> GWB was as epic a failure as anyone before him <
Yep. Back in 2000 the Democrats told us that George W. Bush was a doofus who should be kept far away from the White House. It turns out that the Democrats were right.
So was Gore a better choice? That (ugly) question would lead to some really spirited discussion here! Gore would have appointed terrible judges. And he would have busted the budget even more than W did.
But on the other hand, I doubt that Gore would have invaded Iraq. And without a President Bush there probably never would have been a President Obama.
I do think the invasion of Iraq was arguably the dumbest (most counterproductive and involving great expenditure for little gain) thing we have done as a nation. Outside of completely devastating them, occupying them and rebuilding the country from the ground up it was a fool’s errand. You can’t ‘nation build’ in a place with no tradition of democracy. ‘What worked in Germany and Japan was never going to work in Iraq. An army is good for killing people and breaking things. If we were going to go kill people and break things we should do it in the hotbed of wahhabism.
No, had Bush lost in 2000, we would not have run him again in 2004, and his only serious competition in 2000 was rat bastard McManchurian, who ended up as our nominee in 2008, so Gore-BS would have been a 1 term pResident, and we would have had McQeeg as pResident in 2004 and probably reelected in 2008, with Mittens as our nominee again in 2012 against Hillary, and Hillary probably would have won, and if so, would have gotten reelected in 2016 … so as much as I consider Busch a disaster, and hated the 8 years of Bam Bam, we are in a better position today because he won.
If Gore won in 2000, I believe that there wouldn’t be a President Trump today. The tea party would not be around. The GOPe would still be in control...