Awkward? Bush meets Gore at White House

[Onkel Neal]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Former Vice President Al Gore's visit back to the Oval Office Monday could have been an awkward one. Gore and the White House’s current occupant, President Bush, had fought a bitter presidential contest in 2000 from the ballot box to the courthouse.

Mountain out of a mole hill.

[bookworm_020]

Gore would be happy that he didn't get the job, after 9/11 and all that's happened!

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

Gore would be happy that he didn't get the job, after 9/11 and all that's happened!

Could be wishing that he had got the job, after 9/11 and all that's happened.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Could be wishing that he had got the job, after 9/11 and all that's happened.

I myself am very grateful Gore didn't get the job after 9/11 and all that.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I myself am very grateful Gore didn't get the job after 9/11 and all that.

Probably would not have made much of a difference. I suspect we'd still be in Iraq.

[Ducimus]

Im still having difficulty tying in Saddam Hussien to Osama Bin Laden.

I think things would have been different, under a different administration - not neccessarily gore's. I do not believe, that two different presidents with two different administrations would take things as far down the wrong road as they have after the invasion of afganistan. First gulf war might be an example. Hypothical question: if Bush Jr was president during the first gulf war, do you think he would have gone all the way to bagdad right then and there? Bush Sr didn't, and with good reason, but its debateable of Jr would have done the same.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Hypothical question: if Bush Jr was president during the first gulf war, do you think he would have gone all the way to bagdad right then and there? Bush Sr didn't, and with good reason, but its debateable of Jr would have done the same.

The problem was, Bush Sr. allowed the UN to get in the way of achieving total victory, so that they could appear relevant with their sorry little cease fire agreement. Bush Sr. should have told the UN to shove it up their arse and push the US military all the way to Baghdad. With no conditions we should have decimated the entire military and governmental structure in Iraq from the get go. Look how well the UN's cease fire agreement worked out for us. We ended up having to go back because Saddam eventually broke his end of the bargain. We, the US taxpayers, should learn a lesson from that.

[baggygreen]

Cant resist puttin in a comment for this one.

I would imagine that it wouldnt be too awkward - lets face it, both men are politicians, and both men know there has to be one winner - to have sour grapes, especially after such a long time, would be a sure sign that the better man for the job won. I say this because any politician who can hold a grudge like that over such a period is imo someone you dont want in power.

As to the post 9/11 part, any leader who didnt go to Afghanistan would've been run out of power in no time. As for Iraq, honestly i think we wouldnt be in there yet. But i do think we'd be into Iraq. An interesting hypothetical which was posed to me was this: If we hadnt have invaded Iraq, would we already have at least attacked Iran? And if so, would that have carried on into an attack against Iraq, if not an invasion?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by fatty

Probably would not have made much of a difference. I suspect we'd still be in Iraq.

You might be right, fatty. It's hard to determine how a Gore administration would have responded to Saddam's breach of all cease fire agreements and such. I myself think Gore would have continued to go to the UN ad nauseum. And we wouldn't have ever been in Iraq. Saddam would likely still be in power today if Gore was the President. And Iran would be full speed ahead on their nuclear weapons programs without a word about it. No sanctions....nothing. That's just my opinion only. How Gore would have really acted in his presidency is anyone's guess, and you might have been proven right in your own assertions.

@baggygreen - I agree. I don't think Bush and Gore were sitting there steamed at one another. I think Gore may be ruffled that he didn't win his bid to be President, but holding grudges is another matter. And not likely amongst a career politician. On your second paragraph, I think that if Iran was full bore on their nuclear wepons program like they seem now, we would have made them the priority. Of course many intelligence agencies at the time (not just American) were saying Saddam was in the process of building WMD.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

The problem was, Bush Sr. allowed the UN to get in the way of achieving total victory, so that they could appear relevant with their sorry little cease fire agreement. Bush Sr. should have told the UN to shove it up their arse and push the US military all the way to Baghdad. With no conditions we should have decimated the entire military and governmental structure in Iraq from the get go. Look how well the UN's cease fire agreement worked out for us. We ended up having to go back because Saddam eventually broke his end of the bargain. We, the US taxpayers, should learn a lesson from that.

OMG.

Another example of this automatic reflex to always blame the UN for all and everything, a reflex that is no longer under control by reason and will. If your coffee gets cold, it probably is due to a UN effort to counter global warming by freezing it, you see.

It was Bush's own decision to stop the advance in 1991, and he repeatedly has said that loud and clear in interviews meanwhile. His own military leaders were surprised of that stop. Commander of vIIth corps Gen. Franks said that the info reached them in the field that a cease-firing warning was given hours before, and nobody, nobody could believe it. And Schwarzkopf and Bush were reported to have collided head-on over the decision. After that, Schwarzkopf as true soldier of course did not question his commander's decision in public.

The point was that at that time Saudi Arabia (not so much the UN) was pressing hard that the infidels should leave Iraq as soon as possible, and that the capital should not be touched by American. Also, the perspective of house-to-house-fighting back then was an intimidation that at that time Bush was not willing to gamble over - which he also has said repeatedly on TV. And finally, the calculation on the american side behind it was to still leave Saddam in place to keep control of that place, and serving as an antidot against spreading Iranian influence and Kuirdish separatism. This is also the reason why after the Americans motivated the Shia to rebel and try to throw over Saddam, they later betrayed them and looked without moving a hand when the Shia got slaughtered by the tens of thousands, and even Saddam's helicopters were allowed to fly so that they could help in the killing. Or was it the UN again pressing for allowing Saddam to crack down on them?

One must close both eyes with force and determination to not see the obvious intention behind all this TO NOT THROW SADDAM OUT of office. There was active american assistance to assure that he remained in power.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

OMG.

Another example of this automatic reflex to always blame the UN for all and everything, a reflex that is no longer under control by reason and will. If your coffee gets cold, it probably is due to a UN effort to counter global warming by freezing it, you see.

It was Bush's own decision to stop the advance in 1991, and he repeatedly has said that loud and clear in interviews meanwhile. His own military leaders were surprised of that stop.

One must close both eyes with force and determination to not see the obvious intention behind all this TO NOT THROW SADDAM OUT of office. There was active american assistance to assure that he remained in power.

I hear ya, Skybird. But you really don't disagree with what my main point was. And that point is that Bush Sr. went to the UN for a cease fire agreement. I think he should not have done that, as UN treaties are as worthless as the paper you wipe your rear end with. We had to go back to Iraq and finish the job as Saddam did not live up to his end of the bargain. No surprise there. There was only an American agreement to ensure Saddam keep his power if he lived up to his end of the cease fire. That is not American assistance, that was an American compromise. And we should have known better.

Whether or not the Saudi's were pressuring America to leave ASAP is beside the point. We should have done nothing lesss than acheive total victory accepting nothing but complete victory, or total unconditional surrender. We should never allow the UN or their agreements to get in the way of this. The UN was an organization that Bush Sr. should have never sought out. If you want me to lay blame on Bush Sr. for this, I do. The UN's agreements were the main problem here. You're right. Bush Sr. forced the issue, and was wrong for it. And the US taxpayer should remember the costs of this "pie in the sky" "give peace a chance" nonsense that the UN cease fire agreements brought about.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You might be right, fatty. It's hard to determine how a Gore administration would have responded to Saddam's breach of all cease fire agreements and such. I myself think Gore would have continued to go to the UN ad nauseum. And we wouldn't have ever been in Iraq. Saddam would likely still be in power today if Gore was the President. And Iran would be full speed ahead on their nuclear weapons programs without a word about it. No sanctions....nothing. That's just my opinion only. How Gore would have really acted in his presidency is anyone's guess, and you might have been proven right in your own assertions.

Take a look at Gore's senatorial voting record. To say he had hawkish tendencies is not too much of an exaggeration: he was tough on Iraq in the early '90s and deviated from the Democrat party direction on a number of Gulf War issues. As a VP he was not much different. Here is a little gem from 1998:

Originally Posted by Al Gore

I will say that we have supported the Iraq Liberation Act passed by the Congress. We would like to see a different kind of regime in Iraq. We've said that plenty of times,

House unanimity over Afghanistan post-9/11 makes me think that conflict would be a given regardless of who was president. Noting Gore's history, and let's not forget Gore's running-mate was Joe Lieberman (Isn't he still a huge advocate for Iraq? People matter!), I don't think Gore going to Iraq is difficult to imagine either. The one thing I bet would seriously hold Gore back from Iraq is if there was still a Republican majority in the House as their was in 2003 and - in light of their dissent over Clinton in Kosovo - they perhaps were not along for the ride.

Of course these are all big what-ifs and don't do us much good today, except provide more ammunition against Gore when he complains about what a huge mistake Iraq was and how different things would have been if he'd won.

Edit: re: hawkish votes by Gore, see especially S.J.RES 1 & 2, 1/12/91.