Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/4/2001 4:40:20 AM EDT
From the article - WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — It’s not merely that they want to rally ’round our leader — though they do. It’s not that they think their man wasn’t up to the job — they think he was. But with almost audible sighs of relief, some top people who worked for Al Gore privately tell me they are glad (relieved might be a better word) that George Bush — not Bill Clinton’s veep — is in the White House now. Read the rest here: [url]www.msnbc.com/news/637451.asp[/url]
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 4:54:43 AM EDT
“I’m glad Bush is in there and Gore is not,” is the blunt way one former top Gore lieutenant put it to me. HAHA!
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 5:01:14 AM EDT
i'm not a big GWB fan, but in these troubled times i'm hopeful that he will grow into the job, and rise to meet the occasion. and if he can do it, so can the rest of us.
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 5:15:04 AM EDT
Here's a nice blurb from the article - "Even now, former aides to Clinton are fighting a rear-guard action against accusations that they did too little too late to stop Osama bin Laden as he ramped up his global jihad against America. The papers these days are full of stories from the Clinton era about what was, or was not, done to make the country more secure — or to capture or kill bin Laden and his terrorist cells. "As usual, The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward got the goods, quoting the lament of a top Clinton administration defense official: “I wish we’d recognized it then” — the Bin Laden threat — “and started the campaign that they have started now. That’s my main regret. In hindsight, we were at war.” "Well, duh. Had Gore won, many of those now defending their past efforts — or lack of them — would still be in place, part of what inevitably (if unfairly) would have been seen as the third term of “Clinton-Gore.” To be sure, transition to an “All-Al” government would have been under way by Labor Day, but probably not complete, given the slow, contentious pace of nominations on the Hill. “We would have had a ton of Clinton folks to deal with,” said a former Gore adviser, “and they would have been part of the problem.”" Gee, folks, 6000 Americans die and it's still all about 'them'! Eric The(IBetGoreShavesHisBeardSoon!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 5:17:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2001 5:12:11 AM EDT by USNA91]
Not to be cynical or anything, but maybe they're just saying that because it would have meant that THEY would have had to to shoulder the responsibilities that GWB's people now have. It's probably just standard Liberal cowardice, if you ask me. Hopefully I'm wrong, and the idiots really do think that GWB is responding better than Al Bore would have. Yeah, right...
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 7:34:40 AM EDT
The democrats lack Colin Powell Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who have much stronger diplomatic ties than any shallow glitsy democrat. 8 years of Clinton got us this new war.
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 12:17:50 PM EDT
Am I being too optimistic, or are we beginning to see a large number of liberal Democrats starting to recognize and verbalize just how bad a President, Klinton was, and Gore would have been??
Top Top