Does anyone believe that if Gore had been inaugurated as POTUS in 2000,

[raccoon]

the US would have invaded Iraq?

I personally don't.

[el_bryanto]

1. I doubt it - but we still definitely would have invaded Afghanistan. nt

[Nye Bevan]

3. Why? The 9/11 attacks might well have been prevented (nt)

[el_bryanto]

4. Fair point - if they were prevented, we wouldn't have. nt

[Gothmog]

71. Richard Clark had an action plan ready that was ignored by the bushies

If the US govt had followed Richard Clark's action plan, the Sept. 11 may have been prevented. Instead, bush ignored the CIA warnings and Rumsfeld and Rice focused on North Korea and ignore Bin Ladin

[aquart]

27. Why? WE WEREN'T ATTACKED BY A NATION STATE.

9/11 was a national security criminal case. It was NOT an act of war.

And no one with a brain invades Afghanistan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. The difference is that it would have ended with an arrest

Or the death of Bin Ladin at Tora Bora.

[annabanana]

31. I think it would have been handled like

an international police action.. which would have been appropriate.

[el_bryanto]

35. And when Afghanistan refused us entry into their nation? What would we have done? nt

[annabanana]

38. I'm not sure how they could have stopped us. . n/t

[el_bryanto]

39. They did have a military - not much of one - but they had one. nt

[Blue4Texas]

104. 9/11 may not have happened

[Cleita]

116. I doubt it. The smart people knew that invading a country to root out terrorists is

pretty stupid. That would be like invading Ireland to get at the IRA.

[el_bryanto]

118. Assuming Gore didn't prevent 9/11 he would have had to. nt

[Cleita]

119. No he wouldn't.

You know that our intelligence knew about Bin Laden as far back as the first Gulf war and that he wanted to destroy us. Clinton has even said that he was following his movements and he would have killed him if he had a chance, but the opportunity hadn't presented itself at the time. That task would have fallen to Al Gore. However, when the Bushies were presented with all the intelligence and that he was poised to attack, Condi Rice ignored them because as she said in her own words, that she couldn't keep swatting at flies. They dropped the ball because frankly I think they wanted something to happen so they could get their Pearl Harbor incident that would give them the excuse to invade Iraq. Iraq wasn't the only oil rich nation in their crosshairs either. They just got in so deep along with Afghanistan that they couldn't complete the master plan. But it didn't matter because Cheney and all his cronies got filthy rich anyway from the blood money.

[el_bryanto]

120. Again - assuming that Gore didn't prevent 9/11

If he prevented 9/11 he wouldn't have to.

[Cleita]

121. He probably would have sent special forces to get bin Laden, not invade a whole

country of goat farmers who probably didn't know who he was. Also, prior to our invasion, Mullah Omar had agreed to give up bin Laden to another country for trial. Bush refused. I think Gore would have done it rather than start a war in a country that has the reputation of being the grave yard of empires.

[bluestate10]

131. Information that came out after has pretty much shown that 9/11 could have been

prevented by an administration that was on it's toes. My uneducated guess is that the Bush administration was so blindly planning to attack Iraq that they ignored any inconvenient information, even information that said we may be attacked soon by a rag-tag bunch of terrorists.

[bluestate10]

130. Not if 9/11 had been prevented because Gore paid attention to intelligence and took action. nt

[ananda]

2. Well, I sure know we wouldn't be sitting here worrying about SS and Medicare?

Or Medicaid, food stamps, affordable housing, Head Start, charter schools, vouchers, reproductive healthcare, and so on.

[brooklynite]

24. ...because Al Gore would have been the perfect liberal of everyone's dreams?

People here found that President Obama didn't exactly mirror their opinions; why would Al Gore have been different?

[grasswire]

78. he had a lockbox. nt

[TommyCelt]

83. Because he invented the internet.

[Blue4Texas]

105. Because he reinvented government

[Cleita]

117. Remember Bill Clinton left a surplus and Al Gore had said in his campaign

he would use some of it to strengthen SS and Medicare.

[subterranean]

41. In that alternate course of events, a Republican might be president now.

If Gore had been president, it would have impacted the outcome of elections that followed. So we might still be worrying about those things. But one thing is for sure: President Gore wouldn't have passed tax cuts skewed toward the wealthy and immediately started running up the deficit, and the government would be on more solid financial footing now.

[treestar]

65. That was not the question

but assuming Congress was the same, yes.

[madokie]

5. Yup I do

I also believe that if he had the minimum wage would be at least two bucks more and my internet connection would be both, faster and cheaper.

We dems are not the warring kind, most or many of us have seen war up close and personal so we take it as serious as it is. This would be a whole different world if Gore was inaugurated instead of little boots and shooter.

[Melon_Lord]

63. Can you expand on this?

"Most or many of us have seen war up close and personal"

In what way?

[madokie]

113. You know like being a soldier in a war

Where someone is trying to kill you day in and day out.

[Melon_Lord]

125. In what world do you think many or most...

Of the population has served in an active combat zone, democrats in particular?!

[sinkingfeeling]

6. I doubt it very much. I also doubt that 9/11 would have happened. Gore would

have paid attention to the security warnings about bin Laden.

[hughee99]

16. I agree he would have paid more attention,

I'm just not sure what he would have done that would have stopped it.

[Uncle Joe]

66. For one, I believe President Gore would've paid more attention to airline security.

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4532

The Gore Commission Demanded Tougher Airline Security, But Airlines And Conservatives Said No
Janet Hessert

"The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements. The Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose."
Gore Commission final report, February 12, 1997

On July 25, 1996, shortly after the crash of TWA flight 800, President Clinton asked Vice President Gore to chair a commission on improving air transportation safety. As a result, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, commonly known as the Gore Commission, conducted an in-depth analysis of the U.S. commercial airlines' safeguards against terrorist attacks. In its final report, the Gore Commission found that security measures used by U.S. airlines were extremely inadequate, and made over fifty recommendations to improve security.

(snip)

The Gore Commission estimated the eventual cost of implementing all of its recommendations would be between $2.5 billion and $8 billion (the final cost would have depended on which technologies were used). This figure was in line with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates and was confirmed by a separate assessment by the General Accounting Office (GAO), which oversees federal government spending.

But the airline industry was not concerned about possible terrorist attacks. TWA spokesman John McDonald was quoted in a 1996 Newsday article as saying: "TWA last year carried 21 million people and we didn't have a single plane blown out of the sky by someone who carried a bomb on the plane through security… I don't see it as an issue. The reality is, it hasn't occurred."

more on link.

[annabanana]

33. He sure wouldn't have ignored "hair on fire" officials the way

idiot son did..

[vankuria]

48. Makes me wonder if 911 would've even been a threat.

The terrorists may have been waiting for just the right moment to attack. They aren't stupid, they knew the U.S. had elected an idiot with no idea what he was doing and certainly not paying much attention. Had Gore been elected, I think the terrorists might have known they were dealing with a formidable foe.

[KansDem]

7. I do...

Gore wouldn't have lied about "the need" to invade Iraq. Then claim to have gotten the intel "wrong" when it was proven there never was any.

And the MIC would be that much poorer today. We also wouldn't be bullshitting around about cutting Social Security and Medicare because of the huge deficits created by the wars and cutting taxes on the One Percenters.

And the Koch Bros would have to work for a living...

[Arctic Dave]

8. Gore couldn't even run a decent campaign, what makes you think

he would have been a good President and not fuck up as bad as shitbrains bush?

Fuck, Obama hasn't stopped the wars, he has expanded them through a "more humane" killing machine.

[JoePhilly]

11. So ending the Iraq war is expanding it?

ok.

[Arctic Dave]

14. Bush set the timetable for Iraq ending.

I know everyone wants give credit to Obama for that but all he did was follow bush's timeline.

[JoePhilly]

18. Actually ...

In July of 2008, Bush adopted the 16 month time line that Obama had proposed as early as Dec 2007.

Obama campaigned on that timeline for MONTHs before Bush adopted it.

Prior to July 2008, Bush opposed anytime line.

Bush switched and adopted the 16 month time line mainly to provide some cover for McCain, in a last minute attempt to reduce the impact of the Iraq war on McCain's failing campaign.

Just before leaving office, and after Obama won the 2008 election, Bush signed the agreement which followed Obama's original 16 month withdraw proposal.

And then as President, Obama ended the war (in 19 months), even as Republicans screamed that he should be adding more troops (perhaps you missed that).

Your claim that the withdraw was Bush's plan is silly, it was Obama's plan, Bush adopted it on the way out the door, and then Obama actually implemented it.

Regardless of any of this however, your initial claim that Obama EXPANDED that war is simply nonsense.

[Arctic Dave]

44. Was bush bombing more or less countries the Obama is?

Bush was still the one who signed on to draw down the war. I doubt he cared what a guy on the other side of the aisle thought.

Hell if one guy can make bush do that, why can't all the liberals on our side have him stop killing people with drones in countries we are not at war with?

[JoePhilly]

79. You seem very confused.

First, your claim that Obama has expanded the wars is false.

Second, no one stopped Bush from doing anything. Bush simply made a political calculation that agreeing to a time line (one that looked EXACTLY like the one Obama proposed) helped McCain AND allowed Bush supporters to claim that yes Bush started the Iraq distraction, but that he also ENDED it.

That way, the Bush supporters and the broader GOP's efforts to re-write history will be able to claim, as you have, that it was Bush who ended the Iraq war.

As for Obama bombing more countries ... get back to me when Obama sends a large invasion force with boots on the ground, into one of these countries.

Until then, you really have nothing.

[Arctic Dave]

91. I love the way the war mongers move the goal post as to "boots on the ground"

Killing and bombing people is an act of war no matter how love dovey you want to make it.

If the Russians dropped a bomb on you and your family would your neighbors think it was an act of war? They didn't have "boots on the ground" they just used a bomb.

God damn, they level at which the Obama apologist will contort what he does to keep him at god status ids ridiculous.

[stevenleser]

93. Any killing is war? Then we have 100,000 wars per year in the US. Not only that

every country is always at war.

Interesting criteria you are using.

[Arctic Dave]

94. 100,000 killing sanctioned by the state?

Steven, give me a break.

Are these killing done by outside governments?

[stevenleser]

98. Now you are moving the goalposts. Using your own logic from above. nt

[Arctic Dave]

127. How?

How do you even think that is moving the goal post?

Is every killing a state sponsored event?

If a junkie stabs you for money is that equal to a missile being launched and blowing up the house next to you and killing someone?

[stevenleser]

52. That person has a meme and no facts will divert them from it. nt

[JoePhilly]

81. No kidding ... and ...

I've seen Tea Party nuts who don't caress Bush's balls as tenderly.

[Uncle Joe]

85. Theme song time.

[JoePhilly]

88. Bwhahahahahaha!!! Awesome

Wish I added that!!

[Skraxx]

114. *SPEW!!!!!!!!!!*

[bluestate10]

132. President Obama could have changed that time line. So President Obama ended the Iraq war.

I find it surprising how some of the red faced supporters of Ralph Nader and his fuck up in 2000 say any thing to detract from Nader's role. It is either the Supreme Court violating the Constitution, or democrats that voted for Bush or didn't vote at all, or Gore being unconvincing, or Gore picking the wrong Vice-Presidential running mate. Not once will they remotely blame Nader, not fucking once. Nader knew in September that the race would likely be within a few percentage points between Bush and Gore, any fucking person that recognize they were pulling more than that margin would have dropped out and threw all their support to the candidate they believed in most. Nader wanted Gore to lose, Nader is responsible for enabling Bush not any fucking one else. Nader defenders, get it.

[Arctic Dave]

134. What makes you think people who voted for nader who have voted for gore?

At any time they could had "held their nose" and voted for gore but they didn't.

And I won't even get in to that piece of shit he picked as his running mate.

Fuck, anyone who would choose lieberman as a running mate not only does not deserve to win but should have his nuts kicked in for good measure.

[aquart]

37. Oh, good grief.

You prefer traditional battles with thousands of men dead or maimed?

Superpowers don't pick daisies, ducky. But cherrypicking tight targets SAVES lives.

We killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis but they were utterly anonymous. When we kill only a few, we get to notice who they were: human. alive. men. women. children.

Fewer deaths makes them stand out. That doesn't qualify for the word "expansion."

[Arctic Dave]

43. I prefer not killing people who pose no real threat to us.

Unless, of course, you think dicky boy was right with the 1% doctrine?

[hfojvt]

45. I guess in your world. Bush ran a better campaign

and thus was probably a better President than Gore would have been.

[Uncle Joe]

69. There you go with all that logic and stuff.

[Arctic Dave]

73. He won didn't he?

Trying to equate Gore to something that never happened is ridiculous.

What else are we going to play make believe with?

[Uncle Joe]

75. Bush didn't win, he stole with the aid of the corporate media and Supreme Court.

That's fact, not make believe.

People do make believe on many subjects, characters and issues relating to history, it's called "imagination" and can be related to " best educated guesses" this serves a positive purpose in filling out history which in turn helps to develop perception; both individual and national.

[riqster]

100. Also, pretending that Bush "won"

...helps people keep the blinders on and ignore the degree to which our nation has been raped, plundered and pillaged in this century.

[hfojvt]

101. He got by

with a little help from his friends.

The "Gore ran a lousy campaign" meme still does not make any sense to me. Gore was basically in a fight against 4 opponents - Bush, Nader, the M$M, and the RWNAMM (Rightwing Noise And Money Machine), and he still got the most votes of any of them. And people say he ran a bad campaign? He was further handicapped by the Clinton-Lewinsky albatross.

But dammit, he lost by a hair, so let's call him a bad campaigner.

Let's blame the victim.

[Arctic Dave]

106. I am not "blaming the victim".

Gore should have blown bush out of the water but he ran a campaign like a guy who thought he didn't have to work for it. He was complacent plain and simple.

Every candidate who has ever ran for office has obstacles, knowing how to avoid them is part of the campaign.

[Blue4Texas]

107. A better campaign

Does not translate to a better president; on other hand, if he stole the election he Most likely would continue stealing

[bluestate10]

133. No. In the posters world, Nader is not at fault. Saint Ralph. nt

[unblock]

58. results mongering.

if the results were ever so slightly different, whether by the supreme court going the other way or by a few more votes here or there, you would have hailed gore as a political genius.

the fact is that the media was heavily, HEAVILY in the tank for shrub. they fabricated and propogated ludicrous lie after lie about gore and refused to say virtually anything remotely negative about shrub, who was not only one of the worst presidents we ever had, but all the signs were there before 2000.

i suppose the idea is that if he were truly presidential material he never would have worn earth tones or mentioned his vital congressional role in getting all government agencies to put massive amounts of useful information on that newfangled web thing?

[Arctic Dave]

74. If he didn't suck so bad at his campaign none of that would have mattered.

Simple fact, Gore ran an abosultely horrible campaign just like the lady who lost Kennedy's seat.

If you get beat by an complete moron how can you say he would have done things better?

[unblock]

76. you act as if the playing field was level.

the complete moron won because the media, against all evidence to the contrary, portrayed the complete moron as presidential material and the boy scout as a liar.

[Arctic Dave]

90. OMG

The playing field wasn't level?

What's next, the sun was in his eyes? There was a lump on the grass?

GORE SUCKED! That is why he lost.

[unblock]

95. oh, ok, i stand corrected. the media was completely fair.

[Arctic Dave]

97. When has the media ever been fair?

Gore played himself like a jackass and lost to an idiot.

[unblock]

99. i think you have to go back a long, long time to find media as biased as it was in 2000.

and what did gore actually DO that was jackass-like?

every negative story i can think of about gore was just the media grossly distorting and/or exaggerating reality. so the media gave him the IMAGE of a jackass, but not because of anything he actually said or did.

[JI7]

108. just look at what happened after the Debate, the polls right after showed Gore with a Clear Win

but after the media started to push the right wing crap about Gore sighing the numbers changed.

according to the poster's logic Reagan was a far better president than carter could have been.

[unblock]

112. exactly. the media spin on gore walking over near shrub and shurb jumped was also ridiculous!

it was widely predicted that gore would walk over near shrub at some point, and old debate tactic to highlight the height advantage.

shrub turned and was startled to find gore nearby and visibly jumped. any reasonable media would have ignored the entire episode, or noted it indifferently, or if there was anything to editorialize, it would have been who the hell wants to give the nuclear football to someone that easily startled and jumpy?

but no, the media, which knew gore was likely to do this and said nothing negative about it beforehand, jumped all over GORE for crowding shrub's space! ludicrous and unprecedented!

[Uncle Joe]

141. Gore was the prime political leader for opening the Internet to the people. Truth be known that

was his greatest sin in the eyes of the corporate media as over time they came to view the growing power and influence of the Internet as a direct challenge their top down, one way monopoly to information and all the wealth, power and influence which comes with controlling such a massive trust.

CNN had a poll, the Internet won hands down as the most revolutionary, creation/invention of the 20th century and yet the corporate media could never bring themselves to actually give Gore credit for his legislative achievements in helping to bring that about.

The corporate media's self-serving enmity toward Gore manifested itself in continuous slander and libel against him for the crime of Gore truthfully acknowledging his political record.

The corporate media simply didn't give a flying shit about the best interests of the American People.

[Whisp]

9. I believe the invasion would have taken place anyway.

it was primed for that since George Sr and his Highway of Death and Clinton's 2 terms of sanctions - Death for Iraqi Children.

[Yavin4]

10. Gore would have continued the Clinton policy of sanctions/containment

Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to out-do than his father.

[RZM]

12. I don't think Gore would have invaded Iraq

About 95 percent sure on that. Bush expended plenty of diplomatic and political capital getting that war going. I highly doubt Gore would have done the same thing, given that war in Iraq would have been pretty low on his list of priorities, if it were even there at all.

I've often wondered how Republicans would have reacted to a Gore WH in the aftermath of 9/11. The 2002 and 2004 campaigns would have been quite a sight for sure.

[Demo_Chris]

13. Yes, in my opinion we would have invaded Iraq

We bloody well might have managed it better, but that's another topic.

And finally, since this is a thread for controversy, I share Christopher Hitchens opinion that invading Iraq and eliminating that butcher from power was the correct thing to do.

[HereSince1628]

15. We were surely in confrontation with Bin Laden, I'm not sure about Iraq

The attack on the US embassy in Africa and our cruise missle attack on the suspected bin Laden facility had set in motion that likely would have resulted in an attempt at 911.

Placing in power Cheney and his neocons who were completely dedicated to American international hegemony was rather like a dose of steroids. The US foreign policy went from being focused on 'small ball' (chasing bin Laden) to featuring 'home-runs' such as control of Iraqi oil.

IMO, Clarke's attention to bin Laden may or may not have foiled 911 but a Gore administration may have stayed focused on bin Laden rather than exploiting the possibilities enabled by a 'new Pearl Harbor'.

[Demo_Chris]

21. That is all possible. n/t

[Make7]

22. A U.S. led coalition invaded Iraq in '91, the CIA attempted to organize a coup in '96...

... economic sanctions, no-fly-zones, cruise missile strikes, bombing radar sites, U.N. weapons inspections, etc.

There was anti-aircraft fire on Coalition planes in the no fly zone, a $14,000 reward offered for shooting down a U.S. plane, an assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush, etc.

Nope, no ongoing confrontation there...

[HereSince1628]

32. Yes there was confrontation around protecting the Kurds and supporting that shield

But, the way that things went in the Balkans during the Clinton admin, I'm not sure the activity in Iraq would have grown into an invasion under Gore.

The neocons on the otherhand were really interested in hyperbolizing threats and exploiting opportunities to push for American geographic, military and economic hegemony.

[Make7]

46. Well, trying to oust Saddam is a little bit more than just enforcing no-fly zones.

As is attempting to assassinate an ex-U.S. President on their side of things.

No doubt that the people running foreign policy under George W. Bush made an invasion of Iraq almost a foregone conclusion, but as I think we all know, the government bends to the wishes of the 0.1% so it is not inconceivable that an Invasion may have happened regardless (it almost certainly would have been handled far more competently though).

[n2doc]

17. Agree

And I agree with others upthread that 9/11 would not have happened. At least at that point.

However, with the recession of 2001, Gore would have been blamed for poor economic growth and Bush would have won in 2004, most likely. Certainly people would have been told that it was 'time for a change' by the media. I also think that the media would have been unrelentingly hostile towards Gore as President, much like they were to Carter.

Maybe the Iraq war would have just been postponed.

[treestar]

68. Good point.

Especially had 911 happened. The M$M would have excoriated Gore at every point and said he showed weakness if he did not make war on some country immediately. They would have Carterized him as much as possible.

[bluestate10]

136. Bush made economic mistakes after the Dot.com crash that extended the economic

downturn that started in 2001. How can you say that Gore would not have managed the economy better and had it stronger by 2004? BTW, the economy was weak heading into the 2004 election, I know because of what I saw on the business side. Kerry may have well won had Bin Laden not cropped back up at the last minute and scared a significant number of people into voting for Bush because of their mistaken conclusion that Bush was stronger on national security.

[fadedrose]

19. As Boener would say...

not "No," but HELL NO....

[JoePhilly]

20. Gore would not have pushed Richard Clarke and his team into the lower teirs

of the national security bureaucracy.

Under Clinton, Clarke and his team had an almost direct line to Clinton's cabinet. Following the first world trade center attack in 93, Clinton got very serious about Bin Laden. Bin Laden and his group became a top priority. Clarke became the lead for counter terrorism.

This focus would have likely continued under Gore.

Almost immediately after Bush took office, Clarke and his team lost access to the top level of the government.

Richard Clarke's book goes into much of this, and a pretty descent summary is on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

[subterranean]

23. Also, Gore would not have packed his administration with PNAC members.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were all itching to invade Iraq, even before Bush was installed. Those guys wouldn't have been in a Gore administration. Even if 9/11 had still happened under Gore, he wouldn't have used it to sell a war with Iraq.

[JoePhilly]

25. Agree.

[graham4anything]

26. 9-11 never would have happened. So,had Ralph not thrown the election of 2000, NO IRAQ

Last edited Fri Mar 8, 2013, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

had ralph nader not thrown the election

NO Iraq
NO 9-11
NO roberts, alito, harriet miers, alberto gonzalez

NO big storms.
NOTHING but continued good times like 1992-2000.

Thank God President Obama played politics better than Al Gore and thank God President Obama is going for a continuation with Hillary Clinton after his two terms.

And in advance, Thank God for President Hillary R. C. nominating Barack Obama to the US Supreme Court in 2018.

[TfG]

87. Still singing the same song and dance, I see

The Supreme Court cheated Gore out of the election - not Nader.

Anyone who supports democracy, supports people's right to vote for the candidate of their choice. I love Gore and voted for him but I can't fault Nader voters for exercising their voting rights.

But to answer the question in this thread - I don't think 9-11 would have happened and Gore would not have invaded Iraq.

[bluestate10]

137. He's right. Truth is truth. nt

[TfG]

139. Nader being in the election may have affected the outcome, but

he had a right to run for President, just like people had a right to vote for him. Now I'm not saying his reasons for doing so were pure. Maybe he did want to throw the election. I don't know. But I can't begrudge people who voted for him, even if I am a big Gore fan. I'm not saying I agree with people who decided to vote for him. But to blame them for doing so is to blame democracy. If one supports democracy, it seems they should support a person's right to choose, even though it's not the choice we would have made.

What I do resent is the Supreme Court taking the outcome out of the people's hands by stopping the vote count. They decided this election - not the voters. I'm sure the Supreme Court was tickled pink that people blamed voters rather than their unethical decision to stop the vote counting. Gets them off the hook and they can continue to made unethical decisions. We need to at least be holding their feet to the fire, though it may or may not do any good.

[gordianot]

28. Gore's greatest problem would have been his Vice President.

Anything would have been possible dealing with that bag of feces.

[edhopper]

29. What possible reason would Gore have had

to invade Iraq.
Bush was planning it when he first got into office, 9/11 was just an excuse.
Gore had no reason and no need. And he would have understood that if he had invaded Afghanistan (a good probability after 9/11) that a diversion like Iraq would have hurt the efforts there.

No he would not have. I have no doubt about that.

[Baitball Blogger]

34. Our world would have been sweet.

Especially if you go by the belief that Cheney's hard nose approach with the Taliban over an oil pipeline is what precipitated what came next. Remember, we never did get to find out who met for those oil meetings.

[ZombieHorde]

36. I don't think so, but I don't really know. nt

[thelordofhell]

40. I believe that would have made Lieberman Vice President

[samsingh]

42. i think President Gore would have stopped the 911 tragedy

[stevenleser]

51. Didnt notice that you had beaten me to it!

[Jamastiene]

47. Nope.

He would have, instead, worked things out like an adult. He sure wouldn't have done things like that petulant, spoiled rotten, feeble minded, backasswards twerp who stole the election in 2000.

[former9thward]

49. Anyone who believes Gore would not have invaded Iraq should listen to ....Gore.

In this speech he attacks G.H.W.Bush for being too accommodating to Iraq. He details how Hussein had WMD and used them against his own people. He calls him a monster. The position of the Clinton-Gore administration was regime change in Iraq.

[Erose999]

56. A position they didn't act on for 8 years. Its obvious Saddam was a monster, are Reagan sold him the

chemical weapons he used against Iran and the Kurds in the 80's.

[former9thward]

60. False, they did act on it.

Clinton signed the 'Iraq Liberation Act' in 1998. It called for regime change in Iraq.

Section 4(a)(2) states:


The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for [Iraqi democratic opposition] organizations.

In December, 1998 Clinton started a bombing campaign in Iraq which lasted several days. Gore was not President and so was not in charge but it is clear from his words he would have invaded Iraq. It is a willful attempt to ignore history to think otherwise.

[Erose999]

142. If I remember correctly, at that time Iraq was violating the no-fly-zones. And a bombing campaign

like the one that happened for 3 days or a week in 1998 is hardly an action of full-on regime change.

[stevenleser]

50. Not only that, I think Gore's National Security Team would have stopped the 9/11 attacks

I dont think Gore appoints a National Security Advisor that would have blown off more than three separate warnings that Al Qaeda was going to attack the US with at least one of them mentioning 'with commercial aircraft'.

Gore already had submitted a plan back in 1998 for improving aviation security, and if that threat had been communicated to him, he already knew what he needed to do to prevent such an attack.

[sabrina 1]

55. 52 warnings. No, I doubt he would have blown off those warnings.

Clinton did not blow off terrorist warnings and stopped dozens of them, some of them, at least one, would have been worse than 9/11.

But then you have to wonder who Democrats have tolerated the lies and the crimes committed by the Bush administration. But not demanding accountability for what was at the very least, gross and deadly negligence and an total betrayal of their duties to protect the American people, they have condoned it.

[stevenleser]

59. Because after the country is attacked, the right thing to do is rally around the government and

their response, not attack the government with recriminations like Republicans are doing with Benghazi. The emphasis is on the people who did the wrong and evil thing by attacking us, not the mistakes made that allowed that attack.

One of the ways you can tell that most Americans agree with that, is that no sitting President has lost re-election while US troops were in the field.

9/11 shielded Bush from recriminations from lots of his actions. It gave him a positive approval rating for almost his entire first term. Not much could have been done to change that.

Absent 9/11, Bush loses reelection by a landslide. You can see where his approval rating was right before the attacks and the overall trend. It was awful.

[sabrina 1]

61. Excuse me but the emphasis was never on those who committed that crime. The

emphasis was on a country that had zero to do with 9/11. And no country should rally around a war crime committed by their leaders, especially when they have been exposed as liars.

Yet only a very few brave souls in Congress ever tried to bring them to justice for the crime they committed against this country and others. I will remember them, and I think history will too when one day hopefully, justice will be done, as is happening now in South America, late maybe, but better late than never.

Anyone who voted to allow Bush to attack the wrong country knew will it was the wrong country yet went ahead and did so anyhow.

The over one hundred Democrats who did not however, did the right thing. But there were not enough of them to stop that crime, sadly.

[stevenleser]

70. That is a matter of debate. Al Qaeda camps and areas of operation were in Afghanistan.

I've never bought the line that because Osama was born in Saudi Arabia that we should have attacked Saudi Arabia.

Many Americans were born elsewhere. If we fielded an army of immigrants from Mexico and attacked a country, should that country blame Mexico?

[sabrina 1]

126. What Al Queda camps were in Iraq? And most Afghanis had no idea what 9/11

was according to many soldiers who were there when these foreigners landed in their country.

We went to Afghanistan for the oil pipeline. We went to Iraq for oil. Everything we do is for oil.

International law does not permit the invasion of a sovereign country unless the GOVERNMENT is responsible for attacking another sovereign nation. Afghanistan did not attack this country. A few people, mostly from Saudi Arabia were responsible for that.

There are people who are wanted for terror by other countries in many countries. Do you think they should all be invaded because of the presence of such people in their countries?

There was no Al Queda in Iraq. SH hated them and they hated him. Yet 70% of the US population believed that lie.

[stevenleser]

128. I agree with you 100% on Iraq. I disagree about Afghanistan. I would have gone into Afghanistan if I

became President on September 12th 2001 regardless of natural resources. Afghanistan was not about oil. It was about trying to get at Al Qaeda and toppling the Taliban who tried to protect them.

You notice that virtually no one in the world objected to our invading Afghanistan. There were no denunciations in the UN, no protests, etc. Afghanistan was a completely justifiable action.

[sabrina 1]

140. There were plenty of protests against that invasion and plenty of good reporting

by good journailists like Robert Sheer eg, on just what that war was about. But few elected officials dared to speak out against it considering the climate created by the criminal Bush adminisistration at the time.

The Congressional Record eg, proves what that war was really about, look it up, for years the Oil Cartels had been trying to convince the Taliban to allow them in there. Unocal eg, as the Congressional Record shows, was one of the main Corps trying to get there. And what a coincidence that the new leaders happened to be former employees of Unocal.

I thought most people here were aware of all this.

I remember eg, the summer before 9/11, an article in the NYT on Afghanistan's value as one of the main routes to the Caspian Sea.

[bigwillq]

53. None of us really know

It seems like 9/11 was years in the making. If it happened under Gore, odds are we invade, but can't really say for sure. None of us can. It really doesn't matter. It's all ifs and buts.

[Erose999]

54. Gore probably would have been a "caretaker" president and not made any waves.

[MindPilot]

57. No, because 9/11 would not have happened.

I am firmly convinced that 9-11 was an attack directed more at the Bush administration than America herself, and had anyone but Bush occupied the White House, the attacked would not have occurred.

[whatchamacallit]

62. This n/t

[RZM]

111. And what are you basing this on?

Planning for the 'planes operation' began well before the 2000 election. They had no idea who was going to be the next president when the green light was given.

Do you really think Bin Laden and co. disliked Bush any more or less than Clinton or Gore? I don't think they bothered with such subtleties. If anything they probably hated the Clinton administration more, since they were in power when Al-Qaida was doing its thing in the 1990s. Remember Khobar Towers? The USS Cole? The African embassies? The bombings in Afghanistan and Sudan, when Clinton gave the order to attack Al-Qaida targets?

No offense, but this is pretty lame even by 9/11 woo standards.

[treestar]

64. No.

911 would be far less likely to have happened. Security would have been done right.

Had it happened, we would not have gone to war with Iraq. As to Afghanistan and the Taliban, we would not have rushed off to war at the very least. I believe strongly that Bush/Cheney at all used 911 as an excuse for every war they could think of.

[Egalitarian Thug]

67. And even if they weren't, we accomplished all the objectives in Afghanistan in the first 90 days

with the Air Force and special forces.

[Octafish]

72. I don't either, raccoon.

Gore would have continued a policy of protecting the USA from its enemies.

Unlike Smirko, Sneer and the rest of the BFEE, he isn't one of Them.

[emsimon33]

77. Of course we wouldn't have invaded them nor would there have been 9/11/01 either!

[Fumesucker]

80. Gore would have been inagurated as POTUS if 6 percent of Dems in NH hadn't voted Bush

http://www.amatomain.com/documents/GrandIllusionNewHampshire0709.pdf

http://politizine.blogspot.com/2004/02/debunking-myth-ralph-nader-didnt-cost.html

In New Hampshire, CNN's exit polling showed Nader taking more votes from Republicans than Democrats by a two-to-one margin. Nader received 2 percent of the Republican vote and 1 percent of the Democrat vote. Nader also took 7 percent of the independent vote.

At the same time, 6 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush! This is the real reason why Gore lost: He couldn't hold his own base!

[TommyCelt]

82. Interesting, but...

It's all academic. Woulda/Coulda/Shoulda/If-only-this-then-that does nothing but keep our eyes open for the next dubious power grab.

[unblock]

84. just to pick a nit, gore's inauguration would have been in 2001.

and i agree, no way in hell we would have invaded iraq.

saddam was a particular bee in shrub's bonnet and was, imho, the sum total of shrub's presidential ambitions. when poppy stopped short of baghdad and saddam survived, i think shrub finally decided what he wanted to accomplish in life: kill saddam. no more, no less.

[sofa king]

86. What if Lieberman had been inaugurated as POTUS in 2001?

Eh? Can't you all see that The Man had the whole race covered?

The New American Century was going to happen, no matter what.

[Blue4Texas]

109. That would be the problem

To Gore as president

[mzmolly]

89. I don't. He would have prevented 911

by taking an interest in reports regarding "Bin Laden determined to strike US..."

[4Q2u2]

92. 911 more than likely would have happened

"Miller: The American people by in large do not know the name Usama bin Ladin, but they soon will. Do you have a message to the American people?"

"Bin Ladin: I say that the American people gave power to a traitorous leadership. This became especially clear in Clinton's government. The American government is an agent that represents Israel inside America. Look at sensitive departments like the Defense Department or the State Department, or sensitive security departments like the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] and others; you find that Jews have the first word in the American government. That is how they use America to carry out their plans in the world, especially in the Muslim world."

Tanzanian Bombers Convicted and were to be sentence Sept 12, 2001. That date was change before Labor Day but maybe OBL did not get the memo. The Court House is with in the shadow of the WTC.

Iraq probably would not happen. With Gores experience in Vietnam, I do think he would have been a lot more hesitant to engage in action there. I also think he would have prosecuted the Afghan War properly. He would have bottomed lined Senior Leadership and told them do not give me a Vietnam.

[lpbk2713]

96. Gore wasn't a senior officer with Halliburton like asshole Cheney.

So I doubt it.

BushCo wanted to plunder Iraq so bad they could taste it. They finally
did get their way and they plundered the US Treasury along with it.

Gore's biggest mistake in the Y2K campaign? He conducted his campaign
too much like a gentleman and he threw in the towel way too easily. He
should have assessed the opposition better than he obviously did.

[Zorra]

102. No, and 911 would still be only primarily known as an emergency phone call number. nt

[tularetom]

103. As long as we're playing "what if" games, if Gore was inaugurated in 2001 and died in 2002

we would have already invaded not only Iraq but Iran and any other country that Israel wanted us to.

[quinnox]

110. I doubt it

And its possible that the Sept. 11th attacks would not have occurred. If you examine everything that happened before, during and after, it smells very fishy. Bush and company wanted another Pearl harbor to happen, they even said so a few years earlier in a document called the project for the new American century.

[Cleita]

115. Of course not. Invading Iraq was a wet dream of the PNACers.

Also, there probably would have been no 9/11 as well because Gore would have paid attention to the warnings, which the Bush administration clearly didn't.

[bigbrother05]

122. Agree, Gore wouldn't have handed the ME to Rumsfeld

Even though Powell was SoS, the Bush/Cheney policy took responsibility for the Middle East out of State's hands and gave it to Defense. Powell was visiting other parts of the world and Rummy was turning up the heat on a bubbling cauldron. The oil business back Bushies were pushing on the Talaban to approve a pipeline and had even provided them ~$30M to sweeten the pot. After what bin Laden had seen in Saudi from the mix of oil and politics, that made him even more determined.

The Clinton admin had supported business overtures, but with the militarized NeoCon oil cabal installed in office, who could trust the US intentions in the region?


No one thinks Gore would have been perfect, but it took a concerted full time effort for 8 years to screw it up as badly as it turned out. It was no accident and we're probably just lucky it wasn't worse, they just ran out of time.

[Swede Atlanta]

123. My bets are as follows...

We would NOT have invaded Afghanistan because a non-drunk heading our government would have actually read the security briefings regarding Al-Qaedas plans to attack within the U.S. using airplanes and done something. Maybe 9-11 would have happened and if so yes would have gone into Afghanistan.

We would NOT have invaded Iraq and spent trillions of dollars and 4K+ American lives to revenge "Daddy"

[arely staircase]

124. bush's war of aggression against iraq

was the most tragic and far-reaching consequence of the scotus stopping the state of florida from following its constitution and counting its votes accordingly.

this country and the world changed, for the worse, because of all that.

jesus wept

[ElboRuum]

129. I don't believe for a minute.

Consider what gyrations and painfully obtuse rationales were required to get Congress on board. Can you seriously imagine Gore trying to do that? When Blix came back with the results of the investigation, can you actually imagine Gore basically sticking his head in the sand and going ahead anyway?

I find that imagery outside the realm of likelihood at best.

[Honeycombe8]

135. No way. Afghanistan, yes. Iraq? No way. nt