The Iraq invasion in OTL went ahead on deliberately falsified intelligence and government propaganda from the Bush Administration. Gore might have wanted to remove Saddam, but they still wouldn't do it because it'd be stupid. In fact, as Iraq was a secular dictatorship in the Middle East with no ties to religious terrorist organisations, Gore might have even tried to get Saddam as an ally again like he was in the 1980s.
if gore won in 00, what would the 08 election look like?
- Thread starter Ynnead
- Start date
HueyLong
Banned
I don't think they would have followed obviously false intelligence (and when examined by any discerning eye, it was false), I don't think they would have had neo-cons pushing for it (Cheney's think tank had a hard-on for Iraq, as did Rumsfeld), I don't think they would have intervened there following a completely different incident (9/11 could not be linked to Hussein).
They would have went after al-Qaeda. Which means Afghanistan and a strong arm on a few other states (and those do not include Iraq).
It's not about whether Clinton or Gore would actually be to blame, it's about who the public would blame. That said, you might well be right that ultimately even if Gore takes a little more flak than Bush did for "Letting 9/11 happen" the surge of patriotism might be enough to offset it.
Actually the failure to confront the threat of terrorism is a bi-partisan screw-up going back to at least Jimmy Carter.
Pretty much every US administration has failed to engage the issue of terrorism, and the only one that really has (Bush 43) has done so in a profoundly incompetent manner.
As for Gore, and despite the blanket statements in this thread, he might invade Iraq. I'd rate it unlikely, but it is a possibility. Perhaps people don't remember now, but the term "neo-Wilsonian" was being thrown around Washington in the 1990s as regards the Democrats (as opposed to the less interventionist Republicans) and neo-conservatives & neo-Wilsonians are the same thing in different clothing. Clinton backed off intervention after some highly public failures (Somalia, for instance) but if I recall correctly Gore was one of the more hawkish members of the White House.
That said, perhaps no invasion of Iraq and instead just Afghanistan and perhaps a series of targeted raids into Pakistan, and any other country they felt was harbouring terrorists.
Indeed, then Governor Bush tried to contrast his intended approach from VP Gore by saying (when campaigning in 2000) that a Bush Administration wouldn't engage in "nation building." While it's now a huge historical irony, Bush in 2000 seemed to advocate a lessened commitment to international acitivism--as did the GOP--until 9/11 turned them around and gave the neo-cons a chance to shine / fumble.
I was wondering if anyone was going to address that.
Personally I don't dismiss the possiblity that all of the complaints of the democrats regarding Pakistan are nothing but partisan nonsense, but if they are not...
Any TL where the US manages to destabilize Pakistan would be speculating about OTL with blissfully tearfilled longing.
Iraq population 29 million
Pakistan population 169 million!
plus nukes!!
Really, really can't see Gore going into Iraq. Despite his relatively hawkish credentials, I think he'd be more likely to chase Al Quaeda headlong perhaps with some major tensions with the likes of Pakistan but Gore carrying from an Administration that saw its interventionist wing bloodied in Somalia invading Iraq for, ultimately, no good reason just doesn't make too much sense to me.
Valdemar II
Banned
If 9/11 had happen under Gore, he would likely have invaded Afghanistan, here he would likely do it a little different, h would have included NATO more, itwouldn't make a difference military that early, but it would have made the allies less pissed off, the American occupation forces would be larger, while the NATO forces would likely be larger too. Today Afghanistan would look like it does today except that the Central Government would control a much larger area around Kabul than today, and as a result being much more stable.
I was wondering if anyone was going to address that.
Personally I don't dismiss the possiblity that all of the complaints of the democrats regarding Pakistan are nothing but partisan nonsense, but if they are not...
Any TL where the US manages to destabilize Pakistan would be speculating about OTL with blissfully tearfilled longing.
[/B]
It's not a partisan thing, particularly (for one, I'm Canadian, for two I'm a Radical Tory which has no real equivalent in the US political spectrum) but certainly the US under Gore would like to hit back—Pakistan has a bunch of obvious terrorists in the mountains and represents a reasonable target for a country willing to invade Afghanistan & Iraq (as I'm sure Gore would at least consider the latter).
And of course given the amount of aid and backing the US supplies to Pakistan, I'm quite sure a handful of troops and cruise missile strikes in the mountains can be overlooked in return for some more F-16s or whatever.
PaleHorseRiding
Banned
Does anyone remember when it made the news when the American Diplomat in Pakistan basically said help us do remember we have nukes and india is right on your border but if you do help us we shall give you all this aid. This was shortly right after 9/11
Does anyone really think Gore would have the basically the balls to tell the diplomat to do this
Does anyone really think Gore would have the basically the balls to tell the diplomat to do this
I think the Republicans would have had a conservative nominee that was trusted more by the evangelicals, for one. After 16 years of Democratic rule I’m fairly sure the American people would want a change in parties no matter how popular Gore is. I’m not sure who the Republicans would nominate, Huckabee is unacceptable to the fiscal wing and I don’t think he’d get it. Perhaps someone that lost in OTL in 2006, such as George Allen if he does not make any racist remarks.
On the Democratic side, I think Lieberman would encounter some opposition, certainly from someone like Kucinich and maybe someone a little more credible like Feingold. Maybe Hillary even runs (She’d certainly want to) But this depends in large part on what Lieberman’s running on and how the Gore presidency went. In the end, I think Lieberman would get the nomination, as there would most likely in my view not be an Iraq war that would cause Lieberman to distance himself from his party, and this combined with being the sitting VP gives him the nod. Nader would run and I think he’d get 3 or 4 percent, almost certainly, since there would be some liberal dissatisfaction with the Democrats, and with Lieberman almost certain to lose people would not be afraid to “send a message.”
In the end, I think Allen would beat Lieberman by a popular vote margin of a few million and he would win in the EV college handily as well. The average American voter would just find Allen to be more charismatic and he’d be seen as a guy Americans would like to have a beer with. This combined with 16 years of Democratic rule would sweep him in a mini landslide, barring any major gaffes.
On the Democratic side, I think Lieberman would encounter some opposition, certainly from someone like Kucinich and maybe someone a little more credible like Feingold. Maybe Hillary even runs (She’d certainly want to) But this depends in large part on what Lieberman’s running on and how the Gore presidency went. In the end, I think Lieberman would get the nomination, as there would most likely in my view not be an Iraq war that would cause Lieberman to distance himself from his party, and this combined with being the sitting VP gives him the nod. Nader would run and I think he’d get 3 or 4 percent, almost certainly, since there would be some liberal dissatisfaction with the Democrats, and with Lieberman almost certain to lose people would not be afraid to “send a message.”
In the end, I think Allen would beat Lieberman by a popular vote margin of a few million and he would win in the EV college handily as well. The average American voter would just find Allen to be more charismatic and he’d be seen as a guy Americans would like to have a beer with. This combined with 16 years of Democratic rule would sweep him in a mini landslide, barring any major gaffes.
Did you manage to skip the part where we're supposed to assume that Gore wins in 2004 as well? (Although, sure, Jeb Bush is the most likely contender in '04 and he has at least a 50% chance to be beat Gore.)
Questionable on those grounds. One of the many complaints about Afghanistan is that the overly multi-natural approach seriously screws with a unified control and strategy, with so many different overlapping commands and jurisdictions.
Now, the effects of having more troops available to move in, rather than having a resource-sinkhole like Iraq...
Now, what surprises me is that for all this debate of "Gore would invade Iraq, lots of governments thought it did have WMDs" versus "no he wouldn't, no proof he would!", has no one considered that he might intervene somewhere else?
It could be somewhere that is a state sponsor of terrorism, plenty of those to go around. It could be a nation-building exercise gone wrong: he did campaign with that being apart of it. Or it cold be something entirely different: Korea, Taiwan, or any other hot spots around the world that butterflies could affect. (Yes, I know both of those are unlikely.)
So I propose everyone consider this: the American overthrow of Hugo Chavez. Socialist who's harming US interests? Is major supplier of US energy supply? In Latin America, the traditional back yard? Ceasing help against drug trafficing? Seeing massive increase in crime, inflation, government crimes and abuses, and other factors that lead to failed state-dom? State sponsor of terrorism?
It would be like a dream come true for any Administration that is being criticized for not doing enough against terrorism (which, I might point out, would likely be one of the Republican criticisms if Gore didn't intervene somewhere else). (Shortsightedly) restoring American predominance in the region, overthrowing a vocal anti-American who loudly supports anybody who opposes the US, overthrowing a wannabe strongman, and keeping a major source of oil out of the hands of someone who hates the US? It would be like a foreign policy wet-dream that a legitimate concern comes before an election.
There are, of course, some concerns with that.
-Much of Chavez's thuggery and incompetance have only emerged over time, meaning the earlier an intervention is the less legit it will be. The Constitutional Referendum was the first electoral defeat he had despite dirty tricks and abuses, but there's no proof that an American president would wait for him to lose an election before overthrowing him.
-The question of what happens in the before the proof (and, if possible, the laptop) is gathered is also important: say what you will about Iraq, but Gore campaigned on a platform supporting interventionism. If something else becomes a major snafu, it could prevent any Latin America adventure.
-The butterfly effect in regards to Chavez's being caught red-handed. While there are likely to still be instances in which Venezuelan government corruption and incompetance are caught for all to see, we can't know if they would be the same ones or if they would be as well known. Or if they would occur at all. Gunmen attacking a peaceful student protest while police let them come and go would be great support for a war... if it still happened. And the infamous laptop is a case for state sponsor of terrorism in itself.
-Of course, a freer US would have the ability to put more resources, drones, and such into Latin America and Columbia in the first place, so we might see developments there. The Tri-Border Area alone is an area of concern in regards to Islamic terrorist groups, so an increase of interest and such in Latin America is easy, especially for an administration less concerned about the Middle East and with more concern for Latin America. Perhaps American intelligence, also keeping an eye on FARC from Columbia, will tip off the Columbian government and the laptop raid will happen earlier.
-Chavez's military buildup. While the armed forces aren't going to matter as much, his deliberate shift to an insurgency warfare resistance are going to be telling the longer he has.
Hm. This is interesting to consider.
There would definetly be a stronger Nader campaign, since democratic anti-Nader (spoiler, spoiler!) propaganda wouldn't have worked that well in 2004 as it did in OTL. He might have won endorsement from the Green party(running for Reform) and reached 5% (enough to get public founds for the next campaign, if I remember right).
It would have been notably irrelevant. The Third-party players shot their bolt in 2000. Gore would have to become rather unpopular for an election to get tight enough for a Third-party candidate to make a real difference.
I wasn't talking about a third party candidate with real chances of winning, just about one stronger than in OTL.
The 2000 result had a huge impact on the prospects of 3rd parties under the current electoral arragnment, especially if they were from the centre or left.
Progressives (rightly in my view) regard GW Bush's administration as a catastrophe. There can be little doubt that had Nader not been on the ballot in Florida Gore would have won in OTL.
However if Gore had won (either by carrying Florida or New Hampshire) things would have been different. Plainly Nader's presence would not have been crucial.
Furthermore voters, especially on the centre and left, would not have realized how crucial the 2000 election was. GW Bush called himself a "Compassionate Conservative". Some people even believed that he was some kind of moderate. Gore was certainly not that radical.
If Gore was President people might not realize how much difference the election made.
I have one query though. It is possible that Gore might have seemed to have won because of the effects of Buchanon.
Say Gore took New Hampshire by 50 votes and Buchanaon got a couple of thousand in that state. (this assumes the Florida rigging still works as in OTL)
Progressives (rightly in my view) regard GW Bush's administration as a catastrophe. There can be little doubt that had Nader not been on the ballot in Florida Gore would have won in OTL.
However if Gore had won (either by carrying Florida or New Hampshire) things would have been different. Plainly Nader's presence would not have been crucial.
Furthermore voters, especially on the centre and left, would not have realized how crucial the 2000 election was. GW Bush called himself a "Compassionate Conservative". Some people even believed that he was some kind of moderate. Gore was certainly not that radical.
If Gore was President people might not realize how much difference the election made.
I have one query though. It is possible that Gore might have seemed to have won because of the effects of Buchanon.
Say Gore took New Hampshire by 50 votes and Buchanaon got a couple of thousand in that state. (this assumes the Florida rigging still works as in OTL)
Imagine, if Gore wins in 2000 rather than Bush; the scenario would be, there would be Iraq War if Democrats is the majority in US congress in 2002 to present but alternate Iraq War would be less worse than in Bush OTL. I agree on you, Gore and Clinton wanted Saddam removed.