What's wrong with America is that we didn't elect Al Gore president

No, really. This ignorant sot of a writer at The Hill, Brent Budowsky, posits some counterfactual or "alternative history" that bears no resemblance to reality:

If Al Gore had won, for starters: Had Gore been briefed by intelligence officers as Bush was in August 2001 about terrorist planes attacking buildings, Gore would have put our services on red alert and might well have prevented 9/11. Even if 9/11 had happened:

Gore would never have made the blunder of invading Iraq. Those American lives of troops KIA would have been saved. He would have focused on Afghanistan, which would have been won for keeps most likely by 2003. Many American lives of troops KIA in Afghanistan would also have been saved and our Afghan mission would have ended successfully long ago.

Gore would never have done the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, many trillions of dollars would have been saved from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and from not doing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Instead of our current deficits, the Clinton-Gore budget surplus might well have continued under President Gore, instead of the deficits that ballooned under President Bush. The pro-growth and pro-jobs policies of Clinton-Gore, which were ended by President Bush, would have been continued by President Gore.

The pro-earth policies of President Gore would have made a substantial dent in pollution and taken the offensive against climate change. Gore would have still won and deserved the Nobel Prize, as a world leader of nations.

Writing counterfactual history requires in depth knowledge of how history actually unfolded and proposing a reasonable alternative course of action that would have changed that history. Budowski does neither. What evidence does he have that Gore would have heeded the "Bin Laden prepared to attack America" PDB and instituted a "red alert." What utter nonsense! I would recommend Budowski lay off the talking points about 9/11 and read the Commission's findings. There was very little new in that August PDB and absolutely no specifics on when, where, or what kind of attack was imminent. Besides, the deck was stacked against US security by a plethora of policies in place that would have been followed regardless of whether Gore or Bush were president.

That, and the mass confusion of everyone from the military to the FAA about what was going on that morning contributed to the disaster.

The rest is an equal crock. A Democratic senate tabled the Kyoto protocols by a 96-0 vote. How does this jamoke figure Gore "makes progress" on climate change when the largest Democratic majority Congress in 80 years couldn't pass cap and trade?

A recession was in the offing in 2001 regardless of who had been elected. Is he sure that Gore wouldn't have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

The point is simple; the "Great Man" theory of history is largely irrelevant. Historical forces beyond the control of a single person play a much larger role in the unfolding of history than Budowski can even imagine. What he has written is an exercise in sophistry - a purely partisan fairy tale with no basis in fact. It's not even intelligent speculation.

The Hill should yank the article since it is embarrassing for a professional media outlet to have published it.



No, really. This ignorant sot of a writer at The Hill, Brent Budowsky, posits some counterfactual or "alternative history" that bears no resemblance to reality:

If Al Gore had won, for starters: Had Gore been briefed by intelligence officers as Bush was in August 2001 about terrorist planes attacking buildings, Gore would have put our services on red alert and might well have prevented 9/11. Even if 9/11 had happened:

Gore would never have made the blunder of invading Iraq. Those American lives of troops KIA would have been saved. He would have focused on Afghanistan, which would have been won for keeps most likely by 2003. Many American lives of troops KIA in Afghanistan would also have been saved and our Afghan mission would have ended successfully long ago.

Gore would never have done the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, many trillions of dollars would have been saved from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and from not doing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Instead of our current deficits, the Clinton-Gore budget surplus might well have continued under President Gore, instead of the deficits that ballooned under President Bush. The pro-growth and pro-jobs policies of Clinton-Gore, which were ended by President Bush, would have been continued by President Gore.

The pro-earth policies of President Gore would have made a substantial dent in pollution and taken the offensive against climate change. Gore would have still won and deserved the Nobel Prize, as a world leader of nations.

Writing counterfactual history requires in depth knowledge of how history actually unfolded and proposing a reasonable alternative course of action that would have changed that history. Budowski does neither. What evidence does he have that Gore would have heeded the "Bin Laden prepared to attack America" PDB and instituted a "red alert." What utter nonsense! I would recommend Budowski lay off the talking points about 9/11 and read the Commission's findings. There was very little new in that August PDB and absolutely no specifics on when, where, or what kind of attack was imminent. Besides, the deck was stacked against US security by a plethora of policies in place that would have been followed regardless of whether Gore or Bush were president.

That, and the mass confusion of everyone from the military to the FAA about what was going on that morning contributed to the disaster.

The rest is an equal crock. A Democratic senate tabled the Kyoto protocols by a 96-0 vote. How does this jamoke figure Gore "makes progress" on climate change when the largest Democratic majority Congress in 80 years couldn't pass cap and trade?

A recession was in the offing in 2001 regardless of who had been elected. Is he sure that Gore wouldn't have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

The point is simple; the "Great Man" theory of history is largely irrelevant. Historical forces beyond the control of a single person play a much larger role in the unfolding of history than Budowski can even imagine. What he has written is an exercise in sophistry - a purely partisan fairy tale with no basis in fact. It's not even intelligent speculation.

The Hill should yank the article since it is embarrassing for a professional media outlet to have published it.



RECENT VIDEOS