you may very well be right. i don't dispute the possibility. but, then again, i remember lots (and lots) of people being quite cynical over my warnings about dubya prior to the last US elections. There was much insistence that both Gore and Bush were two sides of the same coin and it made no difference who got in.
And whilst that may have been true to some extent; i'm fairly certain that we wouldn't currently be crapping ourselves about the current unprecedented military build-up by the US, the unilateral withdrawal from Kyoto, the ABM treaty, the Bio-Weapons Monitoring Treaty and the nuclear test ban as well as the just plain scary rightwing rhetoric that seems to spew forth whenever he opens his mouth (Gore may have been a bit wet - but at least he was smart and educated... can you imagine him doing the "Axis of Evil" thing?)
i don't want to appear like his bestest buddy or anything (cos i'm far from it), but i firmly believe the world would be in a far better state today, if he'd prevailed in that rather dodgy election. He'd still have been compelled by the military-industrial complex to respond to the WTC attacks with force - but i'd put money on him having handled it with far less gung ho "i'm gonna destabilise the entire world with my cowboy politics" shennanigans.
sometimes the lesser of two evils really is the preferable option; though with Blair and IDS? Well, in that scenario the lesser of two evils is clearly Charles Kennedy (and no, i'm certainly not a Lib-Dem... just calling it as i see it right now).
|
