How do you think Al Gore would have handled 9/11 if he had been president?

I will come right out and say that I know little about Al Gore's policies, but I will say this. I think that Bush may not be the best President we've ever had, but he is a determined and (dare I say) moral man who made decisions that he knew would not be popular, but they were the right thing to do. From what Al Gore showed in his Inconvient Truth, he is a very passive man. A true politician. He presents grand words but no actual plan. I saw him as ineffective, and I don't think he would have been decisive enough to actually take a stand, because it would have been an unpopular decision. (Raises Flame Shield) That was just my 2 cents. I am fully prepared for hate responses.

I agree with you about how Bush took care of things, things that needed to be done. Right or wrong at least the man acted. Personally I think Gore would have sat in the office and whined about what happened. He would have hemmed and hawed, he would have complained it wasn't fair, but he wouldn't have done anything else. He would have done speaches about how wrong Saddam and Bin Lauden were for what they were doing but he wouldn't have done a thing to stop them. He would have just continued to plead with them to behave, to do things our way, but that is about it.

I don't know too much about Gore, but I think anyone but Bush would have handled 9-11 better. Seriously running into war was not his best idea. Again just my two cents.

I agree with you. I am glad President Bush was in office when we were hit. If Clinton had been in there would would be in deep crap now. As for Al Gore??I think the same thing. He's a wimp and he would not have stood up to them any more than clinton would have.

I think Al Gore would have handled it differently, but you can't tell whether or not he would have been more effective. Gore is more cerebral of the two and it would be impossible to judge never seeing him be put on the spot in any emergency.

Well to start with he maybe should have thought before he went to war for oil...

I think he would have apologised for makeing them mad enough to attack us. I dont like Al Gore. He is to much of a wimp for me. I dont think there would have been any retailiation at all because he wouldnt have the bal*s to do anything about it. Just my opinion. Okay, Im prepaired for my user rateing to drop now:)

The real truth is, you have no idea what Al Gore would have done. I think it makes you feel better to think that (despite how badly Bush has screwed up the War on Terror) Al Gore would have made worse decisions, because *you* voted for Bush, and you don't want to think that *you* made a mistake in doing so. But *I* don't know that anymore than *you* know what Al Gore would have done in response to 9/11.

I'm not sure it would have happened if Al Gore were in office at the time. It seems strange to me that after all the years of clinton being in office and nothing like this happening and the year Bush gets in it does happen. So I don't think Gore would have had to deal with it because it wouldn't have happened and the world would probably be a better place.

During the 2000 elections Bush was calling for a $5 billion increase in military spending. Gore wanted to increase military spending by $10 billion. This paints Gore as being somewhat more militaristic and aggressive than Bush. According to Clinton's foreign policy adviser Strobe Talbott "Bush was right to identify Iraq as a major problem. A President Gore...would have ratcheted up the pressure, and sooner or later resorted to force". Subjected to the same pressures as Bush, and surrounded by advisers such as Talbott, it is reasonable to believe that Gore would have reacted much the same way that Bush did. The invasion of Iraq was a result of geopolitics and a changed domestic situation, and was not dependent on who was in office. After the Gulf War, the US (Clinton) had laid siege to Iraq with sanctions and bombings. At the same time, attempts to overthrow the government and install a pro US government through US sponsored terrorism, attempted coups , and other dirty tricks (Clinton), had continuously failed. The longer the siege lasted, the weaker Iraq's military became and the more likely an invasion would occur. 9-11 made the invasion possible because of the support that it generated in the American people for such an invasion. It seems that our government has been doing things it shouldn't for at least the entire Clinton term, and maybe prior to that. Bush claimed that he was against nation building, but that evidently changed after 9-11. 9-11 happened as a direct result of Clinton's foreign policy and that policy continues now. Those who claim to hate Bush as a result of what he has done with Iraq should also hate Clinton for the same reason. If they still think Clinton was a better president than Bush, it can only be a result of their blind and unreasoning hatred of the Republicans, because Bush's policy is a continuation of the Clinton Agenda.

I think that George Bush did a horrible job dealing with 9/11, mainly because he didn't really deal with that, he pulled the wool over everyones eyes and diverted the attention to Iraq. Al Gore would have done a million times better because he would have done something, anything is better than nothing.

I do not know what Al Gore would have done. I don't know if he also would have lied to get us to invade Iraq. But since Bush did, I consider that unforgivable. I would have thought by the time it was found out he would have been removed, but had that happened, I would hope Cheney would be removed as well. That guy scares me even more than Bush... The only thing I agreed with Bush was the initial invasion of Afghanistan in the initial attempt to capture (or kill?) Osama Bin Laden. That's the only thing he did right.

I'll tell you this much: when Clinton left the White House he had prepared several memos and files about the threat that Osama Bin Laden posed towards the US. Bush ignored all these warnings and proceeded to do absolutely about them until 9/11 happened. I'd also like to point out that it was his father, Bush senior, who should have dealt with Saddam Hussein, but left that unfinished! Clinton always tried to be much more diplomatic as a president. Starting two blind wars were not how he worked. I find it's funny that you mention Saddamn Hussein and 9/11 in the same discussion, he had nothing to do with it. The Bush propaganda machines would like us all to believe that Hussein and Bin Laden were firm buddies, but they hated each other. Bin Laden especially believed Hussein to be damned and a bad moslim to boot. No, I'm not glad Bush was in office during 9/11, but at the same time Al Gore might have felt forced to react in a similar way. Perhaps with a bit more care and definitely without making enemies of the countries that didn't blindly (or forcibly) agree with him.

I dont think it would of happen, I find it funny that Bush is a oil man and its the arabs we picked on when there is proof he was on good terms with most of them. Also with so much lying going on I think it was a bull anyway. My hubby believes in conspiritory theorys and I have read a lot of things and watched lots of things on the planes and them being remote control and I am swinging more and more to the American government doing this to themselves. I of course struggled with this but I have been forced to watch alot of things that made 9/11 seem less terorist and more home grown.

i don't think it was handled properly, if we went to war with anyone it should of been osama bin laden not sadam! osama was the one responsible for 9/11.

Bush or Gore any american for that matter cant handel 9/11.Why did 9/11 happen have we ever questioned ourself,it is all because the policy of the americans.They want to indulge in every country affairs.

rediculous. as for Gore, he would have done nothing different in the initial response to 9/11. The american public was crying for blood and so the response bush took was basically the only one possible for a president. This difference would have been after the Taliban had been attacked and was in dissaray (which it isn't now). So are you saying that Clinton should have dealt with Saddam Hussein through war like GW bush? Although, the UN was dealing with him and there still have been no connections made between Iraq and terrorism. I'm quite sure that President Poppa Bush was the one that walked away from Iraq the first time, thus leaving the door open for saddam to stay in power.

I think Bush handled everything as best as he could. Gore would have treated 9-11 like a criminal action, when over and over, these terrorist organizations have declared jihad on the West. He rightly called it a Global War on Terror. It is reasonable to assume that Gore would not have done anything substantial, since Clinton and Gore didn't respond substantially to any of the terror attacks (Trade Center bombing in 93, Khobar towers, USS Cole). Talk about an inconvenient truth! I don't think Gore is smarter than Bush, but even if he is, intelligence means nothing in leadership if one doesn't have the fortitude to back it up with action. Also, people accuse Bush of "rushing to war" and not being "diplomatic." I remember the year long run-up to the Iraq war. Saddam had plenty of time to change his ways, and this was after a decade of tricking UN inspectors. What message would it have sent to the terrorists if again we did not back up our words with actions? Finally, we got someone in office who did what they said they would do. I respect that, and even though I voted for Gore in 2000, I voted for Bush in 2004 and am now a much wiser person.