Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:43:20 GMT, Ned wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 16:23:03 GMT, Dave Hinz
wrote:

U.S. dollar falling hard and fast

Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush?

Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?

I think yes, but still, that's the wrong question. The question
should
be, "are we better off today that Bush was elected, than we would
have
been had Gore been elected?" 9/11 would have still happened, and I
think Gore would have, er, "protested in the strongest means
possible"
rather than going into Afghanistan and making OBL's infrastructure,
and
OBL himself, mostly ineffective and irrelevant.

Supposing Gore was elected do you think he would have tabled the
regulation scheduled to go into effect in the Spring of 2001 that
would have required airliners to fly with the cockpit doors locked?
Do you think he would have appointed an Attorney General who was
a religious nut-case that thought porn was more important than
national security? Do you think his administration would have
ignored all the warnings about Al Queda passed on by the Clinton
Administration?

I do not think there has ever been an American President who
would not have invaded Afghanistan under the circumstances as
the existed post September 11, 2001. Some might have done better
others worse, but not one would have not acted.

Some would have gotten OBL instead of diverting resources
away from Afghanistan while OBL was still at large.

--

FF