How about America's aggressiveness in pursuing terrorists after 9/11? I believe that would have been the same under Gore.
That's one of the things I was refering to 
. Everyone keeps ranting and raving about how WONDERFUL of a job President Bush did during 9/11. Gore would have done the SAME thing, or anyone who was President would. And you can't convince me otherwise. Any President would have acted like that in a time of crises.
I agree upto a point. Certain things would have been the same but a lot wouldn't. Let me run this by you............... If Bush was President the first time the WTC got hit in 1993, do you see him lobbing a few missiles into Afghanistan and leaving it at that?? Not quite huh??
That was the Clinton response and Al Gore supported it.
Now how would that same Al Gore have been different in 2001?? What else COULD and I repeat COULD have happened??
Most people take our intervention in Afghanistan for granted. That was because Bush was certain about going after Al Quaida from the word go. No one could doubt his sincerity of purpose. Al Gore in true Clintonian tradition would have tried for a far greater international consensus and take a lot longer to exhaust "diplomatic" alternatives. This would have been taken by Al Quaida as a sign of weakness and so on...........
Your post about Clinton's foreign policy is tipical, I guess, for the GOP.
Have you fogotten how Clinton
tried to freeze UBL's money after the Knobar Towers bombing in 1996? Guess who stopped it??? The Congressional
GOP!
Have you forgotten how close we were to catching UBL in 1998 when we bombed Afghanistan and Sudan?
Clinton's foreign policy wasn't perfect--Who's President's foreign policy is? He and Gore understood that it was important to work
with the world than against it. GW doesn't get it and that's one of the things that i'm concerned about as I vote this year.
Are you?
