Would Al Gore or the Clinton's have gone to war with Iraq after 911?

Question

Al Gore critisized George Bush Sr. for not going into Iraq during the Gulf War because he said Saddam supported terrorists and he was producing WMDs.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NVUO7voM-ns

Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for four days in December of 1998 to prevent Iraq's use of WMDs. Bill Clinton said, "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Answer 1

No, of course not!

Gore states in his book, The Assault on Reason, that Bush was correct to invade Afghanistan, but had no reason to attack Iraq. However, the intelligence at the time clearly pointed that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Plain common sense shows that there is no connection between the two!

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a brutal, terrible, but secular government. Hussein rightly feared al-Qaeda because they hated the very type of lifestyle his country had. Why would he invite people who want religious law, and nothing else, into his secular country?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was the supposed motivation for invasion, fear that Saddam would give his WMD's to terrorist groups. This evidence was supported by FORGED documents showing Saddam attempting to acquire yellowcake from Nigeria.

How could we possible think that anyone else would go after Iraq?

Answer 2

Absolutely they both would have, especially Clinton. People forget that Clinton wasn't some crazy liberal, he was a dealmaker. The guy supported getting stuff done over being a "rah rah" Democrat.

Granted, 9/11 would not have been the catalyst, because 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, but I definitely think Clinton would have eventually gone after Saddam again, sure.

P.S. Clinton had a plan drawn up and ready to go in December of 2000 to do basically every non-Iraq War on Terror thing Bush has done. The whole Afghanistan thing would have happened by February 2001 if Clinton was still in office.

Answer 3

All the president's intelligence pointed to WMDs in Iraq before Bush Jr. However no one before him went to full out war with them. Why? Because they knew the difficulties of changing that kind of country. No I think they would have gone to Afghanistan where the terrorists were from. Maybe even Saudi Arabia. (Yeah there were terrorists there too.) But any belief of that stupid notion that there was ever terrorists in Iraq before 9/11 is just plain idiotic. They KNEW there wasn't any connection to Al Queida in Iraq. So more power to Bush, we still have about a third of the country supporting a war that was never justified.

Answer 4

Well since thier policy of inspections and containment worked no they wouldn't have.
And before anyone brings up the "the weapons are in syria" fairytale - how could anyone be so disparaging of US intelligence services as to suggest that while the entire world's scrutiny was on Iraq, they managed to ship an entire nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal across the border, dig a big hole, bury it, mark the location and then sneak back, without anyone noticing and leaving absolutely no evidence of having done so? That would be a really anti-American accusation.

Answer 5

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If the two were related, why didn't the invasion of Iraq happen until 2003?

Answer 6

Someone said a few posts below me that Gore would go to war. ABSOLUTELY NOT! Gore is much more liberal than Clinton is. In fact, Clinton is considered a "moderate liberal" or a "conservative democrat" if that makes any sense. Gore is just "liberal liberal" and "democrat democrat".

Both of them are smart enough to not point fingers at people and get to the root of the problem. They're not dimwitted idiots to think Iraq carried out or took part in 911. I still can't believe some people believe that!!!!! Makes my blood boil.

But no, neither of them would have gone. NEVER.

Answer 7

It doesn't matter what they said before or what they said after. We'll never know what anyone else would have done if they were president in 2001 because only George W Bush was in that position.

But I am pretty sure they would not have cooked intelligence to justify going to war and they would not have ingored their military advisors if they did go to war.

Answer 8

Hillary Clinton voted YES to the war.
Al Gore voted NO to the war.

Answer 9

No, and if they were in power during the attack on Pearl Harbor they would have called WW2 a 'quagmire' & stayed away in the hopes of 'talking it over' with Japan & Hitlers Germany.
Unless the attack disturbed one of Bills BJ's or Al thought it might cause global warming.

Answer 10

Yes they would have. The war isn't about 9-11 or terror either. 9-11 was just the excuse for the invasion. Al Gore or a Clinton would have done the same exact thing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool who doesn't really get how our political system works. Both parties are working together towards the same goal, they just rile people up with ridiculous wedge issues so they can't see the big picture.