1. Iraq had been using chemical weapons for some time. They had no problem using chemical agents to kill thousands of Iranians. Also they DID have programs to develop nuclear weaponry.
He used those weapons in the 1980's, which were provided by the Europeans. By 2003 they had been long gone after we took out the vast majority in Desert Storm. Care to provide sources that prove he was working on nukes in 2003?
2. So if Gore was president, there would be no 9/11? That's just ridiculous. In 1996, terrorists hit Oklahoma City even though Clinton was in power, and they attempted unsuccessfully to bomb both LAX airport and the USS The Sullivans in 2000. To say that Clinton/Gore policies deterred terrorism is completely untrue..
I stated that it was a possiblity, not that it was probable. The Gore administration would not have been so cavalier about ignoring the bin laden threat (even leaving asside the Bush-Bin Laden family connections), but this does not mean the intelligence failures would still not have happened, as the examples above show. But none of those happened under the Gore administration, so we will never know if he would have been more effective or not. Though he would have to invade Afghanistan if 9/11 happens, he would get far more blowback from the right for what happened.
3. What makes you think that Gore would stop the real estate bubble that had been in place for decades? Clinton/Gore certainly didn't stop the bubble..
Again, I am postulating that he would have been more proactive without being certain. We will never know what he would have done, but I question whether he would have continued the deregulations of the Clinton era or made the poor economic policy decisions of the Bush administration. Gore was not Clinton.
4. How would the tax cuts reduce the country's economic strength? Tax cuts, in themselves, do nothing but help the economy. The only question is what the government could have done with the extra cash resulting from higher taxes, and if Gore had spent money on welfare, social security, etc., that would probably not do much for the economy.
Okay, this is just plain partisan and unsubstantiated. Tax cuts to a point are helpful, beyond which they just deprive the government of money to run programs. It is better to have money moving through the economy than have it sitting in a bank. Yes I know that money in banks is invested, but if there is not enough being used to purchase goods and services, then money in investments are not useful. Government programs spend money and move it through the economy, wheras tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is saved instead of supporting the economy. Basing it on investing bubbles like the .com's or realestate is much more detrimental than helpful. Money spent on welfare, social security, and other social programs like healthcare are used in the consumer economy, not save, meaning they have a beneficial effect for businesses. There is such a thing as too much investing afterall.
Tax cuts of those most likely to spend it instead of saving is healthy for the economy: i.e. the lower and middle classes are much more likely to use the money from tax cuts than the upper classes, which hoard that money or use it to chase the hottest new investment (again, .com's and realestate- the largest number of defaults on housing after the bubble burst was with people in the upper classes with more than one home. Interestingly enough, these people only defaulted on investment properties, not their own homes; its easier to walk about from an investment that is underwater than your own home).