And Would America Have Been Better Off?**
History is full of “what ifs,” but few loom as large as the question that has hovered over American politics since the razor-thin election of 2000:
If Al Gore had rightfully taken office after winning the popular vote, would 9/11 still have happened?
And would the United States have been better off under his two terms?
The short answer is uncomfortable but important:
The 9/11 plot likely would have still been in motion — but it was far less likely to succeed under a President Gore. And yes, the country almost certainly would have been better off.
To understand why, we have to look at what was already in place in 2001, how the Bush administration handled (and mishandled) intelligence, and how drastically different Gore’s governing instincts were.
The Plot Existed Before 2001 — But Whether It Succeeded Was Another Story
The mechanics of the 9/11 attacks were not invented in 2001.
Bin Laden’s network had been planning large-scale attacks since the late 1990s. The Hamburg cell was already radicalized. Several hijackers were already in the United States. Flight training had begun well before Bush took the oath of office.
So the plot itself wasn’t created by Bush nor would it magically evaporate under Gore.
But here’s the crucial distinction:
What happened next — the failure to connect the dots — was a policy choice.
The Bush administration entered office intending to pivot away from Clinton-era counterterrorism and toward its own ideological priorities: missile defense, reshaping the Pentagon, and reviving Cold War-style strategic doctrine. Al-Qaeda warnings were downgraded. Richard Clarke was demoted. Urgent memos were ignored or delayed.
The infamous August 6 PDB — “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US” — elicited no actionable response.
This wasn’t inevitable. It was governance.
Why Gore Likely Would Have Reacted Differently
Al Gore was not a casual observer of national security during the Clinton years. He was deeply involved in counterterrorism planning, famously detail-oriented, and had worked closely with intelligence agencies throughout the 1990s. He understood the seriousness of al-Qaeda long before the general public did.
A Gore administration almost certainly would have:
-
Maintained and expanded Clinton’s active counterterrorism initiatives
-
Kept Richard Clarke in a senior cabinet-level position
-
Treated the al-Qaeda threat as urgent rather than hypothetical
-
Responded aggressively to warnings about suspicious flight school activity
-
Coordinated more effectively between FBI and CIA (which Bush ignored until after the attacks)
-
Taken the August 6 PDB far more seriously
-
Acted on the multiple red flags about hijackers already inside the U.S.
None of these guarantee that the plot would have been stopped.
But they make the probability of success significantly lower.
When intelligence warnings are heeded, dots get connected. When they are not, catastrophe becomes possible.
Would Al Gore Have Been a Better President? Almost Certainly.
Set aside the 9/11 question for a moment. Look at the broad outline of American governance from 2001 to 2009, and ask yourself what truly defined the Bush-Cheney years:
-
The Iraq War
-
The destabilization of the Middle East
-
Trillion-dollar deficits
-
Erosion of civil liberties
-
Torture and black sites
-
Katrina mismanagement
-
Ignoring climate science
-
Deregulation that fueled the 2008 financial crisis
Now compare that to Gore’s record, governing instincts, and stated priorities.
1. No Iraq War
This alone rewrites American history. Gore was never an Iraq hawk. Without that war, there’s no power vacuum for ISIS, no massive civilian death toll, no multi-trillion-dollar cost, and far fewer wounded and traumatized U.S. veterans.
2. Competent, data-driven leadership
Love him or not, Gore was — and is — a policy wonk.
He reads memos. He absorbs detail. He listens to experts. He doesn’t make gut decisions to satisfy ideology.
3. A decade of climate progress instead of denial
We lost a critical decade when the world still had a narrow window to slow catastrophic warming. Under Gore, the U.S. would have gone hard into renewable energy, climate cooperation, and scientific investment.
4. Better disaster management and foreign policy
Hurricane Katrina. The erosion of NATO trust. The messy approach to Afghanistan. All of these would have played out differently — and almost certainly better — with a president who valued competence over ideology.
5. A less polarized nation
Gore was not beloved by Republicans, but he was respected.
There’s a profound difference.
The Counterfactual That Still Haunts Us
History isn’t just a collection of events — it’s a collection of missed opportunities.
The Bush years reshaped the world in ways we are still living with: forever wars, heightened extremism, surveillance powers, climate setbacks, and the radicalization pipeline that would later fuel Trumpism.
A Gore presidency wouldn’t have been perfect — no presidency is — but it would have been grounded in competence, science, diplomacy, and strategic seriousness.
And that matters. Sometimes it matters more than anything.
So, Would 9/11 Have Happened?
The attempt? Very likely.
The success? Less likely.
The aftermath? Entirely different.
And the country — in terms of lives, dollars, stability, climate, and global standing — would almost certainly have been better off.
Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!
No comments:
Post a Comment