Would President Gore have declared war on Iraq in 2003-A?

[coloradodem2005]

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]

1. As with almost any other reasonable Democrat, we would have delayed more

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]

2. of course not

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]

3. Hell no!

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]

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]

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]

6. What if one of the houses went to the Dems in 2002?

Would they have let Gore do it?

[AndyTiedye]

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]

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]

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]

7. No. Gore wasn't obessed with Iraq.

No.

Gore wasn't obessed with Iraq.

Amd Gore urged caution in 2002.

[maggrwaggr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

13. No way

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]

14. why would he?

Iraq was not a threat and Gore is not a puppet for Israel or the oil industry.

[FlashHarry]

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]

16. I'm kind of shocked anyone on DU would even ask that

Would Gore have invaded Norway? Mexico? The Phillipines?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. Major ditto.

[troublemaker]

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]

17. He already commented on this. He said no. nt

[soothsayer]

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]

20. Absolutely not...

He wouldn't have been controlled by PNAC.

[troublemaker]

24. Of course not. Why would he? It's like asking

whether Al Gore would have shot John Lennon if Mark Chapman didn't.