I disagree, and most bipartisan observers in DC believe that Gore would have brought in his own people had he become President upon a Clinton resignation, which was clearly justified and should have occurred.
Do you really believe that if Gore had been the incumbent President in November 2000, that he would have lost the election to Governor Bush?
Terror plots are foiled all the time, even under Democratic presidents. According to many sources, Bush and his team were close on the heels of unraveling 9-11. Part of their difficulty was that they had been in power for less than 9 months, compounded by an abbreviated transition period.
Had Gore been President during 1999-2000, then elected to a full term in November 2000, who knows? Perhaps 9/11 would not have occurred. Probably not, but we'll never know.
Tigers don't change their stripes just because we move them. Gore is -- well, Gore is Gore and I thank God he wasn't President on 911 --
I'd say the press knows this and they know full well what they are doing this week with this story that fell right into their laps.
"Part of their difficulty was that they had been in power for less than 9 months, compounded by an abbreviated transition period."
Due to Gore being an idiot and selfish and prolonging the election results.
Please give this Gore thing a rest. You are not being rational.