Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am thinking more like 1880 because then we would have never had President Arthur. But then again I suspect 95% of Americans would say there never was a President Arthur. So it wouldn't have made any difference.
In reality I wouldn't reverse any,
I firmly believe if Bush was not elected in 2000 there would have still been a 9/11 tragedy.
But maybe we would not have gone to war in Iraq. That would have been a good thing.
Maybe if you went back just a few years to Kennedy and Johnson there would not have been a Viet Nam War and that would have been good also.
I would reverse 1988 to prevent the appointment of Clarance Thomas, prevent the Bush and Clinton families from becoming so powerful, keep Cheney out of the Department of Defense (and therefore prevent him from being trusted on foreign policy), and possibly prevent the Kuwait War and the fallout from it.
no matter who was in office, Iraq still would have invaded Kuwait in 1990, and the UN still would have forced thee issue, and it is the UN/NATO that had the US enter this
Two-thirds of the 21 members of the Arab League condemned Iraq’s act of aggression, and Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd, along with Kuwait’s government-in-exile, turned to the United States and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for support.
On November 29, 1990, the U.N. Security Council authorized the use of “all necessary means” of force against Iraq if it did not withdraw from Kuwait by the following January 15. By January, the coalition forces prepared to face off against Iraq numbered some 750,000, including 540,000 U.S. personnel and smaller forces from Britain, France, Germany, the Soviet Union, Japan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among other nations. Iraq, for its part, had the support of Jordan (another vulnerable neighbor), Algeria, the Sudan, Yemen, Tunisia and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).
Did you know? In justifying his invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, Saddam Hussein claimed it was an artificial state carved out of the Iraqi coast by Western colonialists; in fact, Kuwait had been internationally recognized as a separate entity before Iraq itself was created by Britain under a League of Nations mandate after World War I.
There might have no been a 9/11 if Gore was president. Maybe he would have taken the warnings more seriously? Maybe the economy would not crashed. Nobody knows and we will never know It's all speculation.
1. 9/11 was planned well before the election of 2000, banking on a gore win
2. there was no warnings, at least none that were specific
Clinton gave nearly NOTHING on ALQ to bush, but what bush got he acted on
Quote:
August 2002 Richard A. Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser, discusses US strategy in dealing with islamic terrorists:
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the (Bush) administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies -- and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against, uh, the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
Richard A. Clarke Former chief counter-terrorism adviser
August, 2002
yes bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan to pursue the next target Iraq... a mistake...should have finished in afghan before going on to the next terrorist training country....... btw alq,isis,poco, ET.AL are in over 23 countries
3. Gore and the democrats were just as anti-Iraq as the republicans and Bush
al gore in 2000...4 months before elections....."""There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours""""...al gore
Another vote for 2008, not because of his skin color but because of his absurd policies that encourage the destruction of America and American values.
We had Obama for 8 years. So America was destroyed? Which American values were destroyed? You and I must be living in parallel universes.
To the poll question, I immediately thought 2016, because Trump is hands down the worst person ever elected to high office in this nation. But a lot of posters have made a compelling argument for 2000. Even though I like W as a person, his decisions did have a more profound negative impact than any president in recent history.
We had Obama for 8 years. So America was destroyed? Which American values were destroyed? You and I must be living in parallel universes.
To the poll question, I immediately thought 2016, because Trump is hands down the worst person ever elected to high office in this nation. But a lot of posters have made a compelling argument for 2000. Even though I like W as a person, his decisions did have a more profound negative impact than any president in recent history.
During 8 years he did as much damage as any other President in history. Packed the Courts with left wing extremist judges. Weaponized the executive branch against his fellow countrymen. Pandered to America's enemies and terrorists abroad.
We haven't even seen the entirety of the harm his presidency caused.
Obama and the Democrats gave us Identity Politics and divided us greatly on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. We wouldn't be so divided if it were for Obama, his divisive rhetoric, and policies.
I am going to go with 2000. I have no doubt 9/11 would have happened no matter who was President but we can be sure that Iraq would not. And depending on how Gore handled 9/11, he would have been re-elected in 2004 which would have meant that Obama would not have been elected in 2008. Which also means Trump would not be President right now.
If GWB had not been elected, I truly don't think so many American lives would have been lost; but Trump has been the most divisive POTUS and the least presidential in my memory -- and I'm 65.
Could you explain that^^^ statement? Do you honestly believe if Gore had been president 911 wouldn't have happened?
Did you know that during Bush's term of eight years in office that 630 US military death occurred in combat in Afghanistan? But during Obama administration 1777 American military personnel were killed and during the first two years that Trump has been in office 20 have been killed and most of those were by the so called Afghan military.
I am going to go with 2000. I have no doubt 9/11 would have happened no matter who was President but we can be sure that Iraq would not. And depending on how Gore handled 9/11, he would have been re-elected in 2004 which would have meant that Obama would not have been elected in 2008. Which also means Trump would not be President right now.
Gore and the democrats were just as anti-Iraq as the republicans and Bush
al gore in 2000...4 months before elections....."""There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalize his people and threaten his neighbours""""...al gore
===============================
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002
------------------
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.
"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table."
The New York Times Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq February 13, 2002
It's folly to believe that the present can be changed for the better by changing the past. It might be far far worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
