Originally Posted by Rohirrim
What we know is that Cheney and Rice laughed off Clarke's warnings. Would Gore have done the same? Clarke wanted them to "shake the tree" and see what falls out. What would easily have fallen out is two of the Saudis taking flight lessons in San Diego. There is, in fact, a very strong argument that 911 would have been averted had somebody been in power who gave a ****. And as the Daily Kos pointed out, "There are many reasons why, but the primary one is the fact there is absolutely no way that he (Al Gore) would have blown off the August 6th PDB. Vice President Gore took personal and direct charge of the Safety and Counter-Terrorism planning for the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 simply because NSC Counter-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke asked him to get involved."
Cheney, who Bush put in charge of anti-terrorism, spent that eight months putting sweetheart energy deals together with his buddies in the energy industry and didn't hold his first anti-terrorism meeting until a week before 911. And regarding Irag, you think Al Gore would have bought into the neocon Wolfowitz doctrine? Really? Your argument has no merit.
Transition time in president's administration are always difficult times, so I like I stated we don't know if made a difference, especial with all the systemic problems that occurred. I lean on the probability that attack would occurred in same fashion no matter who was president.
Also I as I attempted to state I believe that Gore would focused on the real enemies power base - Afghanistan, and not taken us into the ****-up that was Iraq.