1. You're simply saying that you trust Gore to be a better president than Bush. What basis do you have for saying that Gore would have been better than Bush at preventing a bad economy and terrorist attacks?
2. So if taxes/tax cuts simply move money from one person to another, how could that help the economy? If you've increased income taxes on the middle class in order to give more money to social security or welfare programs, that doesn't change the amount of money being spent by consumers.
Also I didn't say that Iraq had nuclear weapons, or at least I didn't mean to. They were developing chemical weapons which can also be extremely destructive.
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090427_8248.php
From your article:
"The U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified partly on the threat posed by the regime's alleged WMD activities.
No indications of existing unconventional weapons operations were found after the war (see GSN, March 20). Iraq joined the Chemical Weapons Convention earlier this year.
The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated.
The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers, he said.
"
These are legacy weapons, remnants," Luhan told
Global Security Newswire today. He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained.
The weapons are not believed to be in a usable state."
So no, they did not have an active weapons program in 2003 for anything. You did mention that they had a nuclear program, but I understand that mispeaking happens (or writing in this case), I do it more frequently than I care to admit.
To answer your questions:
1) Yes, not because I think Gore is a great leader or that Bush is a bad one, but simply because of priorities. Many of the policies of the Clinton administration were superior to the Bush administration, both fiscally and militarily, which Gore had promised to continue. Also, given the rampant cronyism and "yes men" mentality of the Bush administration, especially with regards to the Iraq mess, the Gore administration promised to offer more of a professional and capable leadership. Now, as we never will know for fact how Gore would have run things, I cannot offer proof positive, but I can extrapolate some expectations from the Clinton administration. Based on how Clinton ran things (he also had to deal with a Republican congress, something that Gore would be managing too, which IMO could offer positive things for the US), his administration was in many ways much more competent in handling things for the good of the nation, rather than the profit of a few.
This does not mean that Gore wouldn't make mistakes; I concede that 9/11 is very likely (but not certain, butterflies after all), the economy was already turning down, much hinges on how he handles things, Bush doubled down on the housing market to support the sagging economy and ignored economists screaming about the warning signs, the question is whether Gore could or would do the same. Many in his own party were very upset about the deregulation, they may offer enough opposition to force him to do something about it. Unfortunately this is all speculation though.
2) Tax money moving from one person to another: this is what the economy is all about, money passing from one set of hands to another to pay for goods and services; if there is not money being earned and used, businesses cannot keep their doors open. It doesn't matter if all the money in the world is invested in a business if said business does not earn more. The economy is all about money moving through the system; what happened to us is that money availability dropped off and the gears of the economy ground to a halt. Once the banks stopped making loans, the economy could not function. Too much money was locked up in investments and was not moving about the economy, which was very bad as those investments turned out to be bad and evaporated the value of the investments, taking banking system (the #1 investor) with it.
Taxes money is spent by the government, not saved; it goes to pay people's salaries, pay for equipment, or is used in programs like welfare or education which see it spent and pushed out in the economy. By taking from the wealthiest, who generally save their excess money instead of spending it and spending it on the poor, that money gets pushed into the system and helps keeps the economy moving.
Tax cuts though, when targeted at those that generally save, don't help the economy because it just gets shut out of the economy into savings. Tax cuts for those that will spend that money is stimulative, provided that it gets spent.
Now, there can be too many taxes too, when it stifles the economy by drawing out too much from investing. The Reagan era had the best balance IMHO opinion, but the Clinton era then had lower levels than Reagan. Enough funds have to be available to allow the government to cover its expenses, which can prevent overborrowing, something the the Bush administration forgot. Without the Bush tax cuts, which did nothing to help the economy, rather, it expanded the realestate bubble by freeing up more money for investing while taking it out of the economy and opening up severe budget deficits during a war, the budget would be balanced during the recession and during a war in Afghanistan. Granted, the decreased tax revenue and the increased spending abroad would leave us with a mild deficit, but this wouldn't leave us heavily in debt to China or nearly to the point of crippling debt that will take generations to get out of.