End Game
Think about this.
Let's say that the Democrats succeed in getting a President elected in 2008. A phased withdrawal or immediate pull-out is authorized. The anti-war crowd continues to cry about about how they were instrumental in the pull-out and the end of the war.
A year later a 9-11 type of attack occurs here. Does it destroy Democratic credibility on security?
I'm not saying it would happen soom, but what would be the political fallout?
2 comments:
Your logic conveniently forgets one important item - the Republicans were in charge of BOTH the executive and legislative branches in 2001. Given that FACT,, we couldn't do worse with the Democrats in charge. In fact, I still believe that had a Democrat been President that summer, more action would have been taken on all the alarms going around about threats. They might not have prevented 9/11, but it would have been closer.
What logic? I set up a "what if?" scenario and invited responses.
If Al Gore had been President in 2001, would things have gone differently? I beg to differ with your assertion. Clinton had already been faced with several terrorist attacks - the warnings were already there.
There were structural deficiencies in the way law enforcement and intelligence agencies communicated threats. Many of those "walls" were erected during the Clinton administration.
I very much believe that nothing would have been any different under Gore than Bush because what would have been Gore's incentive to overturn policies and procedures put in place by his predecessor?
To think that things would have been different under Gore is wishful thinking on your part as the facts and analyses don't bear it out.
I saw a study of this "what if?" sometime in the past. If I can find it again I'll post it here.
Post a Comment