What if Al Gore had won in 2000 But...

...he invades Iraq due to the influence of Lieberman and the Great Recession still occurs at the end of his presidency?

What impact would this have on America and world events after 2008? Who would the democrats run in 2008 and what are the odds that the Republicans win. If the Republicans win in a different 2008 election what impact does this have on world events?
 
What excuse Gore would use for Iraq invasion? I don't think that he would use such false excuses as Bush and his cabinet.
 
What excuse Gore would use for Iraq invasion? I don't think that he would use such false excuses as Bush and his cabinet.

From an old post of mine:

"I have always assumed that if Gore had been elected president in 2000, he would not have gone to war with Iraq. After all, as a private citizen, he denounced the war even when many of his fellow Democrats were supporting it, and even when it had strong popular support.

"However, that does not end the question. After all, presidents may be under constraints that their private-citizen critics are not. Thus, one should at least be open to the argument apparently made in Explaining the Iraq War: Counterfactual Theory, Logic and Evidence. By Frank P. Harvey. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011 that for "structural" reasons a President Gore would indeed have gone to war with Saddam--whatever private-citizen Gore said (and sincerely believed) in OTL. I have not read Harvey's book, but from a symposium discussing the book, here is Bruce Gillie's summary:

"'"Laid out in meticulous fashion, Harvey’s book provides the evidence that Gore was long a liberal hawk, especially on Iraq (Chap. 2); that his advisors and likely cabinet members were no less so (Chap. 3); that bipartisan congressional pressures to do something after 9/11 were immense (Chap. 4); that intelligence failures were not caused by Bush but by the anxieties that followed 9/11 (Chap. 5), as was public support for war against Iraq (Chap. 6); that UN weapons inspectors and key allies, including not just the UK but also Germany and France, agreed that Iraq had committed serial and serious breaches of United Nation containment provisions (Chap. 7); and that if there is a “first image” leadership story to be told about Iraq, it should center not on Bush but on Saddam, whose personalistic regime was deeply war prone..

'"The reason, Harvey argues, is path dependence: Once “President Gore” had decided to pursue a coercive diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis through the UN—a strategy he had long endorsed and which he would have driven more forcefully in cabinet deliberations than Bush did—there could have been no turning back if the strategy failed. The intelligence community, stung by its 9/11 failure and searching for the most likely source of another one, would have produced largely the same dossiers in cooperation with key allies.'..." https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...gore-would-have-gone-to-war-with-iraq.306846/

***

Later in that same thread, when someone pointed out that Gore would not have the same advisors Bush would:

" OK, one can talk about the people Bush appointed, but what about the people Gore would appoint? Richard Holbrooke was widely considered his most likely Secretary of State. 'In January 2001, Holbrooke said that 'Iraq will be one of the major issues facing the incoming Bush administration at the United Nations." Further, "Saddam Hussein's activities continue to be unacceptable and, in my view, dangerous to the region and, indeed, to the world, not only because he possesses the potential for weapons of mass destruction but because of the very nature of his regime. His willingness to be cruel internally is not unique in the world, but the combination of that and his willingness to export his problems makes him a clear and present danger at all times.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Holbrooke

"Holbrooke (September 17, 2002): 'Disorganized and full of disarray the President straightened all that out with a beautifully crafted, beautifully delivered speech a week ago at the UN where didn’t change his positions an inch. Within a week Saddam Hussein blinked, he backed off to the extent of this letter....that’s in a week. The United States is now on the right track, whatever your goal, because Saddam has made this gesture. But I certainly agree with Secretary Powell that it’s not enough and there needs to be an embodying Security Council resolution as we move forward. I think Saddam Hussein is far away the most dangerous person in leadership in the world today and removing him, which is not related to September 11th, is a legitimate goal just as removing Milosevic was a legitimate goal and you and I spent a lot more time in Milosevic than Iraq....The undertaking of a vast military operation on the premise it will be success is always a gamble. Now let me be clear, I believe we will succeed militarily, I think with Saddam’s forces at 1/3 of the size they were they were a 12 years ago, our force is stronger, and with much stronger, better precision guided munitions and missiles and high incident of defection among the Iraqis, every day now American and British forces are taking down anti aircraft systems in the no fly zone....I don’t want to use a word like cake walk, that’s too contemptuous to the men and women who risk their lives, but I think the odds heavily favour us in a military conflict. But we can't do it alone, we need the Turks, we need the British, we need the support of at least one or two Arab states...' http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/25162/1/President%20Al%20Gore%20and%20the%202003%20Iraq%20War%20-%20A%20Counterfactual%20Critique%20of%20Conventional%20W-Isdom.pdf?1

"Leon Fuerth , considered Gore's likely choice for national Security Adviser, also favored regime change--and also thought 'The entire political system he created must be rooted out' (a sentiment often ascribed only to neocons) http://books.google.com/books?id=PPF7_HuiMjsC&pg=PA101 ' The case that President Gore *would* have gone to war with Iraq

***

For an earlier version of Harvey's argument, see http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite....erfactual Critique of Conventional Wisdom.pdf

From another summary of Harvey:

"'Anyone looking for reasons to be worried about Iraq could easily ignore speeches by Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld and focus instead on those delivered by Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Gore and Kerry; they could ignore the 2002 [National Intelligence Estimate] and read the NIEs published over the previous five years; or they could simply read the reports by UNMOVIC's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, or UNSCOM's inspector Scott Ritter (one of the war's strongest critics)."

"The faulty intelligence was backed up by Saddam's bizarre efforts to encourage such beliefs, in hopes it would reduce the danger of a second conflict with Iran. There is no reason to believe Saddam would have acted differently under a Gore administration.

"Harvey notes that the decision to invade was not made overnight but culminated from a series of escalating steps involving the UN and a host of international leaders, both friendly and otherwise. 'President Gore would have been compelled to make all of the same rational moves to get inspectors back into Iraq,' he concludes. 'Strategically, the only way to accomplish this goal through multilateral diplomacy would have been to follow the same basic strategy. The competing counterfactual claim that none of these decisions would have been taken is simply not credible.'

"He adds: 'The only significant difference would have been the size of the invading force – Gore would probably have recommended a much larger troop deployment in line with General Anthony Zinni's plan under the Clinton administration (OPPLAN 1003-98, originally approved in 1996 and updated in 1998, called for 400,000 troops). Boosted by the confidence of deploying this many troops, and concerned about the cost of sustaining such a large force through prolonged (and unsuccessful) inspections, Gore would have been more, not less inclined to accept the risks of war. It is highly unlikely that a sitting Democratic President would have survived the 2004 election if he decided against enforcing 'all necessary means' or 'serious consequences' in favour of the French-Russian position..."
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...412107799/Al_Gores_war_on_Iraq.pdf?1412107799

***

Anyway, I am not necessarily endorsing Harvey's position here. I think it takes too little account of the fact that Gore did come out against the war in OTL. True, that was as a private citizen, yet as a private citizen who was still thinking of running for president again, and who therefore must have seriously weighed the likelihood of the war's success or failure. All the same, Gore's record in the Clinton administration *was* that of a liberal hawk and many of his advisors were also liberal hawks, so I don't think Harvey's viewpoint should be disregarded entirely...
 
Harvey raises a very interesting theory and I think it is correct not to disregard it entirely out of hand. Still, though, as a Democratic President, Gore would have faced different pressures from his political base, much of which was not enthused with the selection of Lieberman nor particularly interested in the prospect of a war with Iraq. While the war would have been an easier sell to Democrats coming from Gore, it wasn't a lock. Moreover, even if you take the prospect of Iraqi WMD as a given, which wasn't unreasonable given the known use of poison gas against the Kurds, there was still a huge flaw in any war plan: no exit strategy and no viable plan for occupying a nation that was culturally alien to an allied army of occupation. The other problem was the issue of launching a war in Iraq while simultaneously engaged in Afghanistan. It was, therefore, quite possible to come to the conclusion that while Saddam was a menace, his removal possibly created more problems than it solved and diverted men and materiel from the far more vital work of destroying Al-Queda. I think Gore would have probably resolved the debate along these lines, though that comes with a caution in that a President facing reelection and criticism from Republicans might be pushed into actions that went against their better judgment.
 
The influence of Lieberman? Did he blackmail Gore with the antidote TO THE POISON YOU JUST DRANK HAHAHAHA
 
What excuse Gore would use for Iraq invasion? I don't think that he would use such false excuses as Bush and his cabinet.

Iraq was not a stable country going about it's business, it was a weeping sore that had to be dealt with. No one seems to remember the sanctions that killed half a million children.

Now I'm not saying a poorly planned war built on false pretenses and fuckyeah was the way to deal with that, all I'm saying is that Iraq was a problem and Gore would have needed to come up with a solution.
 
Top