Suppose Gore had won?

[Bob001]

Al Gore has started to campaign for Clinton, most recently saying something like "Every vote counts, and I'm exhibit No. 1." Subject for discussion: Where would we be if Gore had taken office in 2001? I'm assuming 9/11 would probably still have happened (although I think it's possible that a Gore administration might have taken the warnings about bin Laden more seriously and maybe have been able to prevent it). After 9/11, we would still have invaded Afghanistan, but I can't imagine that we would have attacked Iraq. I suspect a liberal Democratic administration might have been more alert to warnings about the looming financial crisis. But if Gore had won a second term, it would have been 16 years of Democrats in the White House. It's not likely that Obama or Hillary or any other Democrat would have been elected in 2008, so we might still have gotten a Pres. Bush. Etc.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I watched the TV coverage of the memorial service after 9/11. On leaving the cathedral, Gore dithered in the street like a damn squirrel between his black suv and returning to the steps to schmooze. At that moment I knew history was going to be very different.

Gore would have thrown a couple of cruise missiles at al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and talked tough. He would not have invaded Iraq at all, so Zaquawi would have never gone there to start the sectarian conflict under Bush's heels. There would be no ISIL, no Syrian civil war, no Libyan "dear god, what's next" anvils overhead.

The housing bubble would still have collapsed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Al Gore has started to campaign for Clinton, most recently saying something like "Every vote counts, and I'm exhibit No. 1." Subject for discussion: Where would we be if Gore had taken office in 2001? I'm assuming 9/11 would probably still have happened (although I think it's possible that a Gore administration might have taken the warnings about bin Laden more seriously and maybe have been able to prevent it). After 9/11, we would still have invaded Afghanistan, but I can't imagine that we would have attacked Iraq. I suspect a liberal Democratic administration might have been more alert to warnings about the looming financial crisis. But if Gore had won a second term, it would have been 16 years of Democrats in the White House. It's not likely that Obama or Hillary or any other Democrat would have been elected in 2008, so we might still have gotten a Pres. Bush. Etc.

Why do you think the highlighted part? Clintons/Gore were just as Hawkish on Iraq as Bush, see: Operation Desert Fox; related, see also H. Clinton vote on Iraq war resolution.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...what-it-tells-us-about-syria/article14105322/

 

[varwoche]

Why do you think the highlighted part? Clintons/Gore were just as Hawkish on Iraq as Bush, see: Operation Desert Fox; related, see also H. Clinton vote on Iraq war resolution.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...what-it-tells-us-about-syria/article14105322/

Instead of reading tea leaves, we can see what Gore actually said prior to invasion. What a concept.

Executive summary: he opposed the invasion

 

[The Great Zaganza]

We would all be riding unicorns, obviously.

 

[The Big Dog]

Instead of reading tea leaves, we can see what Gore actually said prior to invasion. What a concept.

Executive summary: he opposed the invasion

He did NOT oppose any invasion, as astutely pointed out by the article I quoted, what Gore was saying was:

The argument that Gore would have gone to war is debatable. Some point to certain quotes from a speech to the Commonwealth Club Gore gave six months before the war as evidence of his opposition to any war in Iraq. However, Harvey notes the speech is delivered when the argument was between Cheney/Rumsfeld neo-cons for unilateral action and Powell/Blair multi-lateralists calling for a return to the UN. The Powell/Blair faction won, in part because of Gore’s intervention on behalf of multi-lateralism, and the result was still war six months later.

He wanted to soften the resolution and build a coalition, and that is exactly what happened.

 

[varwoche]

He did NOT oppose any invasion, as astutely pointed out by the article I quoted, what Gore was saying was:



He wanted to soften the resolution and build a coalition, and that is exactly what happened.

No sale. I take the word of Gore over that of Kevin Bacon, thank you very much.

 

[The Big Dog]

No sale. I take the word of Gore over that of Kevin Bacon, thank you very much.

Me too:

WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD DO

I believe, therefore, that the resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants, and needs to be narrowed. The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration’s thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change.

Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.

The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its gravity.

He did NOT oppose the possibility of any invasion, as already shown.

 

[Bob001]

....
He did NOT oppose the possibility of any invasion, as already shown.

One difference is that Gore (and Clinton, Kerry et al.) were relying on Bush's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed an eminent threat. But we know now that most of that intelligence was, to put it as neutrally as possible, flawed. I suspect that a President Gore, making an independent assessment without preconceptions, might have been more willing to hear contrary opinions about Iraq's WMD, and at the very least would have been willing to allow inspectors to complete their work before reaching conclusions.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

One difference is that Gore (and Clinton, Kerry et al.) were relying on Bush's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed an eminent threat. But we know now that most of that intelligence was, to put it as neutrally as possible, flawed. I suspect that a President Gore, making an independent assessment without preconceptions, might have been more willing to hear contrary opinions about Iraq's WMD, and at the very least would have been willing to allow inspectors to complete their work before reaching conclusions.

Exactly: we know that less than a week after 9/11 Bush&Co. had already decided to go into Iraq: it was not based on intel, but the bit of intel that could be obtained/manufactured (see Plume affair) was used to sell the war.

Gore wouldn't have been so single-minded bout this - Saddam never said he would want to kill his father.

 

[Newtons Bit]

There would be no ISIL, no Syrian civil war, no Libyan "dear god, what's next" anvils overhead.

That a bit of revisionism. This is worth a read: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blogs/michael-j-totten

That’s how it started, and the Syrian civil war is emphatically not a product of the Iraq war. Follow the international chain of causation backwards and you won’t end up in Baghdad, but in Tunisia. ISIS—or something that looks and sounds a lot like it—would have sprung up in Syria even if Iraq were an Arab version of Switzerland.

To be sure, ISIS is the reconstituted and rebranded version of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which reared its ugly head in the wake of the fall of Saddam Hussein, so in that sense it does appear, at a glance anyway, that ISIS is the product of the Iraq war rather than the Syrian war, but here’s the thing: Al Qaeda in Iraq effectively ceased to exist for years after losing to the American and Iraqi armed forces in the mid-to-late 2000s. It lost every scrap of territory and its entire leadership was erased.

 

[The Big Dog]

One difference is that Gore (and Clinton, Kerry et al.) were relying on Bush's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed an eminent threat. But we know now that most of that intelligence was, to put it as neutrally as possible, flawed. I suspect that a President Gore, making an independent assessment without preconceptions, might have been more willing to hear contrary opinions about Iraq's WMD, and at the very least would have been willing to allow inspectors to complete their work before reaching conclusions.

without preconceptions? I recommend that you read Clinton's statement regarding Operation Desert Fox.

The preconception was that Saddam had WMDs and was willing to use them.

 

[Cain]

Bush's approval rating shot up past 90% after 9/11 (Rally-Around-The-Flag effect). I do not think Gore's approval rating would have gone past the 80s, and there would have been calls for impeachment. (Just look at what the GOP ginned up over Benghazi!). Gore probably would not have won re-election. No Obama at the DNC convention means he probably never gets to be president.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Counterfactuals are always tricky. Maybe Gore would have stopped 9/11 ...

But in any case, the candidate who won the popular vote would have won the presidency, and SCOTUS wouldn't have the taint of having picked the one they like better...

 

[fuelair]

Counterfactuals are always tricky. Maybe Gore would have stopped 9/11 ...

But in any case, the candidate who won the popular vote would have won the presidency, and SCOTUS wouldn't have the taint of having picked the one they like better...

And off to hell for those who decided the way of the fool Bush!!!

 

[Bob001]

without preconceptions? I recommend that you read Clinton's statement regarding Operation Desert Fox.

The preconception was that Saddam had WMDs and was willing to use them.

I note that the Clinton administration is not the one that invaded Iraq.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

One difference is that Gore (and Clinton, Kerry et al.) were relying on Bush's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed an eminent threat. But we know now that most of that intelligence was, to put it as neutrally as possible, flawed. I suspect that a President Gore, making an independent assessment without preconceptions, might have been more willing to hear contrary opinions about Iraq's WMD, and at the very least would have been willing to allow inspectors to complete their work before reaching conclusions.

Gore would not have been sending his Vice President to CIA HQs every few days to pressure their analysts to find evidence to "prove" Iraq was connected with 9/11 or that they had running CW/BW/Nuke programs. "Curveballs" reports would have been burn-bagged as the trash they were. Who knows, maybe no 9/11 as Gore would not have been shifting Agency resources away from Al Qaeda towards Iraq before 9/11

 

[Ziggurat]

I note that the Clinton administration is not the one that invaded Iraq.

True, he only bombed it.

 

[Kestrel]

Would the California Electricity Crisis have lasted as long with Al Gore in the White House?

 

[catsmate]

Al Gore has started to campaign for Clinton, most recently saying something like "Every vote counts, and I'm exhibit No. 1." Subject for discussion: Where would we be if Gore had taken office in 2001? I'm assuming 9/11 would probably still have happened (although I think it's possible that a Gore administration might have taken the warnings about bin Laden more seriously and maybe have been able to prevent it). After 9/11, we would still have invaded Afghanistan, but I can't imagine that we would have attacked Iraq. I suspect a liberal Democratic administration might have been more alert to warnings about the looming financial crisis. But if Gore had won a second term, it would have been 16 years of Democrats in the White House. It's not likely that Obama or Hillary or any other Democrat would have been elected in 2008, so we might still have gotten a Pres. Bush. Etc.

There are a number of threads on this over at alternatehistory.com.
Gore wins in 2000
Al Gore wins in 2000. Does he win re election in 2004?
Leader of the Free World: Al Gore wins in 2000
Gore wins 2000
WI Al Gore Wins 2000
Gore Wins 2000 Election
What if Al Gore had won the 2000 Presidential Election
Decision Points: The Presidency of Al Gore