Opinion: McGough mugged in counterfactual contretemps

Clinton was wrong in signing the republicanazi bill 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, under pressure from the Republcanazi Concress.Bush and his fellow Republicanazi’s, supported by stooges like the Times’ senior editorial writer. who shamelessly finds ways to excuse the excesses of a government not dedicated to the well being of her citizens, but dedicated to consolidating control over those citizens, are simple profiteers bleeding the USA dry and attempting to establish a HOMELAND like DER FATHERLAND.Just like a fellow with a funny mustashe did a few decades ago in a small European country, assisted and enabled by people like The Times’ senior editorial writer. Ziggy Heil to you and your new Fuher. Robert Land

Dear Mr. Michael McGough, If Gore had become Prez. instead of the Texacutioner, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. It’s as simple as that. The Dow would be at 15 and the NASDAQ would be a 6. Everyone knows it. Everyone sees the con, just as we have for the past 7 years. So let’s not screw up and vote for revenge again. Have a great day...! Todd/Deb/Ricky/Tom/Diane Nashville Memphis TN

In order to come to your conclusions, you just have to ignore every single word that Gore has spoken since 2000. Must hurt to be a Bush apologist when your guy is a complete psychopath.’... the bulk of your natives [are] the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth.’ Jonathan Swift Jim Hassinger

Michael McGough stretches credulity to the breaking point in trying to equate a President Gore with our current White House occupant. The very domestic spying programs McGough claims Gore would have sought had he gained the presidency in 2000 are the ones Gore denounces in his book ‘The Assault On Reason.’ I feel sorry for those like Michael McGough trying to come up with excuses for the worst president in US history; they have an impossible task. However, he concludes with ‘We’ll never know for sure’ how Al Gore would have conducted himself as president. There’s a fairly obvious way we can find out: restore Gore to his rightful office in 2008. Benjamin Iglar-Mobley

In response to your article about whether our civil liberties would still have been intact after 09/11 if Gore had won the election. Yes.... of course they would have been. I believe this to be the case since I have no doubt at all that President Gore’s work day on 09/12/01 would have been no different from his work day on 09/10/01. Like Mr. Clinton after the first World Trade Center attack he would have responded by telling the nation not to be alarmed since this was no big deal. Then he would have resumed dialing for Buddhist dollars. Since a Gore Administration would have been loath to term what happened on 09/11/07 as an attack there would have been no follow-up action taken to prevent more of them. Therefore there would have been no resulting ‘assault on civil liberties’. And please don’t insult my intelligence by asserting that President Gore would have invaded Afghanistan. At the time, the Democrats were opposed to even doing that much. Of course, this would only have emboldened the terrorists to level more attacks at us leading to thousands more deaths and injuries. But at least the civil liberties of the dead would have been protected. I’m sure their families would have appreciated that. g.kranch

To the Editor: Michael McGough asks if a hypthothetical President Gore, post-9/11, might not have indulged in some of the same expansive encroachments on civil liberties that Bush has engaged in and been criticized for. I would feel better if Bush had worked more closely with Congress to determine the Executive branch’s post-9/11 powers. For example, if Bush had gone to the national-security committees of Congress and worked out a ‘FISA fix’ with them before engaging in domestic wiretapping, that would have been a preferable scenario to me. The fact that Bush’s extra-FISA powers had to be exposed to the public -- and to Congress -- by the New York Times indicates just how secretive this administration is in its wielding of self-proclaimed new authorities. I think that a President Gore would have worked better with Congress in defining any new Executive powers. Sincerely,Robert PayneStudio City P.S. For my own imagining of a Gore presidency, go here.

Mr. Mcgough, You’re first problem is looking through the eyes of NeoCons when asking your first question, because you talk of being ‘counseled by a Vice President Lieberman’. I must obviously be the first to advise you that, this is the first Administration that the current (Vice)President Dick Cheney claims to advise the acting President. All other Vice Presidents have SERVED THE PRESIDENT. And when you acknowledge the role of the Vice President, you wouldn’t have to worry about Joe Lieberman of 7 years ago counseling or advising the President Gore. Some times things are meant to be and now that we know Joe Lieberman of today, it helps explain his conduct of the campaign and his debates. Only afterwards admitting his dislike for the ‘populist’ campaign Al Gore was running. So, we may indeed get the correct person to fix our nation and planet this time and we won’t have to worry about a running mate with alterior motives. President Al Gore, running mate to be advised. Time for a COOL change,Gore2008 Sincerely,Linda PerroneSanta Fe, NM

One thing though. If Gore had won, the Republicans would still have controlled both houses. They wouldn’t have been the rubber stamp congress that was the case with Bush. When Clinton did his nation building, many republicans opposed it. Many of these people would later support Bush’s nation building. If Gore hade wanted to be able to read people’s meil and e-mail without a warrant, the conservatives would have shouted him down with cries of opposing big government. Linda and Ken