doing favors for our image even before Bush.
The problem with popping the housing bubble is how unpopular it would have been. Alan Greenspan used to get flack for pulling back just a teensy bit on monetary policy. Imagine the outcry if Gore had actually acted to stop the rise in housing prices. He’d be all alone, and accused of being alarmist. And the cause of an unnecessary recession. No one would ever know how bad the alternative would have been.
It’s possible Gore stops 9/11, but that doesn’t actually solve anything, since without 9/11, Al Qaeda still has their sanctuary and financing intact. So instead of us going to war on 9/11/01, we go to war when they do manage to hit us hard.
Oh, come on. Shitting on GWB is a favorite pastime of everyone down to late-night comedians, but to imply that he wanted 9/11 to happen is absurd. Maybe he was a bad President (and maybe not), but I would draw the line at saying he welcomed the deaths of several thousand Americans to further his geopolitical agenda.
It’s doubtful that Gore would have produced whatever you think would have been an optimal response to the 9/11 attacks, since there was no precedent for them and the situation had never arisen.
Sure. We hit the Taliban hard. But that was generally accepted and even applauded by the World. We had a reason, and we werent invading a soveriegn nation (nobody recognized the Taliban, thus the USA was just interceding in one side of a civil war). The war vs the Taliban costs a LOT less than Iraq, and we dont gain the scorn and hatred of most of the other world nations.
Honestly, if we had stopped with Afganistan, it wouldnt have been a big problem.