You are inferring what Gore would do, based on what Clinton did "when Americans were killed." Direct quote. You're making a direct comparison between the events! Its written in your last two posts. By assuming Gore's actions would have been the same, you're assuming the incidents themselves were of similar severity. It is basic logic.
OK, I was mistaken. You are right I was comparing the two. You are wrong to infer I was comparing the severity. As a nation the events of 9/11 are a national tragedy of unprecedented consequence.
Look, you can minimize the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings to suit your argument by claiming they are not technically US Soil and not as severe as the 9/11 bombings. Go tell that to the families of the US Citizens lost in those bombings! And they are technically US Soil.
Regardless, the lives of numerous US Citizens and soldiers were lost in both. Given the lackluster response by Bill Clinton which was supported by Al Gore when those bombings occurred coupled with the fact that Al Gore is far more liberal than Bill Clinton as proven by his track record, it is not too far fetched to trust that Al Gore would never have responded in a meaningful way when the towers came down.
Thanks God we never had to find out!
Its common sense - we're talking a direct attack on US soil. You can point to every conflict in Africa that every Democrat in history has ever dealt with and try to use it as a basis for their response to 9/11, but it just doesn't fly! Maybe you're just anti-Democrat, and think we're all so against war we'd stand by as our countrymen were killed randomly? Need I remind you it was a Democrat (arguably a socialist) who took us to war against Japan?
Again, any US embassy throughout the world is US soil! Also, I am not pointing to every conflict in Africa, I am talking about how as VP Al Gore supported a negligible reaction by Clinton in response to Americans being killed by terrorists. And since Al Gore has displayed his opposition to military actions in the past, he would not have reacted in a much different manner than Clinton did in those events in 1998. It's not that difficult to see!
You place too much value on this partisan issue. There are things I agree with that Democratic Presidents have done. If you read through some of the economic issues that have been brought and even in the beginning of this thread, I mention how Clinton was a brilliant orator and understoodthe political game well enough that between his agenda and that of Newt Gingrich as Speaker, the two of them were able to give us a balanced budget. He was able to work together with a man he hated to move this country forward!
Kennedy and Civil Rights.
Hell, even the buffoon Carter was able to get the Egyptians and Israeli to sign a peace accord!
So, this one sentence is why McCain would have been "a far better president?"
Well, it's a start! A huge start!
What is the relevance of this? I don't know anything about tax law, but if her taxes changed that drastically between this year and last year, I'd get a second opinion.
Actually, she did seek a 2nd opinion and got her to break even. As the accountant finished the forms, he looked at us and said, "You can thank Obama and O'Malley for this!" So...
You made light of the fact Obama was taking credit for victory in Iraq, I was simply pointing out that its a bit hypocritical to do so. Every president blames problems on the past administration and takes credit for their successes. Just like both sides take credit when things are going good, and point the finger when things are going bad.
Vague generalization! Nonsense!
And I am not making light of it! He is absolutely hypocritical! He voted against the surge! The surge worked! As Bush left office, Iraq had been stabilized. Please don't try to suggest it wasn't. You know it was! Obama gets to office, claims all combat troops will be out by 2010, which they weren't, and held his head up in a statement of victory in Iraq as if he had something to do with it! He was against any action in Iraq from day 1!