Imagine, for a second, that Al Gore won the 2000 election, handled 9/11 and all subsequent events in exactly the same way as George W. Bush. Would you believe exactly what you believe now? Would you approach debates on the topic in exactly the same way? I have a feeling that a lot of people tend to favor/oppose certain actions because it's what their party does. I believe that some of you war detractors would support the war if undertaken by Gore. I also have a feeling that some of the war supporters would be voicing many of the same arguments made by the current war detractors. Personally, much of what I support in Iraq is based on the belief that I feel getting rid of Saddam was a necessary action. However, I also admit that some of my support for the war has been based on a belief of mine that George Bush is doing what he genuinely feels is best for the country. I'm not 100% sure that I'd have the same trust in Al Gore but I feel that I would still support military action if it meant Saddam was out of power. So, if the roles were reversed and all subsequent actions were the same, what would you be saying today? Remember, we're stating that EVERYTHING is as it currently is just with a different person in the White House. I think it's interesting to put yourself in the shoes of your "opponents" in this debate and see how much of your beliefs are based on your beliefs and how many are based on your party or your hatred for an individual (Bush) or party (Democrats/Republicans).
If Gore handle everything like Bush did now, I'd be just as against it as I am right now. Though you gotta believe Gore would've being a lot more apt in getting a deal done with France, Russia and Germany (even if it's going to be a back room deal) that would make it seem atleast it was an international effort and not get so much of the negative attention of the world on the U.S. The thing that Bush done that made me mad isn't even that he went into Iraq but rather the damage of U.S.'s international image. I think such conviction and character a good in some circumstances, but not here. I think Gore is more of a "politician", and would be able to work something out. To add, what I like in my public servant is some one that can serve the public, (i.e. achieving the greatest social wellness possible), I just don't get the feeling that what Bush did helped the U.S. public, no matter how noble his intentions are.
If Gore was elected - the Republicans would have blamed him for 9/11 and said it's because the Dems are weak on terrorism - that's why this happened. People would believe that and Bush would be president today anyway - except in his first term. We'd still have gone to war, and everything would be the same.
what if gore actually paid attention to the pdb's and other intelligence before 911?? what if he let richard clarke's anti terrorism work continue??
I have very little respect for both parties, and I think labeling everyone as "liberal" / "conservative" or "blue state" / "red state" is sad, simplistic, and just plain irritating. My beliefs are not influenced by political parties, so I would have to say that I would have the same issues. However, I would probably be mocking Gore's tendency to bore the living pants off us when speaking instead of Bush's tendency to come across as a dumbass.
Nah, we wouldn't have blamed Gore, we would have still blamed Clinton for not taking BinLaden out when he had the chance.
I think that's an excellent question and one that you will probably not get many honest answers. I believe that many opinions would be switched and that the Congressional debate would be totally different. If you look at the statements made by both Congressional Democrats and Congressional Republicans during the 1998 Kosova and Iraq operations the comments were almost the mirror image of what we seen now. We had Tom DeLay then saying that you could criticize the President while supporting the troops and Congressional Democrats accusing the Republicans of demoralizing and undermining the war effort. I have no doubt that opinions like that would've filtered down to the wider level of even people here on Clutch BBS. What I doubt is that anyone would admit to that and there will be many qualifiers for why people will support the military actions while one party is in charge vs another. For me personally I didn't agree with the Kosovo operation and thought it was handled badly and believed that the 1998 Iraq operation was wagging the dog so even if Gore had been in office my opinion probably wouldn't have been that different. I even believe that if Gore had been President we still might've gone into Iraq anyway. What a lot of people forget was that Gore was much more of a Hawk on Iraq during the 2000 election. Gore often cited Saddam as a threat while GW Bush took a more isolationist view. Its very possible that a Gore Admin. could've come to the same conclusion as the GW Bush Admin.. Things likely would've been executed somewhat differently but if Gore was president in 2000 we still very well might be where we are now.
Gore would've considered the UN option more fully and wouldn't have an ass Sec. Defense to enrage our allies with dumb**** terms like "old Europe" to torpedo any consensus. Gore would've invaded Iraq. However, the politics and polarization would not have occured as virilently. Since Clinton was grilled by Republican leaders for Bosnia, there'd be no doubt that would happen but even more magnified. Remember that Bush ran his first campaign partly based on "no foreign entanglements". So the leaders would already have that foundation to attack Gore. Yet, there wouldn't be this "support the war or you don't support the troops" BS. Our financial situation would look bad, but not as bad as it is now since Gore wouldn't offer permanent tax cuts during a mild recession, 9/11, and an impending war with Afghanistan. All in all, Gore would be a one termer. His handlers were that bad. Public perception might've been the same as for Bush (hopeless war, high debt, unsolved entitlement issues that'll bankrupt our future), but reality wouldn't be worse than it is now.
Haha, at least you're honest. But seriously, I sincerely believe that if Gore was in office, he would not make the same decisions that Bush did. But if Gore were president and all the same **** happened to him and then the huge piles of evidence came forth just like with Bush, I would want him out of the office immediately.
I wasn't on either side before the war, but after the invasion I was against Bush for the '04 election. Probably would've been against Gore in '04 if he had invaded Iraq.
Gore would not have invaded Iraq as a result of 9-11. If Gore had gone to war, it would have been with international support. Gore is an internationalist. He builds consensus. He would not have gone to war without international support. As there was no international support for invading Iraq, he would not have done it. Had he done so, I would have been against it. I was against it when Clinton (not Gore) went to war in Kosovo.
Talk about a hypothetical. I mean, was anybody even considering a war with Iraq besides the NeoCon leaders who had been begging Clinton to start one before they found a way to do it themselves???
You (and countless others in this thread) miss the point. The point is to analyze your beliefs and see how much they are based in principles and how much your affliiations are affecting your views. The countless "Gore wouldn't have done that" posts are both ignoring the question and asserting as fact something that is not certain.
Some people are pissed that they're being lied to and all the bridges to support the war have been burned by Bush. So to ask the same hypothetical is to assume that Gore would've been as incompetent and dishonest as Bush. The question you're really asking is if Bush was a Democrat, would the PigLibs still support their party. If that's the case, hell no.
