LIke I said, I am not 100% convinced. 95% probably. I think that going after nations which support terrorists is different than going after AQ/OBL. I don't honestly know where Gore would have drawn the line. It was a decent sized jump to attack Afghanistan. They were not responsible for 09/11. They just allowed training camps in their country and allowed OBL to operate and did not turn him over after our demand. I believe it is very possible Gore would have done exactly the same thing. But I am not 100% convinced we would be running Afghanistan right now.
Well, all I can say about that is, I think my "credentials" as a guy who isn't quick to advocate war are pretty well established around these parts. And not only was I in favor of invading Afghanistan, when I saw at the old CNN/SI boards some people saying they wondered if Bush would invade Afghanistan, I wrote that if he didn't, he should be impeached. So I can't believe any mainstream politician wouldn't have invaded. But then, that's just me, admittedly, projecting my own thoughts on the matter.
Possibly, but Gore has always come across as more of a pacifist to me. I think had Gore been awarded the election, the Afghanistan bit would have been different in a bad way, but the economy, Iraq, worldwide goodwill, and the environment would have been different in a good way. The only thing I think would have been handled the same way is that gaffe with the spy plane in China.
After today's report on WMD's I think Bush will continue to go down in the polls. He did the right thing in Afghanistan and I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in Iraq, but apparently his people either lied or missinterpreted intelligence so bad that they cannot be trusted. Hussein gone is a good thing, but the way the whole thing was handled stinks. I am not a Bush hater and I cannot stand hatred politics. I don't dislike Bush personally although I didn't vote for him. But Bush was wrong about Iraq and he has to be held accountable by the people.
Ok - we did the right thing by invading Afghanistan. That's clear. But have we done right by the Afghani people since then? We helped install a "democratic" government whose power reaches just about to the edge of Kabul, and left the rest of the country to feuding warlords/Islamofascists. We comletely and totally forgot to account for Afghani relief and reconstruction in this year's budget. We had a chance to rebuld that country, but we've pretty much left it to the wolves. I was impressed - very impressed - with the military tactics used to eliminate the Taliban. But the handling of Afghanistan after the fact is appalling, and is why many people didn't want us to go into Iraq. It wasn't that anyone in their right mind thought we would lose; it was the fact that the Bush Administration has shown itself to be singularly incapable of "winning the peace", to borrow their phrasing. Afghanistan deserved, and deserves better. The men and resources in Iraq right now should have been in central Asia instead, giving the people of that country a chance to succeed, a chance to become a real democracy. Anyone think they have a chance now?
Interesting fact: In Time magazine, they said that President Clinton had an approval rating of 48% at the same period during his first term.
Clinton had Perot to syphen away 10% of Dole's support, in addition to the fact that Dole was largely unelectable at a time when the economy was far and away the number one concern of the American people. Also, Clinton's approval throughout his presidence resided in the 45%-55% range. Bush's was at 90%, and has taken a nose-dive since then. Inertia will continue to drag it down even without any other major screw-ups. And Christmas time, with everyone realizing they can't afford the presents they want because of the weak economy, will provide in and of itself a 5%-8% hit on Bush's approval. By the new year expect polls to put him at 40% or less. Clip and save this prediction if you want.
Oh no, not this again. Perot didn't help elect Clinton. I've posted the facts on this many times. I even had links bookmarked because it came up so much. I think I was pretty effective because I haven't seen this bulls*** for a while. Remember: in '92, Perot pulled 19%, and Clinton won by 5%. In '96, Perot pulled 9%, and Clinton won by 9%. As Perot's vote went DOWN, Clinton's margin went UP. PS...I'm 95% sure I have the exact numbers, but I'm 100% sure I have the trend correct.
And I will never believe that the 92 Election and the 96 Election is an apples to apples comparison. Just like Clinton running as a Washington outsider in 92 and as a successful incumbent in 96 is not an apples to apples comparison. It's not black-and-white, Dave, no matter what your numbers say.
The exit polls showed the same things. But I've deleted all the links now. You'll just have to take my word for it: Perot didn't help Clinton at the polls.
Revisionist history, Dave. The fact is Dole wouldn't have won in 96 with or without Perot, but if you think Perot's presence on the ballot in that particular election hurt Clinton, then you're deluding yourself.
The key point here is that the 90% approval rating was never more than a mirage anyway. You can't have a 9/11 every month to constanly keep people in that state of fear and awe so that any person of authority is looked to for security. Granted, wars can help (has there ever been a war in America that didn't start off as a boost in polls?), but not 90%. In fact, what is really scary is to think what Bush's approval would be right now if 9/11 hadn't happened. I mean, I think even those who voted for him largely admit he's bungled most things: WMDs, job creation, tax break for the rich, North Korea, leaks in his White House, dealing with allies, and so on. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...wsdropinconfidenceonbushskillinhandlingcrises "The poll found that just 45 percent of Americans now have confidence in Mr. Bush's ability to deal wisely with an international crisis, down sharply from 66 percent in April" Actually, didn't he get around 45% in the last election? So maybe we're just seeing people get back to where they were then. All those Gore, Nader, Buchanan voters who had been swayed by the sight of Bush at Ground Zero have come back to their senses. Now we'll see if he begins to lose the support of the people who bought into his bullshiit originally.