Gore in 2000, same momentum to war with Iraq, Republicans become party of exit strate

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...s-about-syria/article14105322/?service=mobile

editorial

" . . . Recall that the process for war started with the decision to press for weapons inspections, one Gore was committed to. From there, Congressional authorization for war became a crucial diplomatic tactic to pressure Iraq . . . "
And this is basically the argument that the same situations and factors which led Bush to war would also lead Gore to pretty much the same war.

A lot of butterflies and points of departure.

I'd like to focus on the Republicans. Ever since Bosnia and Serbia early in the Clinton years, they have been big on exit strategy. Let's say they extend this to peace and trade.
 
I think the point is moot because I believe Gore is more likely to build international support for any invasion of Iraq than Bush did, and is more likely to plan the postwar situation better. If more boots are on the ground to secure the borders, and if bone headed things like instantly demobilizing the entire Iraqi army aren't done, it is a very, very different post-Saddam Iraq.

It all comes down to thinking out the occupation better before the invasion happens. Any Republican input on that likely happens prior to the war when Gore prepares everything. Since the Republican Congress will police a Democratic President better than one of its own, it just makes it more likely better planning is done up front.
 
I'm not so optimistic. I'm sorry, I wish I could be. But I'm just not.

We, in the United States, supported a bunch of rotten governments all through the cold war. And I suspect the same is true for most other Western governments. And with the Cold War ending, we kind of switched labels but stayed with the same thing! Meaning, that if a government has the "right" label, we don't give a damn about the human rights record. And that's a pretty big mistake.
 
Top