if al gore wins the election in 2000,does 9/11 even happen?

What is it about lying under oath, do you people have such a hard time grasping?

 

Of course. Do you really think planning for 9/11 only started after the 2000 election? Did you forget about the attacks on the US embassies in East Africa? About the bombing of the USS Cole?

 

exactly.


My issue isn't about him getting a hummer from a fat chick

I don't even care if he did or did not bang Elizabeth Hurley.....


but he lied about it under oath.

His supporters want to make this about a blowjob.....


it's not about that, at all.

 

Or sexual harassment in the workplace and federal civil rights lawsuits against bosses who sexually molest their workers or offer rewards for sex?

They only prove exactly what I said, the MSM was in cahoots with Clinton and his staff, both the WH and campaign in covering it up and slamming anyone who would question his behavior or fitness for and office in the public trust.

 

Had he and Hillary's marriage gone on the rocks, which by all appearances it had and has, and he found someone else in his life and maybe while golfing down at Greg Norman's place had an affair and ended up divoricing HIllary and remarrying......a big oh well stuff happens. But his sexual misdeeds were FAR beyond that. So yes his behavior with a White House employee and creating a sexually hostile workplace IN the Oval Office should have gotten him run outta town. That he then, while being sued by a former employee whom he sexually molested and threaten should have had the Democrats at the WH demanding he resign, when he committed perjury and obstruction of justice in that lawsuit was a no brainer, impeached and removed from office.

That they, the left and the Demorats, put this sleazebag up on a pedestal and worship him is just amazing.

 

9/11 was entirely a failure of the Clinton administration and in particular Gorelick and Clarke. After the first WTT attack the burden was on them to prevent further attacks and they failed miserable with Gorelick's specific act to insulate the intelligence agency further from each other having such dire results.

 

Nearly everything on your post is either false or deliberately misleading:

"I think that's ridiculous!

The evidence was that the 9/11 operation was well along before the election.

"It's likely that Gore would have retained Richard Clarke and paid more attention to him.
Why would he have paid more attention than before and what would that have changed. Clarke testified that if every measure he had suggested been implimented it would not have stopped the attack. Clarke is a blowhard trying to protect his own reputation and ego."

Since I did not claim that the Gore adminstration would have prevented 9/11 and neither did Richard Clarke, I fail to see your point. It is clear that Clarke's group had operations in place that would have given us much better understanding and planning for dealing with Al Quada and catching Bin Laden than the Keystone Cops group the followed him. IT wasn't Gore or Clinton that let Osama Bin Laden get away after he attacked the US, it was Cheney and Rumsfeld.

"One has to recall that Bush and Cheney ignored Clarke systematically for months and they cut the budget for anti terrorist operations. To them, it was bunch of Clinton people crying wolf. And in Bushworld, anything Clinton had been concerned about, must have been nonsense.

They in fact ordered a complete revamping of the failed Clinton/Clarke anti-terrorism program, the report and recommendations for that landing on Bush's desk on 9/10."

This is completely false. No such "revamping was ever ordered". That is total fiction. In fact, Bush ignored Clarke's repeated attempts to bring what he knew to the attention of the White House and particularly to Condelezza Rice. He was demoted, and Ashcroft was planning on cutting the budget for his efforts. Cheney blew Clarke off by ordering the creation of a "Task Force" and then put off its first meeting for months. Cheney finally met with Clarke and the task force perfunctorily on 9/10/01. No "report landed on his desk", because he didn't ask for one.


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Here you are deliberatly excerpting the famous speech that Al Gore gave before the Commonwealth Club just days before Bush forced the vote in Congress that he would use to start an unnecessary war.

In that same speech, which you worked hard to mislead readers with, he said this:

A prediction that was born out.

"To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. "

This too was born out.

I could cite more, but I will leave it to any interested third party to read the actual speech. You will find that this is not the words of a man who would have started an unnecessary war in the wrong country.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

"Really, and how would Gore have disarmed and removed Saddam from office?"

The speech you deliberately misquoted gives the answer to that, too. UN weapons inspectors would spend the next six months confirming what most of the intelligence community knew, that Sadaam Hussein had no nuclear program, that what few WMD's he had had decayed into ineffectiveness, and this he had no air force, no navy and an army half the size it was in 1990. The ariel drones armed with nuclear weapons that fearful conservatives read about in right wing blogs like NewsMax, didn't exist.

There was no need to remove Saddam Hussein. It would have been far better for us to let Iraq remain isolated and for the people to take care of the issue themselves.


"And we would have been out of Afghanistan years ago.
And you know that how?"

Again, the Commonwealth Club speech answers your question. Bush lost interest in the Afghan war almost immediately and began cutting American commitments to the war in favor of his new war in Iraq withing months of going there. Had we bolstered our NATO allies more, we might have had a shot at getting out of Afghanistan with something to show for it. It's not guaranteed, but at least we wouldn't have largely abandoned the right fight for one that never should have happened.

"Oh, one more thing.

We would have run healthy budget surpluses all through the 2000's
Since the budget surplus had already fallen in half as Bush took office due to the slowdown and recession Bush inherited what is the premise of that statement? The Clinton administration fought tooth and nail against the Gingrich/Kaisch budgets and policies that brought about the brief surpluses, are you saying Gore would have had an epiphany or something?"

Gingrich had resigned in disgrace before the US ran a budget surplus.

In any case, those surpluses disappeared entirely the minute that Bush got his tax cuts passed. There isn't a single economist or analyist this side of Arthur Laffer that does not cite Bush's reckless tax cuts as a major cause of the doubling of the US national debt during the Bush years. Of course, an unnecessary war that was "off the books" (so Bush's borrowing could be made to appear smaller than it actually was) was another factor.

"and the Gore adminstration would have moved to curb the speculative boom that led to the 2008 collapse.
ROFL and that assertion is based on what since it was the Clinton administration which help fuel it and Democrats who ignored the warnings of the Bush administration."

That is speculation on my part. As for "the warnings of the Bush administration", these were entirely rhetorical. The GOP had the White House and both houses of Congress. They had the power to curb the excesses any time they wanted to. Instead, they gave speeches about the risks, and shoveled coal on the fire.

"We would have probably had a severe recession, but we would have been much better able to deal with it.
How?"

We would have had nearly ten years of budget surpluses at that point, and a national debt that would have been less than half what it was when the crash came. That would have made it much easier to finance a real stimulus program and get the economy kick started (somethign the GOP would fight tooth and nail).

"Elections do have consequences."

As I pointed out, they certainly do!

"Yes Bush and the Republican Congress faced with teh 2000/20001 recession took proper measures and the deficit hit a one year $400B and unemployment peaked at 6.5% for one year then thanks in part to those polices we had 52 months of full employment, rising incomes, solid growth and falling deficits down to a paltry $161B. Then we had an election and the Democrats took control of the congress and the budget and look what happened. misleading."

The one thing that is misleading about your claims is the size of your deficit claims. Like a lot of conservatives, you still think you can fool people with the doctored claims of lower deficits by only listing figures that exclude the cost of Bush's unnecessary war. This is a lie, and not a particularly clever one either. Bush would run the largest deficit in US history, nearly $1.6 trillion, as the economy sank in freefall after the collapse of the house of cards that was the 2000's speculative boom.

 

So according to the op the extremists in Islam only want to kill as many Americans when there is a Republican President in charge?

Lol that's funny

 

First, do you remember what happened on February 26, 1993? The WTC was bombed during Clinton's administration......

Second, some of the 9/11 hijackers were already taking flight lessons in preparation for the attacks in spring 2000--before the Bush/Gore election, and when Gore was expected to win.

Nice theory, but you haven't backed it up with facts.

 

Really poor and uninformed attempt to keep up the left's war against Republicans. FAIL The only truth is that the terrorist prefer a wimpy apologetic gutless administration like the one we have now who is able to lie to no end while terrorist grow and gain strength.

 

Agreed. Except the grievances go back farther than that and are not "supposed". 9/11 happens no matter who is President. Iraq does not happen.

 

9-11 happens, but two 10+ year wars do not... just a quick retaliation against the terrorists and back on with our lives, economy never tanks

 

Still Gore's national security team would no doubt have done a better job than the buffoons Bush hired. Bush's group sat on their asses and let the attacks take place. Almost seemed like they needed the attacks to carry out their agenda of wars in the middle east called for by the PNACers who made up most of Bush's foreign policy team....Dick Cheney, Richard Pearle, Scooter Libby, Douglas Fieth, and all of the neoCONs needed the attacks.

 

And who exactly would that have been on his security team and how would they have done a better job when they had failed the previous 8 years?

And the actionable intelligence that had was what specifically? Are you saying Bush should have passed the Patriot Act the first day he was in office? That you would have supported that?

 

In the previous 8 years a couple of minor attacks occurred and they were addressed. I don't recall a huge attack killing several thousand Americans on our soil occurring in the Clinton administration. Gore's team probably wouldn't have included the pack of neoCON traitors that Bush's team was infested with. They apparently let the attacks occur to further their agenda as was clearly written in the PNAC document.

http://danieltjpye.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/the-infamous-pnac-document/

Let's put it this way. Gore certainly could not have done any worse than the scumbags of the Bush/Cheney cabal...


The "Patriot Act" is an anti-freedom, anti privacy, 17,000 page document that does little or nothing to protect us from terrorist attacks. It was written up long before the 911 attacks by the fascist bank scum who control both US political parties so that they can more easily track every cent of wealth owned by the American people and eventually get their hands on most of it.

 

BUT ... Al Gore DIDN'T win in 2000. Even thought he desperately tried to
screw the vote count { He was NEVER Ahead in the vote count } by exclusively
cherry picking only the most democrat of Counties { Broward,Dade } and also
making sure where to go to mount court battles { where Liberal,activist judges
preside }.Pat Buchannan was on the ballot and the Gore faithful tried to say that
Seniors were confused and punched the chad for Buchanan,because of where it
was placed on the ballot.Right underneath the Gore chad.
Gore even tried { did manage } to screw the oversees military ballots by
claiming they were past due on account of an error in postage date.
Bush was never behind in the vote count for the entire month of November.
Even when THE most radical of State Supreme Courts { Florida's } did their part
to rewrite state election rules pertaining to certification of the vote.
Gore also managed to be THE most spoiled sport in the history of Presidential
elections.Refusing to admit that he lost,fair & square.In fact,he kept it up for months,then years.
Thinking he was owed that Florida Fiasco recount victory.
His lifelong pipe dream forever destroyed,Gore moved on to more profitable pursuits
like propagating the biggest hoax in mankinds natural history.His Global Warming
demand.

 

"Minor attacks" the first World Trade Tower, the USS Cole, Kubar, the embassy bombings.............now you just engage in the absurd.

And because of a miscalculation by the terrorist and the bomb did not topple the one tower onto the other which would have cause hugely more death and destruction that is your excuse? How pitiful.

.

And how would they have stopped the the bombing whose planning and by the testimony of Clarke himself was too late to stop by the time Bush took office and had his people in place.

Let's put it this way, you are blowing smoke out your arse.

The Patriot Act is what prevented further attacks against us, and you are saying you would not have supported it before the 9/11 attack yet blame Bush for not taking some unspecified action. Well money where mouth is time, what action did he fail to take, what action should he have taken that would have prevented the attack?

And spare me you world conspiracy nonsense.

 

Yep, Islamic terrorist love them some Al Gore.

1993-CIA Langley shootings
1993-First WTC bombing
1995-Large scale plot to bring down 11 airliners
1996-Kohbar tower bombing
1997-Tourists shot at Empire State Building
1998-African Embassy bombings
1998-Mellenium Plots
2000-9/11 planning
2000-USS Cole bombing

 

Well, it was an Iraqi Newspaper. With hindsight we know know they should have heeded the warnings.

 

It was Rumsfeld that told Bush not to follow up on it. He believed that an Iraqi source couldn't be trusted. The FBI and CIA agents who brought it to Bush's attention have stated publically that if Rumsfeld had kept his mouth shut, or simply not been SOD at the time, Bush may have paid more attention to it.

 

The idea that al Qaeda or other terrorist groups might use planes, might fly into buildings might do LOTS of thing did not sudden appear when Bush43 took office. Those were warnings all through the Clinton administration and before that and again post the link to the actionable intelligence or go on record stating that you would have supported a Patriot Act prior to 9/11.

 

The FBI and CIA had intel warning of an inpending attack. They gave it to Bush in the summer of 2001. It was ignored.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651

The Bush adminiatration claimed they only received general warnings with no specifics, but FBI agents came out and said that there were speicifics targets named in several sources, and it included both the Pentagon and the WTC, as well as Camp David, and they were told of know members of al queda coming into the US to get flight training.

 

What did the Clinton admin do about Al Qaeda during his eight years in office?

 

From your own cite

"Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11
May 15
U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes, but White House officials stressed the threat was not specific."

These were the same warnings that had been around for over 10 years. There was NO actionable intelligence.

But do tell us, what should Bush had done that would have stopped the attacks? The Patriot Act, pass it on day one? You would have supported that? Start the full body scans and pat downs at all airports, you would have supported that? Start profiling Muslim's as they try to board planes, you would have supported that?

And let's not forget it was BECAUSE of actions by the Clinton administration and in particular Gorelick that they could not put the FBI and CIA together to coordinate their intelligence which that alone might have given them enough information to take some action.

Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission

GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

 

That certainly explains the first WTC attack during the Clinton tenure.