>On Saturday, April 10, 2004, at 04:21 PM, Stephen E Philion wrote:
>
>>Gore, to successfully invade Iraq would have had to go
>>the same route Bush went--and it's quite possible he would have if the
>>pressure to do so in the aftermath of a 911 was great enough.
>
>What pressure? Were the people around Gore as hot to trot in Iraq as
>Bush's were? Or would the right-wing hot-to-trot people have been able to
>pressure Gore?
>
>Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
I think the idea that Gore would have invaded is pretty hard to substantiate. He had no burning desire to do so and I don't see anyone capable of pressuring him to do so being in a position to do so. Perhaps believing Gore would have done the same makes people who feel there is no substantial difference between Gore and Bush feel better. Gore sucked, but Bush sucks more. Gore might have done other terrible things like drastically altering Social Security for future generations with a privatization plan that Bush has so far been unable to do but I see no reason why he would have committed troops to a conflict in Iraq. Are there any indications from Gores speeches or writings that he was anywhere near as obsessed with Iraq as Bush and company were? I know of none but maybe I am just uninformed.
John Thornton