They say this about Al Gore as well when the US would have probably still gone to Afghanistan after 9/11 and libs would be cheering it as hard as they've been cheering Ukraine. The only major difference would possibly be no Iraq and even that's hard to say with how the Republicans had both the house and senate during Bush's first term.
Shit, libs still cheered pretty hard under bush too tbf. It was political/career suicide to criticize the idea of going to war back then from both sides. The jingoism was really off the charts. It wasn’t til around bush’s second term that it became more acceptable to be critical of it.
But also yea if there’s one thing that always keeps going regardless of who’s president it’s the imperialist machine and military spending
always gotta wait until the situation is locked in and irreversible before speaking truth to power, that way you don't ever have to actually do anything :hillary:
They cheered for Afghanistan but weren't happy about Iraq. Sort of. I remember the backlash against the French when they refused to join the coalition. They seemed to change their opinion every week based on what outrage the media fed them.
A lot of Americans believed the FBI. The FBI, the trusted organization that would never lie, approved of the invasion as absolutely necessary. Because Iraq was going to give WMD to Al-Qaeda, despite Saddam utterly hating Islamists and Al-Qaeda utterly hating nationalists like Saddam.
i believe it is related to this briefing, with the idea that Gore and/or his staff and appointees would have taken it more seriously and been more cooperative with their predecessors
They say this about Al Gore as well when the US would have probably still gone to Afghanistan after 9/11 and libs would be cheering it as hard as they’ve been cheering Ukraine.
The difference between Gore and Bush is largely that Dems caved to Bush far more quickly than Republicans would have caved to Gore. I don't know if we necessarily get a 9/11 under Gore. If you put on your tin-foil hat, you might see it as an effort by Pappa Bush to congel power within the Executive... that's not something you'd want under a Democratic President. There's also a not-unrealistic assumption that Gore wouldn't have focused on Iraq to the exclusion of all else. His people in the Admin would have taken CIA warnings of a pending attack more seriously. Maybe Gore would have done something at a foreign policy level to defuse hostilities or delay the execution. Maybe he would have redirected the hijackers' ire at a different set of targets. Idk.
Even assuming the attacks went forward, one thing I can guarantee is that Gore wouldn't have had anything resembling the free hand or the unlimited money pile Bush received. The 2002 election would be a condemnation of Weak Liberals Caving to Terrorism rather than a buttressing of conservative ideology. Invasion of Afghanistan would have been slower and more clumbsy. Invasion of Iraq very likely would not have happened. We'd have a different set of political alliances, as - again - Pappa Bush's legacy allies in the region (the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the Europeans) would have approached Gore differently.
And Gore would almost certainly have been a one-term President.
They say this about Al Gore as well when the US would have probably still gone to Afghanistan after 9/11 and libs would be cheering it as hard as they've been cheering Ukraine. The only major difference would possibly be no Iraq and even that's hard to say with how the Republicans had both the house and senate during Bush's first term.
Shit, libs still cheered pretty hard under bush too tbf. It was political/career suicide to criticize the idea of going to war back then from both sides. The jingoism was really off the charts. It wasn’t til around bush’s second term that it became more acceptable to be critical of it.
But also yea if there’s one thing that always keeps going regardless of who’s president it’s the imperialist machine and military spending
always gotta wait until the situation is locked in and irreversible before speaking truth to power, that way you don't ever have to actually do anything :hillary:
They cheered for Afghanistan but weren't happy about Iraq. Sort of. I remember the backlash against the French when they refused to join the coalition. They seemed to change their opinion every week based on what outrage the media fed them.
A lot of Americans believed the FBI. The FBI, the trusted organization that would never lie, approved of the invasion as absolutely necessary. Because Iraq was going to give WMD to Al-Qaeda, despite Saddam utterly hating Islamists and Al-Qaeda utterly hating nationalists like Saddam.
Here's Robert Mueller lying us into the Iraq War. Video evidence of him lying to Congress.
deleted by creator
huh? the al gore fantasy is that 9/11 would've been prevented
Don't remember that one at all. I remember hearing liberals in the suburbs saying "we wouldn't be in this damn war if Gore had won" all the time
i believe it is related to this briefing, with the idea that Gore and/or his staff and appointees would have taken it more seriously and been more cooperative with their predecessors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
although people have somewhat forgotten that before 9/11 people who did hijackings wanted money, somebody let out of prison, or to go to cuba.
Gore ran as being more hawkish than Bush.
The difference between Gore and Bush is largely that Dems caved to Bush far more quickly than Republicans would have caved to Gore. I don't know if we necessarily get a 9/11 under Gore. If you put on your tin-foil hat, you might see it as an effort by Pappa Bush to congel power within the Executive... that's not something you'd want under a Democratic President. There's also a not-unrealistic assumption that Gore wouldn't have focused on Iraq to the exclusion of all else. His people in the Admin would have taken CIA warnings of a pending attack more seriously. Maybe Gore would have done something at a foreign policy level to defuse hostilities or delay the execution. Maybe he would have redirected the hijackers' ire at a different set of targets. Idk.
Even assuming the attacks went forward, one thing I can guarantee is that Gore wouldn't have had anything resembling the free hand or the unlimited money pile Bush received. The 2002 election would be a condemnation of Weak Liberals Caving to Terrorism rather than a buttressing of conservative ideology. Invasion of Afghanistan would have been slower and more clumbsy. Invasion of Iraq very likely would not have happened. We'd have a different set of political alliances, as - again - Pappa Bush's legacy allies in the region (the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the Europeans) would have approached Gore differently.
And Gore would almost certainly have been a one-term President.