What if Al Gore was in charge?
 

All these anti-Bush topics popping up gave me an idea. What if Gore was the prez? How would he handle America's situation? Would be cowering under his desk or reeling in Bin Laden? Or would he be just as indifferent and embarrassing as Bush? I dont know! Im asking you! :confused:

My family and I are ALgore fans! He will make things better than Bush. I mean, he was terrible last time. Why did people pick him?

This kind of question popped up when Iraq invaded Kuwait -- what if Michael Dukakis had been elected? Well, I voted for Dukakis and Gore, and I wouldn't have if I didn't think they couldn't handle situations like this. We'll never know how they would have done, and I can't say I think it's all that productive to speculate about, no matter how diverting an intellectual exercise it might be.

I held Dubya in great disdain during the campaign, but right now I don't think that he is being embarrassing. I think that you are referring to that quote in Gluk Schmuk's topic about atheists, SeaRex, which I find appalling, and nothing gets me more pissed off than when politicians start spouting off about how certain groups aren't "real Americans." However, I don't think that quote necessarily reflects the real George W.

OK, I admit it. I think that he is handling the terrorist/Afghanistan deal as well as could be expected. I do think that he is on a course to screw up the economy, and I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but he could be a lot worse. His administration is almost as diverse as Clinton's was. It's going to be very difficult to assess W's overall job effectiveness with 9/11 in the background, but regardless of my differences with certain of his policies, I'm standing behind him for now. As Al Gore himself said, "George Bush is my commander-in-chief."

By the way, in what way is W "indifferent?" Getting bin Laden and getting control of terrorism is clearly the White House's job number one right now.

Pinky, Did you mean "Bush" was terrible last time? That was W's dad (George Prescott Walker Bush) last time, not George W. Bush.

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Doug ]

I agree with Piky! I'm not American but well it's just my opinion!

I don't think Bush is handling the situation well at all. Bombing one of the world's poorest countries just to get at a few terrorists is inexcusable, no matter how nasty the Taliban are. You can't just pick and choose which oppressive regimes to support and which to attack. Take Chile, for example: America overthrew the Democratically Elected leader of Chile because he was a Socialist, and replaced him with General Pinochet.

Okay, that was a little off-topic, sorry. Back to the issue at hand: I know the Taliban are evil, and should be overthrown, but you can't go into someone else's country and overthrow their government, because unless the people perform the Revolution themselves, they will not be able to form an effective alternative government. Of course, Bush wouldn't mind that anyway, since he probably just wants a puppet ruler in Afghanistan so that America will really control the country. Quite like England, actually...

And don't mention the Northern Alliance to me; they're the lesser of two evils, but they're still an evil.

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Rettick ]

I think that rather understates the seriousness and magnitude of the impetus for taking down the Taliban.

The terrorists I was referring to were the Al-Quayada[sp]. As I said, it is not America's business to take down the Taliban. Revolutions must occur from within, or you end up with one nation controlling another. What America should be doing is offering support to the poor people of Afghanistan, not bombing their country. Even if [and that's a big if] the bombs have only hit Military targets, it still causes panic and damages the economy. And for what? So that the Northern Alliance can get into power. Once again, the US is favouring one Brutal Oligarchy over another.

I know what terrorists you are referring to. That is who the US (and UK and France and . . . ) is after. We are in Afghanistan to get Bin Laden et. al., because they flew 3 jumbo jets with innocent people in them into office buildings and were targetting quite likely the US Capitol Building (let's not get into the innocence of the occupants there ;) ). Another plane full of innocent people crashed before it could reach its target. Who knows how many other planes on their way to what ultimate targets didn't get off the ground because the FAA grounded the entire US fleet?

We are taking out the Taliban because the Taliban is shielding the terrorists. The US is not attempting to install the Northern Alliance into power and is helping facilitate formation of the multiethnic alliance that will take power.

There is already much discussion in this country as to how we are going to help rebuild Afghanistan (much destroyed by the wars that have been going on there for decades before the US showed up). I'm sure you'll say its lip service and PR, but I will be very surprised if the US et. al. does not make a major effort to help the poor of Afghanistan once the Taliban is out.

I would be very surprised if they did anything at all to help the poor in Afghanistan, when they do their best to keep the poor in America itself [and in most other countries e.g. most of Africe] as poor as possible, but then we're getting onto my personal disgust at the way the US [and the UK, if it comes to that] is run, and we don't want to go there.

I don't really want to argue, just come back next year, and we'll see who's right...

Hmmm... my appoligies. I mispoke. I was referring to the run for election in which Gore and Bush seemed exactly the same on all issues except abortion. "Soft money is bad, echo, echo, echo...." :rolleyes: