The Doomed President

The Doomed President

 

 

 

A Special editorial Presented by The Angry Republican

 

       

I firmly believe that it didn't matter who won the 2000 election.

That person would have become a "Doomed President."

Kind of makes you think that Al Gore may have been the lucky one.

                              

Had Al Gore been elected, I believe republicans would have attacked him in about the same way as democrats are attacking Bush.

Would the 9/11 terrorist attacks still have taken place with a president Al Gore..??

    

I believe so.

Considering the fact that some of the terrorists were already in America before the 2000 election. There is no reason to believe the attacks wouldn't have taken place. (In less you believe in a conspiracy and Bush blew up the Towers.) But that is a whole different topic better left for another post.

So how would have Al Gore handled the situation..??

I believe he would have ordered an invasion of Afghanistan. If he would have wanted to negotiate with terrorists, I believe the outcry for revenge would have been too great. This outcry would have come from most Americans, not just republicans. President Gore would have reacted.

President Gore would have only had 9 months in office before the attacks on the World Trade Towers, so there is no reason to believe he would have improved or cut back the US military in any way.

President Gore probably wouldn't have changed much of the personal in the Pentagon or Central Command, so the battle planning for an invasion of Afghanistan would probably been about the same. (Even if President Gore would have replaced some of the personal in defense, it is possible after the huge magnitude of the 9/11 attacks, these former defense commanders may have been consulted anyway.)

So if we can agree that President Al Gore would have launched an invasion of Afghanistan, it probably would have been close to what actually took place in 2001.

Would President Al Gore have captured Osama bin Laden..??

 

 

                                     

We can't really answer that question in this "hypothetical" editorial because we just do not know. There are those who believe that if American forces had focused on Afghanistan and didn't invade Iraq, we would have captured Osama. The problem with that theory is that we did focus on Afghanistan for 9 months before the redirection into Iraq took place.

Here are the facts- Osama bin Laden knew America was about to invade Afghanistan. Osama also knew we didn't declare war on Pakistan. Osama left Afghanistan before American troops arrived and he had plenty of support in the rural regions of Pakistan and was well hidden. America, because we had no formal declaration of war with Pakistan, we couldn't charge into that country and had to rely solely on the Pakistan police to capture bin Laden. That didn't take place.

So we cannot intelligently debate if President Gore would have captured Osama. But what we do know is that anytime you kill or capture an al Qaeda leader, they are replaced with someone else. So the war would have continued even with the killing of Osama.

                                   

Here is where President Al Gore would have done things different.

Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. (So most liberals would like you to believe.)

(Note) The reason I said- "Most liberals would like you to believe..," is because we have no way of telling how Al Gore would have reacted to the intelligence that was coming in about Saddam, Iran, and North Korea.

                 

Al Gore might say today that he would have never invaded Iraq, he has the benefit of hindsight. However, sitting in the oval office after the largest attack on American soil and letters arriving in US mailboxes filled with Anthrax, President Gore may have reacted to Saddam's defiance.

But- For the sake of this argument. Let's just assume President Al Gore WOULD NOT have invaded Iraq.

There is no reason to NOT believe that insurgents would be pouring into Afghanistan. I believe terrorists would rush into Afghanistan with the same pace as they are today in Iraq. (What would be my proof..??)

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the late 70's, they plowed into the country with no real problems. But then freedom fighters poured into Afghan from all over the Middle East. These freedom fighters (later called al Qaeda- or "the base") managed to hold off the advance until the Soviet's gave up and pulled out.

So it is reasonable to assume that terrorists would also pour into Afghanistan against Al Gore's invasion. Which would mean that American forces would be bogged down in the Middle East. Instead of like it is today with President Bush and Iraq. With President Gore, US Troops would be bogged down in Afghanistan with roadside bombs taking place every other day and insurgents pouring in from al Qaeda and Iran.

                               

Under President Gore, republicans would be calling for a build-up: "We have to get tougher with terrorists. Gore is not willing and able to complete this task."

At the same time, liberals would be calling for an end to the war. "Peace at all costs."

                                 

I do not believe President Al Gore would have won his second term in 2004

.

Mainly if NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani ran against Al Gore.

But let's just say-

 

President Gore won his reelection in 2004

 

.

He would have had to deal with hurricane Katrina. You could argue that President Gore would have been "quicker" with a response. But no government agency has ever been "perfect." Republicans and New Orleans residents would have had plenty to complain about in the handling of the rescue. Not to even dwell on the safety of the levee system, which Gore would have been blamed for.

A president Gore would have had no time to work on his global warming cause. Which seems to be his mission.

                               

I believe this exercise has proved that a "President Gore" would be in about the same shape as President Bush. Bogged down in a war in the Middle East fighting insurgents. But mostly, Al Gore would be fighting an opposing political party.

It didn't matter who was "selected" as president on that fateful day in the year 2000.

They were a doomed President.

Half of the American people would not of excepted whoever was "selected" president.

 

Three key elements came together to create a doomed president.

(First)

 

A very close election that was screwed up by an election process. People couldn't punch holes in a card. "Did I punch the right hole..?" Should we count chads..?? "What was the voters intent..??"

I will sue you, you sue me. Let's let the court decide who will be president.

 

 

 

 

(Second)

 

The largest single attack on American soil in history. It was carried out by 19 people with box cutters.

(Third)

 

A large hurricane smashes into a City that is located below sea level. This hurricane destroys a levee system that was just barely holding back one of the largest rivers on earth.

It didn't matter who was selected president in 2000.

That man was a doomed president.

So I say this again..

Maybe Al Gore was the lucky one.

Written by Babonie for The Angry Republican

Originally published on May 5^th, 2007. (With only minor changes added today.)

Comments:

liberalfreak said 1 years ago

I disagree on one point. You said the Republicans would've called for a military build-up. The 1990's have shown us that when a Democratic president takes military action, the Republicans call for surrender, cut-and-run, etc. They called for immediate withdrawls from Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo. That includes John McCain. When Clinton first attacked Afghanistan (on the eve of impeachment hearings) the Republicans decided to embolden the enemy by claiming he was using the military to distract the country from his personal problems. They can't stand it when a Democrat acts tough because it undermines their strategy of making Dems look like pussies.

And I disagree that the president was doomed from the start. Bush had the opportunity to be one of the greatest presidents in history by leading effectively against the challenges of this decade. Instead he was tested and failed miserably. I really don't know how Gore would've handled things. I think you need to set higher standards for our presidents.

-----------------------------------------

AngryRepublican said 1 years ago

I was not a republican politician in the 1990's, so I cannot tell you why republicans questioned President Clinton's Kosovo conflict. But I can guess at why.

First- it is political. In a two party system, one party will always "check" the other party. (Suggest things not tried.) This is why democrats could vote in favor of removing Saddam, but later say "it was the worse political decision in history." Kosovo did not attack America. Nor did they fire on US pilots and try and assassinate a former US president. (Like Saddam did.) Republicans attacked Clinton on "why Kosovo? Why not Africa?"

The 43rd president was doomed because of three events that took place. No other American president has had to face. Some presidents have seen wars where America was attack on our soil, others have seen huge natural disasters, while other presidents have seen screwed up elections with people questioning the outcome. But the 43rd US president saw all three in a 5-year period.

Even when President Bush was standing atop the rubble in NY City with a bullhorn, while his approval rating was at 80%, the "scandal of the month" club was working it's magic. (By the way, what is the "scandal of the month" today? Missing e-mails? World Bank Chair gives his "chick" a pay raise?)

Because of the way the 43rd president was "selected", there has been a large group of Americans who decided to try and have him removed. (By hook or by crook- the ends justifies the means.) Some of these people do not even understand why that is their goal. They are just following the "scandal of the month" club to see where it progresses.

But let me cross over the fence for a moment-
Had Al Gore been "selected" by the court to be the 43rd president, republicans would have went after him too. We would have tried to have Gore removed in any way possible. Remember, republicans had President Clinton impeached because of a BJ, (right?) So going after Gore because of his treatment of the 9/11 attacks, or his handling of Katrina would have been a piece of cake.

My whole point was to illustrate that the 43rd president was doomed because of three events. And it didn't matter who was sitting in that chair.
-------------------------------------

bumpedoff3 said 1 years ago

President Gore would have vetoed the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts.
Balancing the budget would have been a first priority.
He would have promoted vigorous environmental policies.
He would have urged alternative energy development and implementation.
The smart play was to kill bin Laden in Pakistan not to invade a country he had left.
Gore would have advanced the oversight function.
He would have appointed High Court Justices with at least an ounce of humanity.
He might not have created Homeland Security or FEMA.
Thank you for the thought provoking statements.

----------------------------------

AngryRepublican said 1 years ago

Let me predict what happens next-

Al Gore puts on a cape and flies in the opposite direction of the earth's natural rotation. This causes time to reverse and Gore stops the 9/11 hi-jackers.

(Sorry, that was TOO easy and I couldn't let it go.)

I am glad that you haven't lost faith in some politicians. So many people in the "blog-world" seem to go around condemning every politician. So your faith in a "President Gore" is noted.

But I got to say, I saw Al Gore hold the second highest post in America… he didn't do any of the things that your talking about. He didn't talk much about global warming. You would think as the Vice President, Al Gore could have done GREAT things for the environment and alternative energy?

Also- Your suggestion to NOT invade Afghanistan and try and take out Osama with (special OP's or bombs.) It is a great idea and was already tried. President Clinton used Tomahawk missiles to destroy the terrorists training camps in Afghanistan. (Terrorists just rebuild them if you do not have a ground force to stop it.) Also, President Clinton tried to assassinate Osama, but that didn't work out. (There are about three different versions of what went wrong.) Without a declaration of war on Pakistan, you cannot fire missiles or launch a special Op's team into Pakistan without that government's authority. We have been working with Pakistan and I haven't given up hope that more will happen.

I believe after the massive scale of the 9/11 attacks, the American people would have demanded retaliation. I believe Gore would have invaded Afghanistan.
----------------------------------

bavolet said 1 years ago

FEMA was not created by George Bush - it only became part of Homeland Security under him. The first disaster legislation actually goes back to 1803 and over the years a lot of ad hoc legislation was produced. However, in 1979, under Carter (a dem if there ever was one), FEMA was officially created and he was the one who merged all the disparate agencies into FEMA by executive order (no, Congress did not create it). So Gore wouldn't have had anything to do with FEMA other than be over it like every other prez since '79.

----------------------------------

Your comments are welcome..!!

Just add them below.