I've just looked up Osama bin Laden, so now I know what you're referring to. Look, Archduke, it occurs to me that even if bin Laden wasn't caught back in 1995 when the jet-hijacking plan was still just a plan, I'll bet that it still would've gotten on the American intelligence radar before it happened and he'd still be stopped. I mean, American intelligence isn't completely useless, and it's not as if they'd do absolutely nothing about it once they found out...Better? You mean worse right. Would Clinton have nipped Osama Bin Laden in the bud in 95? He was caught with plans to run jet liners into American buildings after all. Imagine that catastrophe. Bush's CIA background was very useful.
Though I guess Bush losing in 92 would have prevented the Gore vs Quayle race in 96![]()
D'you think that 1996 would've been Clinton vs Quayle, then? That'd still be a win for the Democrats, although not quite as enormous a win. But then again, a loss of Bush-Quayle in '92 could lead them to realise Quayle was a useless idiot and dump him for '96. Who could be the Republican nominee then? Colin Powell, maybe?
Oh, for heaven's sake, the recession was NOT caused by the National Health. Did Britain and Canada's economies collapse when they did it? No?And as for the economy, I bet Clinton would have thrown us into the exact same recession Al Gore did in 97 with that ludicrous national health care scheme, except it would have happened four years earlier. Man, we are still trying to fix the mess that that caused.
As for catching that lunatic Bin Laden, didn't Clinton run on cashing in the peace dividend? This might be a little out there, but I think Clinton might have gutted our military and intelligence networks. How would we have caught Bin Laden or that Tim McVeigh guy if we had disarmed and blinded ourselves? Clinton was always talking about the need to draw down after the Cold War. Aren't you glad Bush kept everything we needed on hand or on order for the Russian Crisis of 99?
D'you think that 1996 would've been Clinton vs Quayle, then? That'd still be a win for the Democrats, although not quite as enormous a win. But then again, a loss of Bush-Quayle in '92 could lead them to realise Quayle was a useless idiot and dump him for '96. Who could be the Republican nominee then? Colin Powell, maybe?
Um, I'd like to remind you that the topic of this WI is "What if Clinton won in 1992", so in that case he'd be renominated after a win... Why the hell would Clinton only serve one term?No way Clinton would have been renominated after a loss. Gore would have been the heir presumptive.
Yep, I call bullshit too. My country's had universal healthcare for years.Oh, for heaven's sake, the recession was NOT caused by the National Health. Did Britain and Canada's economies collapse when they did it? No?