Assuming that Al Gore won the election of 2000 (which in my opinion he did), If he were to have taken office, do you believe this war in Iraq would have ever been fought? Be it yes of no, state your reason for your decision 
This is not a factual question. Please take this somewhere else.
I know of no reason whatsoever that Gore would have been the least bit interested in attacking Iraq. Saddam is a personal thing with Dubya. Also, the Saudi’s wanted “someone else” to take out Saddam. Gore would have no interest in kowtowing to the Saudis. Dubya does.
Gore would have continued the Clinton containment policy. Go around claiming that Saddam had WMDs in his palaces and such (but not be stupid enough to believe his own PR), which keeps the sanctions going. (Citing Clinton’s political PR as “proof” of WMDs is one of the all time stupidest things…)
This belong in IMHO, in my humble opinion.
I would guess no, because invasion of Iraq was a goal of the neocons for a long time, before they even took office. It didn’t seem to be a goal of Clinton, and likely not of Gore.
But hell, who knows. It’s possible that Bush invaded primarily because of faulty intell from defecting Iraqis, so maybe Gore would have been also been fooled into thinking the WMDs were grave threat as well. I think Bush’s pre-existing hard-on for Iraq made him more susceptible, though.
Of course not, we wouldn’t be at war in Iraq or any other place … We were attack several times by the Al Qaeda during Clinton/Gore and they did nothing.
If Gore had won… which he didn’t, (thank God) the Al Qaeda would still be blowing up buildings in the USA.
You know this how? Are you a member?
Off to IMHO.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
Wow. I know that President Reagan once said that “facts are stupid things” but I don’t think he intended it as a declaration of principles for future generations to live by.
Olefin, are you aware that al Qaeda didn’t blow up any buildings in the United States while President Clinton was in office? And they attacked buildings in the United States while President Bush was in office?
Of course this is a totally seperate issue from the OP of this thread, which was about Iraq. So to get things back on track, I’ll point out that Iraq invaded Kuwait when the first President Bush was in office and didn’t invade any neighboring countries while President Clinton was in office.
While they didn’t fall, they sure as hell tried to knock down the WTC in 1993.
Don’t forget the USS Cole, and the attacks on US buildings in Saudi. Another set of “ignored” attacks on the USA by the “bad guys.”
I for one, am happy that we have a president that is willing to say what is right, and take an action. You may disagree with the action, but he states his reason, and does SOMETHING.
IMO, something is bettter than nothing.
Even if it’s the wrong thing?
No matter how illegal, immoral, unethical, dishonest, unjustified, ill thought out, poorly planned and incompently executed? I’m damn glad you aren’t running the country.
Ignored? Cruise missles mean it was ignored? Or is it ignored because Clinton had enough sense not to get our soldiers killed by not invading?
I believe that Clinton was axxused of “wagging the dog” when he ordered cruise missiles launched.
Yes, and had Clinton done nothing the same people who accused him of wagging the dog would have accused him of being soft on terrorism.
Based on what I’ve read of the testimony coming out of the 9/11 commission, I don’t think that were Gore in office we would have gone to war in Iraq for multiple reasons. First, I believe that the Clinton-era anti-terrorism plan would have been implemented and the 9/11 attacks would have been either avoided or severely lessened in scope. Second, I don’t believe Gore would have pushed the phony reasons Bush gave for warring on Iraq.
No way of knowing for sure of course.
No matter how many thousands of times I’ve seen it, I am always amazed how a discussion on Iraq gets diverted into a discussion on Osama. Folks, you’ve had more than enough time to get educated about this. Please stop.
FTR: Clinton’s people did come up with a plan for a “Homeland Security Dept.” they handed to the next pres. Happened to be Bush who ignored it for 9 months.
I totally agree with Otto, so put me down for “no”.
Certainly not. Gore wouldn’t have had any of the “Daddy, love me. Daddy, I’ll finish your fight for you” issues that are the root of the current situation.
You trying to be smart? 
Just remember, it was because ofClinton’s antiterrorism efforts that Los Angeles International Airport and the Seattle Space Needle were not attacked, and the Pope wasn’t assassinated.
A hypothetical President Gore would have retaliated for the USS Cole bombing (once the CIA confirmed in January 2001 that Al Qaeda) was responsible, and would have attacked Afghanistan for the 9/11 attacks. However, he would not have invaded Iraq, and would have ignored the neo-conservative nutjobs yelling for such a war.