Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 11:45:02 -0800,
wrote:

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?

How long did Clinton/Gore ignore that issue, exactly, Fred.

I dunno that they EVER ignored it. Neither did the Bush admin-
istration IGNORE it. The Bush administration TABLED the regulation
that could have prevented the hijackings.


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?

The ones that Clinton didn't do anything about either?

Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and
Al Queda more than nothing, the REPUBLICANS in Congress
considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the
dog'. George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation
Clinton might be a murderer.

--

FF