Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Williams
In 2000 Gore looked bad, and after 9/11 I was sure we were blessed to have W instead of AlGore. Looking back with the wisdom of hindsight, and the imminent total collapse of W's autistic foreign adventures before us, I take it back.

We would have been better off in the long run with Gore2000 than with Bush. After four years of Gore's psychotic excesses, which could hardly have turned out worse than the Bush fiascoes, we could have elected a serious adult in 2004.

109 posted on 07/07/2013 8:41:55 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: hinckley buzzard
We would have been better off in the long run with Gore2000 than with Bush.

I think everyone here can agree that although 9/11 happened during the Bush presidency, albeit just a few months in, the stage for the act itself was due to Klintoon and his liberal cabal of incompetents. Bush, Cheney and the entire administration acted with courage and wisdom in its aftermath. In short, I see 9/11 as another Klintoon monstrosity that George W. Bush cleaned up.

As for the limp-wristed Gore, 9/11 would have been egregiously mishandled. He would have shown weakness by apologizing and dithering. There would have been unspeakable destruction on 9/12, with Chicago and Los Angeles attacked. Further attacks would have occurred in the days after both on domestic sites and overseas where our military has presence. I have real doubts that America as it know it would have survived into October 2011 under an ineffectual, anti-military Gore regime.

111 posted on 07/07/2013 8:53:34 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson