Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Al Gore had been president-in all likelihood Osama Bin Laden would still be alive and in power in Afghanistan or Pakistan and AQ would have a seat at the UN as well. I doubt that Flounder could find his testicles if his life depended on it-to say nothing of the lives of American citizens.
Gore has a history of being pro-intervention and somehow the light bulb goes off in your head that he would happily let AQ run wild and have a "seat at the UN?" If only you guys had an ounce of brains...
I know Gore since the 80's.....he is a political opportunist.
He voted for the First Gulf War and as VP supported military interventions and bombings during the Clinton years.....he picked Lieberman as VP, you can't get more Neo-Liberal Hawkish Jew than Lieberman.
He is a pro-establishment globalist. He is for the bad trade deals, NAFTA and others, open borders and for endless wars and occupations.
so cut the B.S. that if Gore would have been elected in 2000, the world would be more peaceful, fewer occupations, fewer wars, less military interventions.....that's just B.S.
Lie to the American people about WMD?
Send 4000 US soldiers to their death for no purpose?
Flush billions of $$ down the toilet?
Spawn a new terrorist organization (ISIS)?
This is your idea of backbone?
Clinton/gore/Kerry/Edwards/Pelosi all were talking WMD before bush came into office
Half a million Iraq children died while Clinton was in office...and Madeline Albright said it was "well worth it"
ISIS was formed in 1998 while Clinton was in office
Last edited by workingclasshero; 09-07-2018 at 11:51 AM..
Clinton/gore/Kerry/Edwards/Pelosi all were talking WMD before bush came into office
Half a million Iraq children died while Clinton was in office...and Madeline Albright said it was "well worth it"
ISIS was formed in 1998 while Clinton was in office
yes!!!! but some here they rather have the Gore types of politicians that say one thing in public and in private supports bombings, military interventions, regime changes, and the new world order globalism that he was a part of.
Obama is the perfect example....he was more anti-war than Gore in public.....in private once he got to the WH, he was for regime changes, bombings, occupations, and a drone program.
Just because Gore came out agaisnt the Iraq war in 2002 for politcal reasons to opposed W Bush, it doesn't mean anything, so was Obama and look at how he ruled as President. Obama was the 3rd term and 4th Term of W Bush in foreign policy.
Why do you think W BUSH never spoke badly of Obama for 8 years when Obama was President? Obama continued his foreign policy in the Middle East and Aghanistan.....it's just Obama would say 1 thing in public and in private do another thing....the same as Gore.
While we'll never know with 100% certainty I agree with the OP. We know that Gore took a very public position AGAINST the war in Sept. 2002. He did this even as the drum beat for war was very loud in the shadow of 9/11, etc.
It is also worth noting he was one of the very few Democrats to vote FOR use of military force in 1991 to boot Iraq out of Kuwait. He bucked his own party in making that vote.
I think in BOTH cases he made the right decision. It is a shame Al "Bore" did not make it to the White House in 2001. He clearly would have been a much better President than Bush, Jr. The Iraq fiasco alone was such a disaster and really F&^d things up.
I jokingly say Al "Bore" because I believe that his pubic persona as being kind of stiff hurt him in the general election. While Bush was not the sharpest tool in the shed, in the modern age the person with the most personal appeal often gets the nod. George Bush was the guy "you'd want to have a beer with" and all that nonsense.
Looking at the slack Trump get's you are correct. Personality matters more than policy. But, I agree, I wanted Gore, and if he ran in 2020, I might just vote for a Dem again. Sadly, he's just too smart to do that.
Well, at least he wasn't the doofus that invaded/occupied a country that'd done nothing to us at great expense of American blood and taxpayer $$$ that had no benefit to the US.
Or the doofus who signed the order for Regine Change in Iraq like clinton did which W. Bush carried out.
"that invaded/occupied a country" WITH the AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT FROM ALL THE TOP DEMS in the Senate. Most I'd bet YOU VOTED FOR. How does that crow taste.
While Gore was no dove, there were major differences between his foriegn policy and that of Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz.
1. Gore would have deferred to international consensus. If Cheney came to him with a report on Hussein's WMDs, Gore would have said, "Feel free to discuss it with the UN."
2. Gore would have continued the HW/Clinton policy of supporting anti-Hussein groups within Iraq instead of unilaterally invading Iraq. After all, Obama never invaded Libya or Syria.
3. Gore would be aware that invading Iraq would have side-effects. Cheney of all people warned about these side-effects in 1994. https://youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY&t=2s
Makes sense. For what little I've seen of Gore, he doesn't seem to have the warped vision of war as something heroic (Bush), nor of war that's a good avenue for profit (Cheney).
By the way, you can double-check me on this, but I believe that Gore - unlike Bush Jr. (or Trump, for that matter) was the only one to have actually shipped out to war.
It's interesting, thinking of how I just saw John Kerry on a talk show, apropos of his new book: Republicans like to blather about respecting the military, but when we had two people who did serve in Vietnam - Gore and Kerry - Republicans made sure they weren't elected president.
There is some question what Gore would have done differently. I'm sure he invades Afghanistan but I have some doubt about his invading Iraq, perhaps some bombing to contain Saddam but not a regime change. Some of you have made some persuasive arguments for him going all in, but I do kinda wonder, if he did go "all in", how long before he pulls the plug, when it got ugly? This was what the '04 election was about, many felt it would betray our troops to vote for Kerry, whom many believed would abandon the mission and pull us out quickly after taking office. Many thought this action would bring another disgrace to our troops like what happened in Vietnam.
If Gore did invade Iraq, then I would say from a historical perspective thus far, it was better that Bush won both his terms, and that Bush was the guy making those decisions, not Gore. I do not think Gore would call for the surge as we get into 2006 and 2007. At that point, public opinion had shifted and a softer man would feel enabled to quit the war. The petrodollar system would have taken a big blow, having lost the second largest oil producer in the middle east after Saudi Arabia, and having all that oil fall into the hands of Isis, Iran, or whomever, to build armies and fund terrorism. We probably would have had to go back there and fix it within a couple years.
But if Gore does not invade Iraq or press Saddam too hard, he might have been the better man for those times, especially considering his energy policy. If Saddam does not feel overly afraid of invasion by the US, he may not have abandoned the petrodollar system in 2003 which is what triggered Bush to invade. If we continued a containment policy of Iraq, and concentrated on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and getting Bin Ladin, it may have worked out for the better. But who knows what Saddam would do in the long run, and his sons whom would have taken over after his death.
While Gore was no dove, there were major differences between his foriegn policy and that of Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz.
1. Gore would have deferred to international consensus. If Cheney came to him with a report on Hussein's WMDs, Gore would have said, "Feel free to discuss it with the UN."
2. Gore would have continued the HW/Clinton policy of supporting anti-Hussein groups within Iraq instead of unilaterally invading Iraq. After all, Obama never invaded Libya or Syria.
Yeah, I would think that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq without a consensus among the U.S.'s allies that this is the right thing to do. Gore spoke out against Bush's unilateralism in September 2002 and thus I don't think that he would have been willing to wage a unilateral war against Iraq.
As for Obama, he did bomb Libya, but that was only after he got a UN Resolution in support of this.
I do wonder, though--had a rebellion against Saddam Hussein broken out during the Arab Spring, would the US have then militarily intervened against Saddam Hussein? Also, would this mean that Gaddafi would be off the hook?
Finally, I wonder whether or not Gore would have actually invaded Afghanistan. I mean, I would think that he would have, but given Clinton's passivity towards the Taliban, one might wonder whether Gore would have tried to spend more time negotiating with the Taliban before he actually invaded Afghanistan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
