coloradodem2005
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:06 PM
Original message |
Would President Gore have declared war on Iraq in 2003-A? |
|
A being the Alternate timeline that is pResident Dubya free. For that matter, would President Gore have even declared war on Iraq in timeline-A?
I would have thought no, but then someone here mentioned Gore in 2002 saying something that could be construed as that we have to go into Iraq.
|
jpgray
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:11 PM
Response to Original message |
1. As with almost any other reasonable Democrat, we would have delayed more |
|
Edited on Mon Jun-07-04 09:12 PM by jpgray
And more delay means more time for inspections, more time for diplomacy, &c. All that would tend towards not invading. The resolution would have likely been more restricting without the executive branch's drumbeat silencing or neutralizing the dissent.
(this is an 'at least' answer, in my view we would not have had even the drumbeat to war with a sensible Democrat in office)
|
nostamj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:12 PM
Response to Original message |
|
under Gore, 9/11 would not have happened. so,
the invasion of Afghanistan would not have happened. so,
certainly the occupation of Iraq would not have happened.
Gore is not a oil whore.
|
LTR
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:12 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Even though Clinton flirted with the idea, I think Gore would have concentrated more on bin Laden. I believe 9/11 would have happened regardless of who the president is.
Iraq was a Bush ego war, first and foremost. Besides, no way a Republican congress lets Gore invade Iraq. For Bush, on the other hand...
|
jpgray
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. The Republicans tried to push Clinton into an Iraq war |
|
Don't be too sure that the neo-cons mind terribly who enacts their craven policies.
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
21. PNAC even tried to push Clinton... |
|
They also tried to get Gingrich and Lott to try and push Clinton. He blew them off as the assholes that they were.
|
coloradodem2005
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. What if one of the houses went to the Dems in 2002? |
|
Would they have let Gore do it?
|
AndyTiedye
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
18. If Gore Had Been Elected, 9/11 as we know it would not have happened |
|
They would have crashed it into the White House instead to blow away Gore. President Lieberman would have started the the PNAC wars. He's made that perfectly clear.
|
emulatorloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
23. Gore listened to Richard Clarke during the Clinton admin, and would had |
|
listened to him in Gore admin, so 9/11. . .who knows?
|
blackmoonlillith
(100 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:13 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Would Gore have created the OSP? |
|
Would Gore have purposefully lied about WMD over and over and over again?\
Would Gore have gone against the UN?
Would Gore have allowed war profiteers free reign in Iraq?
Would Gore have picked Bremer and Chalabi?
Is Gore a neocon?
These are of course rhetorical questions. The answer to them is my answer to your question. NO
|
Eric J in MN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:16 PM
Response to Original message |
7. No. Gore wasn't obessed with Iraq. |
|
No.
Gore wasn't obessed with Iraq.
Amd Gore urged caution in 2002.
|
maggrwaggr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:17 PM
Response to Original message |
8. of course not. The "reasons" to go were completely manufactured by Bushco |
|
Hell, even Colin Powell in 2001 said Iraq was totally contained and wasn't a threat to anybody. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
|
Aidoneus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:23 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I don't see why not, though there are many variables |
|
The same people cheering Bush on now watched with a smile as Clinton/Gore bombed & starved Iraq for the decade previous..
|
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:23 PM
Response to Original message |
10. gore would have gotten the un and/or nato to smash bin laden/al qaeda |
|
and that would have been that.
no wholesale "war", no toppling of governments, just a targetted roundup of murderous criminals.
as for saddam, he was 100% contained, and very, very little threat to anyone outside iraq. afghanistan was overkill, but it made some sense. iraq was just plain stupid.
|
pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:27 PM
Response to Original message |
11. No. Why? Saddam was a failing and failed despot, contained w/UN |
|
oversight. His regime had a limited time.
He was an easy tactical target.
I will never buy our administration's "are things better off" bait an' switch.
|
Moonbeam_Starlight
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:28 PM
Response to Original message |
12. No I honestly don't think he would have |
|
I also honestly wonder if 9/11 would have happened if Gore had been in office.
Shrug.
|
rfkrocks
(846 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:29 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Gore understood the need for allies and he would have continued the policy of the past years about preemptive wars-we don't have them-it took a real "visionary" to change that policy
|
Cheswick2.0
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:34 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Iraq was not a threat and Gore is not a puppet for Israel or the oil industry.
|
FlashHarry
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:35 PM
Response to Original message |
15. But... but... Ralph Nader said there's no difference! |
|
Pepsi/Coke... Coke/Pepsi. You mean, there IS a difference??? Oh dear. I suppose I should've actually done some research, instead of listening to my idealistic hippie friends! ;-)
|
maggrwaggr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:40 PM
Response to Original message |
16. I'm kind of shocked anyone on DU would even ask that |
|
Would Gore have invaded Norway? Mexico? The Phillipines?
|
Media_Lies_Daily
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
troublemaker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
25. He couldn't even invade his own state! |
|
Wait a sec... my RW talking points seem to be out of order. I'll get back to you.
|
onehandle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 09:44 PM
Response to Original message |
17. He already commented on this. He said no. nt |
soothsayer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 10:07 PM
Response to Original message |
19. No, because he didn't need to prop up Halliburton, who was losing $$ |
|
at the rate of 1 BILLION dollars a year. He didn't have a huge pension and options and whatnot from Halliburton, so he didn't need to ensure that Halliburton got a 1 BILLION dollar contract this year for its Iraq work. It was a make or break year for Halliburton, and Cheney saved them....for himself.
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 10:17 PM
Response to Original message |
|
He wouldn't have been controlled by PNAC.
|
troublemaker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-07-04 11:17 PM
Response to Original message |
24. Of course not. Why would he? It's like asking |
|
whether Al Gore would have shot John Lennon if Mark Chapman didn't.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:52 PM
Response to Original message |