Just to accentuate that I'm not Clinton/Gore bashing, I'll admit that even with the terrorist's attacks that occured during the Clinton Administration there was no way he could have gone on a "War Against Terrorism" in the sense we've seen post September 11, 2001. I do believe more should have and
could have been done on his watch, but yes, he was constrained by a perceived lack of world support. Who would have said, "yeah, go get'um we're with ya"?
Gore thinks something has to be done about Iraq, but doesn't think Bush is doing it correctly. Gore thinks the war on terror needs to be handled differently.
Of course he says these things! He's going to run against Bush or begrudgingly support his party's candidate who does in 2004. If he agreed with what Bush is doing, he wouldn't have much reason to say "Choose Gore in '04". Gore will never say Bush is doing a great job, and unless things get drastically worse the, "
it's the economy, stupid" approach isn't going to work again.
The Democrates
have to oppose Bush or they have no reason to ask people to replace him with
their presidental candidate.
[ 11-21-2002, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]