SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (220099)2/21/2007 6:02:18 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
When I contrast right and left, I'm referring to how the Democrats would have waged war on terrorism beginning with 9/11.

Do we have a single reason to believe that it would have differed from how they "waged war" (inappropriate term, really, because the Democrats won't view it as a war) on terrorism prior to 9/11? After all we have 8 years of the Clinton Whitehouse, plenty of terrorism went on during his Presidency: the first attack on the WTC, Khobar Towers, the African embassies, the Cole, etc. And we know that the planning for 9/11 started in 1996.

What was Clinton's response? How did that work?



To: Katelew who wrote (220099)2/21/2007 6:04:26 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I think Gore would have gone into Afghanistan and captured or killed Osama. He certainly wouldn't allow him to hide in Pakistan. He wouldn't have invaded Iraq. He'd have had our economy back on track much sooner that Bush did, with his anxiety inducing war. Oil might be $20 a barrel less.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News