Because it was such a high priority for the Clinton/Gore administration during the previous 8 years in office.
There are countless stories about how the Clinton administration "underlings" bickered over the political vs. policy ramifications of any action taken against America's enemies.
So, I would imagine Algore has raised the issue of how hard he fought to get President Clinton to act against al Qaeda during the 1990's, right?
You're full of .
Posted by RandomGuy
Gore, for all of his faults, would not have gone into Iraq, and saved us a cool Trillion dollars, thousands of our soldiers' lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's lives.
Wow I agree with RandomGuy! Although we still disagree on 9/11.
Yes, much higher than in the Bush administration.
Actually, the cabinet members bickered over it. It never even reached that level in the Bush administration. They wanted to do things like revive star wars.There are countless stories about how the Clinton administration "underlings" bickered over the political vs. policy ramifications of any action taken against America's enemies.
I don't know where you are going with this.So, I would imagine Algore has raised the issue of how hard he fought to get President Clinton to act against al Qaeda during the 1990's, right?
Nope. It's a matter of record. Al Qaeda was a higher priority for the Clinton administration than it was for the Bush administration, and it's a fair bet that status would have been continued in a Gore administration.You're full of .
If you are going to refute this Yoni, you need to list all the actions the Bush administration took against Al Qaeda from January 20 to September 11, 2001.
I'm waiting.
Seeing as I never said that, there is about which to be skeptical.
Gore may have done something.
Bush did nothing.
This is all I said. I doubt Gore would have done enough to stop 9/11.
The simple fact of the matter is, no matter how much of a failure you think Bush has been as President...he's been better than what the Democracts have had to offer...
You guys actually found a candidate to garner Bush a majority vote in 2004...and for the first time in American history...a candidate who was elected by electoral votes instead of the popular vote...was re-elected.
Usually those guys get voted out on their asses when they run for re-election...yet you guys managed to turn Bush into the first guy to win a majority in many years...not to mention he garnered more votes than any President in history.
Props
It's a takes a true collection of idiots to make an upopular President more popular...
By all means.....keep attacking Bush while managing to offer up even tier candidates...because it works so well.
Even now...Bush is done...he beat you...he got max terms...and his political career is for all intents and purposes over...
Yet what is the focus of the Democratic Party and Liberals?
Complaining about Bush...
That's all you do.
That is all...
You
Do
That makes you a ...and nothing else.
I don't disagree Gore and Kerry were poor campaigners, but that does nothing to mitigate the absolute failure that is the GW Bush presidency.
Props
I'd vote for Bush over any candidate you guys offering up in this election as well...
And so will the majority of Americans...yet again.
We know you don't like Bush...
He wasn't liked when he got elected, the first time...
Figure it out.
I know you would vote for Bush.
Props
My dislike of Kerry has nothing to do with his campaigning....
And I voted for Gore in 2000....
Like I said...it took a colossal collection of dumbasses to get me to vote for Bush 2004.
Props
I know you would vote for Bush.
Props
Props for supporting the party that did more to get Bush elected than I could have on my best day...
Props for that movement...I'm sure Bush thanks god for you every night before he goes to bed...
Kerry as President? Kind of depends.
For example, his counterterrorism chief would have been the same guy Bush had appointed to the position. How bad could that have been?
I'm sure he doesn't, but props for thinking so highly of meI'm sure Bush thanks god for you every night before he goes to bed.
Just to end this debate once and for all....
IF you guys put Charles Manson up against John Kerry? Or any other cut and run candidate?
I gotta go with Chuck.
Least of my worries...
My worries would have which Euro ass Kerry was going to kiss after all his favorites were voted out on theirs...
Manson wouldn't even have to present his platform on Iraq to get your vote.
Props
Manson wouldn't even have to present his platform on Iraq to get your vote.
Props
Doesn't matter...he's less of a pussy.
You think about that for a second...
You think about who was the most responsible for that...
Let met guess...you think it was Bush's winning personality and the popularity of the Iraq war that were responsible for it....
I already said Kerry was a poor candidate.
And most of the Republicans still didn't know that neoconservatives <> conservatives.
And most voters still thought Saddam was behind 9/11.
No they didn't dude...
They just liked Bush more than they liked Kerry...
Hint: Antiwars are annoying as ...
Since that now describes the Democratic Party...
Well, good luck in 08.
Me personally...I'd kill for a non cut and run candidate that doesn't require me to say the environment, population control, and scientiffic advancement...
Too bad the smarter party is the stupider party...
Of course they did.No they didn't dude...
I'd settle for mere competence this time around.
For those who elected and reelected Bush,
Props
Why don't you guys see if you can pull Dukakis out of retirement for 08...
Can't be any worse...
I'm not a Democrat.
Props to competence
For those who elected and reelected Bush,
Props
Props for being from a country that allows you internet access...
Here's hoping you'll still be able to do it 4 years from now
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
