View Single Post
Old 02-22-2013, 08:38 AM   #35
Rohirrim's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Malik Jackson

Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
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.
Had Bush not been selected by Scalia and Al Gore made rightful president, there would have been little to no "transition" whatsoever given that Gore was already there and would have kept many of Clinton's people. So, wrong again. Gore was also deeply involved in anti-terrorism and took it very seriously. He would no doubt have put Richard Clarke in immediate control of anti-terrorism efforts with a free hand and full backing of the powers of the federal government. The transition would have been nearly seamless. We know that Bush worked hardest that first eight months in completely overhauling nearly every position in Washington and filling it with a neocon.

In regards to anti-terrorism, we know that Cheney and Rice not only did absolutely nothing, but they ignored the information they were given. They not only made no efforts, they were disinterested in those who were trying to make efforts. The difference in outcome of the two approaches would have been enormous. You're arguing that if one group does something and another group does nothing, the outcomes will be the same. Ridiculous.

There is a human failing that says the fait accompli was always the best outcome. Why? Because it happened. We accept Iraq simply because it's over. We accept 911 as inevitable simply because it happened. It's how we hide from our mistakes. It's how the right wing apologists cover their tracks. 911 was the most easily preventable attack in American history. Why? Because it was so slapdash and low tech, and we already had the evidence in our possession to stop it. It actually required a vacuum of leadership at the top for it to succeed. That vacuum, provided by George Bush, was an element of its success.

The reverberations of the disaster that was George Bush will ripple out for decades and may succeed in ending this country as we knew it. I think historians will consider his presidency the turning point to the downfall of America.

Too bad that so many Americans (specifically of the Right Wing, Tea Party persuasion) still don't grasp that their ignorant decisions have had a crushing and devastating effect on this country and the world. They continue their ideological crusade still. I don't know how much devastation they require before they accept that their ideas and policies are poison. I guess we'll see.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 02-22-2013 at 09:04 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote