I was just making a comment on a far left site and started thinking.
If Gore had won in 2000 then who would we blame for 9/11??
Considering we had eight years of Clinton before that.
I think Afghanistan would be still under the control of the taliban and the middle east would be minus one more baby milk factory. ;-P
Afghanistan still is under the control of the taliban. I guess with gore, OBL would still be on the run as he is now, and 3000 americans lives and hundreds of billions of dollars wouldnt have been wasted in iraq. Not to mention the upcomming foray with iran.
Posted by: mooseboy84 at September 12, 2006 11:31 PMYou did not answer the question.:-)
Posted by: muddy at September 13, 2006 07:31 AM"You did not answer the question.:-)"
Did you actually expect him to?
Posted by: mrs. muddy at September 13, 2006 07:44 AMThe blame would be on the intelligence agencies who didnt do their job.
What has bush done since 9/11 to adress the al qadea terrorism issue? The only thing hes done is to crate thousands of more terrorist around the world with his wars.
Posted by: mooseboy84 at September 13, 2006 01:47 PMI'm assuming that you would have chosen the "don't fight back at all" option and let those that want to destroy us have their wishes?
I hope you agree that Afghanistan was a proper response.
Posted by: muddy at September 13, 2006 10:57 PMI might have agreed afghanistan was a proper response, if bush had got bin ladin when he had a chance and actually Accomplished something there, instead only managing to get an oil pipeline contract secured for the oil companies.
Afghanistan is practically in worse shape than before 9/11. Kabul from the get go has been a self imposed government. The warlods never fully accepted it, and even kabul is a huge source of daily violence just like iraq.
Posted by: mooseboy84 at September 14, 2006 12:07 AM