A Moe Lane’s Impressed point for anybody who can recognize the title and author of the referenced song, btw.
At any rate, thanks to Amygdala I’ve been made aware of this Prospect Magazine article (which, fair warning and all that, comes from a New Republic editor) that postulates that the result of a Gore Presidency would have resulted in…
…well, pretty much the same thing as what happened in our universe; the major significant difference would have been the delay of the Iraqi liberation until 2005, right at the beginning of Gore’s hypothetical second term. I’d have said September 2003 at the latest, myself, but other than that I’m not quibbling too much at the timeline: 9/11 would have taken place no matter who was President, the Afghanistan invasion was as inevitable as the tide after that and I for one choose to believe that all the Democrats and liberals out there who stated that they had issues with the method of the Iraqi liberation – not its necessity – weren’t and aren’t liars. We’ll be going back and forth on the merits/flaws of the Bush administration’s decisions until we’re all dead of old age, I’m sure, but if you’re surprised that I think that this last paragraph is on the money:
Yet the idea that a Democratic president would overhaul the substance of US foreign policy is a fantasy. The Bush administration’s foreign policies have not been hijacked by a cabal of extremists, as one might think from reading Al-Ahram or the Guardian. In fact, although a President Gore might have used 9/11 to reshape the world’s institutions and so fight terror multilaterally, he would not have shied away from the aggressive use of US military power.
– then you don’t know me as well as you think you do.
Can’t disagree. Can’t think of much wasn’t dictated by circumstances. Would the relationship with Pakistan be the same? Maybe there, with more hostility, and more emphasis on non-proliferation.
1) Gore would have put more immediate emphasis on energy independence
2) I honestly think the economy would gave been stronger, with consumption tax cuts opposed to investment. Bush’s tax cuts possibly may be effective long term, but wasn’t the way for a quick boost. This would mean more money, and better Iraqi reconstruction.
3) A Repub congress would have attacked him for breathing, we probably still might be in the courts on the close election, whatever Gore proposed would have be opposed….everything else is speculation because of the partisan hate in DC
“A Repub congress would have attacked him for breathing,”
(Shrug) Up until the electorate spanked them in 2002, at least. That surge in support enjoyed by Bush after 9/11 would’ve happened for Gore, too – and in our timeline that surge was enough to overturn the usual midterm House/Senate losses suffered by the party of a first-term President. I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to think that something similar might have happened in a Gore Presidency.
Ya know, just flashed on something in my first post. I don’t really know what it means, but why don’t we have an energy bill out of this administration in 3+ years. Just forget ANWAR if it is the way, there would still be a ton of pork and good projects and development incentives. It is interesting with all these energy people in the WH, we have not been able to achieve a compromise. Weird.
It doesn’t surprise me, because Al Gore is safely in the past. John Kerry is the future: and last time you directly expressed a preference, you were coming up with nakedly hypocritical reasons for November 2004 why you were going to support Bush rather than Kerry.
Sorry Moe, I think you’re wrong. While domestically Kerry would have his n**s squeezed by a Republican Congress ala Clinton? In Foreign policy the Prez has far more influence and freedom of action. And while the Congress could bitch and moan, the Prez has a far more powerful bully pulpit. So Kerry could take us in a different direction if he chose.
Since at least the Ford Administration every President has demonstrated a feckless and irresolute policy towards the ME. W (and Tony Blair) is unusual in that he is approaching the ME with resolve.
I don’t see that sort of resolve in Kerry with regards to anything. I think he’d be far more reliant on the UN, IAEA, the European Union for advice and far more likely to follow their lead.
God help us.
I don’t really know what it means, but why don’t we have an energy bill out of this administration in 3+ years.
Why do you think anything related to energy needs to go into the book of law? I don’t know about you, but for me the priority of having an energy bill is in triple digits, right behind making sure marriage is only between men and women. Oh, and the flag-burning thing.
Actually, come to think of it, the fact that you thought it was an issue means I do know a bit about you in that regard.
“Why do you think anything related to energy needs to go into the book of law?”
A) It was a professed and public goal, including an energy task force reporting to Cheney, even before 9/11. You may not rank it high;they appeared to.
B) Cynically,whatever my priorities are, politics is about pork. I am, like, not making stuff out of whole cloth…I do believe dozens to hundreds of people were working in the WH and Congress to get a bill out, that failed in the last Congress on a close vote.
C) Considering the two points above
“Actually, come to think of it, the fact that
you thought it was an issue
means I do know a bit about you in that regard.”
says what exactly about you, Slarti.
I am simply dumfounded:
Anwar, fuel-cell cars in the state of the union, gulf coast drilling, the NY blackout and infrastructure improvements, a monster pork-filled bill that almost everybody was disgusted by yet still was pushed vigorously and embarrassingly could not get passed
And Slarti says I am making things up?
This is an either appalling ignorance or a disingenousness in service of what? I can’t even see a point to such a lie.
It just says that I’m perceptive but not particularly quick about it, this being my first cup of coffee.
That was just a postscript to say that gee, the “I don’t know about you” was probably not the right thing to say, given that it was important enough to you to bring it up in the first place.
Certainly not intended to be derogatory to you; it was more like self-effacement.
Oh, and good answer. As much as I hate the government sticking its oar in practically everywhere, energy policy is quite important. I’m not sure that it’s necessary to have an energy bill per se, but a well-thought-out and clear policy is pretty important.
It was a point about process. Not my priorities. I think the Repub congress and WH were so umable to set priorities that it was amazing they could’nt get one passed. It seemed peculiar.
With all these Texans and energy people in control, it seemed weird they couldn’t get an energy bill out. As weird as Clinton being unable to get a health care bill out.
Was that a fats waller reference?
At any rate, I’m reasonably confident that the Republicans in Congress would have come out screaming and demanded that Gore be impeached for 9/11. However, it’s not clear to me that Gore, who was not obsessed with missile defense and the rollback of international treaties and didn’t love to go on month-long vacations, would have allowed 9/11 to happen.
the major significant difference would have been the delay of the Iraqi liberation until 2005,
hmmm…do you think the weapons inspectors might have concluded there were no WMD by then?
I, also, lost my temper.
Perhaps you misunderstand my politics. Energy is very low on my personal priorities, except for the way it shows up once a month, or at the gas station. I am not one to call for increased fuel efficiency or solar cell research. I like nuclear a bunch.
Trees are neat, so I guess I am sorta an environmentalist, but if I can 3 get oaks in New England in exchange for 1 redwood, seems a fair trade to me.
I just was thinking that being unable to get in four years a bill signed by this administration possibly shows their ambitions might exceed their competence.
However, it’s not clear to me that Gore, who was not obsessed with missile defense and the rollback of international treaties and didn’t love to go on month-long vacations, would have allowed 9/11 to happen.
How, exactly, might Gore have prevented it?
I just was thinking that being unable to get in four years a bill signed by this administration possibly shows their ambitions might exceed their competence.
A) There were a few other things to worry about, and
B) Probably, an Energy Bill might not necessitate unduly profligate spending, and so wouldn’t be much of a priority with Congress.
Still, I think Energy Policy might be all that’s needed, Bush’s campaign promises notwithstanding.
praktike wrote:
Unlikely since neither Oklahoma City, the attacks on our embassies, the first WTC attacks, nor the attack on the USS Cole resulted in an impeachment.
Unlikely since neither Oklahoma City, the attacks on our embassies, the first WTC attacks, nor the attack on the USS Cole resulted in an impeachment.
Have to agree with Thorley. The GOP believes impeachment should be reserved for important issues, like extramarital sex.
Have to agree with Thorley. The GOP believes impeachment should be reserved for important issues, like extramarital sex.
As opposed to trivial issues, such as obstruction of justice and perjury. I see.
As opposed to trivial issues, such as obstruction of justice and perjury. I see.
You say “perjury”; I say “witch hunt.”
What would the reasoning behind a Democratic 2005 invasion of Iraq have been? We wouldn’t have found WMD, right? Would it have been about liberating the Middle East? Russia and France wouldn’t have gone along with that. So it would have been in defiance of the UN?
So why bitch about it now, then?
How, exactly, might Gore have prevented it?
Well, it’s hard to say, given that Bush won’t tell us what we didn’t pay attention to in the months running up to 9/11.
Well, it’s hard to say, given that Bush won’t tell us what we didn’t pay attention to in the months running up to 9/11.
This sort of hypothetical is just mental masturbation, because you have no way of justifying any position you take on the matter.