Would John McCain Have Took The U.S. Into Iraq if He Won in 2000?

[Bo]

No.

[useful idiot]

Probably not...

[Bo]

Completely depends on who he had surrounding him...Dick Cheney as Secretary as Defense or somewhere in the administration is not entirely unlikely.  The difference is that a McCain led war would have looked, from the beginning, like the U.S. war effort in the Petraeus era.

Cheney was Sec of Def under Bush Sr., yet Bush Sr. didn't remove Saddam and Cheney actually defended Bush Sr.'s decision in 1994 (after his term was over).

[Magic 8-Ball]

I doubt it.

[WillK]

I can picture him singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iraq" just like he did about Iran.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

I don't see any of potential Presidents after 2001 other than Bush (McCain, Gore, Bradley) who'd invade Iraq.

[Bo]

I don't see any of potential Presidents after 2001 other than Bush (McCain, Gore, Bradley) who'd invade Iraq.

Jeb Bush?

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

I don't see any of potential Presidents after 2001 other than Bush (McCain, Gore, Bradley) who'd invade Iraq.

Jeb Bush?

Sorry for an confusion, I mean any President who took office in 2001.

Jeb Bush is not an idiot, also.

[Bo]

I don't see any of potential Presidents after 2001 other than Bush (McCain, Gore, Bradley) who'd invade Iraq.

Jeb Bush?

Sorry for an confusion, I mean any President who took office in 2001.

Jeb Bush is not an idiot, also.

Jeb Bush would have likely been the GOP presidential nominee in 2000 if he won the Florida Governorship in 1994, and he thus could have become President in 2001. Bush Jr. didn't invade Iraq because he was an idiot--he did it to get reelected.

[milhouse24]

I think Gore would have beaten McCain easily.

[Bo]

I think Gore would have beaten McCain easily.

Why? McCain was perceived as more moderate than Bush Jr., was a "war hero", and didn't have a DUI story. I think McCain would have easily beat Gore.

[milhouse24]

I think Gore would have beaten McCain easily.

Why? McCain was perceived as more moderate than Bush Jr., was a "war hero", and didn't have a DUI story. I think McCain would have easily beat Gore.

McCain would have won NH, but Gore would have won Florida.  The Bush name probably swung a lot of people in Florida, otherwise I think they would have gone with Gore. 

[J. J.]

I think if the intelligence would have been the same, yes.

[Bo]

I think if the intelligence would have been the same, yes.

Don't you think McCain would have bombed Iraq first to see if he could get some response out of Saddam? I think that as a Vietnam War veteran, McCain would have been much more cautious with war than Bush Jr. was in RL. Keep in mind that Reagan just bombed Libya instead of invading in the 1980s when Libya sropnsored terrorism against Americans. That bombing accomplished the same result as an invasion of Libya would have, but with much less time and money spent and much fewer casualties. Besides, Bush Jr.'s goal in invading Iraq wasn't finding WMDs--it was regime change, as evidenced by his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.

[shua]

I voted no, but it's hard to say. I think McCain would have been more aggressive about intelligence reform after 9/11, which would mean more likely not, and he would have focused on Afganistan and Iran.

[21st Century Independent]

I think Gore would have beaten McCain easily.

Why? McCain was perceived as more moderate than Bush Jr., was a "war hero", and didn't have a DUI story. I think McCain would have easily beat Gore.

McCain would have won NH, but Gore would have won Florida.  The Bush name probably swung a lot of people in Florida, otherwise I think they would have gone with Gore. 

McCain in 2000 probably would have had a decent shot at winning back some of the blue firewall states the GOP hadn't won since 1988.

I agree.

I think McCain would have had a shot in Oregon, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

[Bo]

I think Gore would have beaten McCain easily.

Why? McCain was perceived as more moderate than Bush Jr., was a "war hero", and didn't have a DUI story. I think McCain would have easily beat Gore.

McCain would have won NH, but Gore would have won Florida.  The Bush name probably swung a lot of people in Florida, otherwise I think they would have gone with Gore. 

McCain in 2000 probably would have had a decent shot at winning back some of the blue firewall states the GOP hadn't won since 1988.

I agree.

I think McCain would have had a shot in Oregon, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

I agree about this.

On a diffferent note, do you think McCain would have took the U.S. into Iraq?

[President Mitt]

Yeah.

[The Mikado]

I think people are seriously misremembering McCain's character in 2000.  He had people like William Kristol and Dave Frum in his corner saying that George W. Bush was too dovish and McCain was the hawk that could better defend American interests.  McCain was absolutely surrounded by neo-conservatives.  I have little doubt that he'd have invaded Iraq whether 9/11 or not.

It's just that since he lost, people like to project their beefs with Bush onto McCain and turn him into the opposite.  McCain did have domestic disagreements with Bush in 2000, but on foreign policy he was, if anything, to the right of Bush.

[The Mikado]

McCain in his own words, February 2000:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html

KING: Senator?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is obviously a place where this -- one of the signal failures of this administration. Although there are certainly many failures throughout the world.

But I would also look very -- revise our policies concerning these rogue states: Iraq, Libya, North Korea - those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. As long...

KING: And you'd do what?

MCCAIN: I'd institute a policy that I call "rogue state rollback." I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments.

As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security. "The New York Times" reported just a few days ago that administration officials worry that Saddam Hussein continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Congress passed a law a couple of years ago, called the Iraqi Liberation Act; the administration has done nothing. We should help them with arms, training, equipment, radio and a broad variety of ways. Until those governments are overthrown, they will pose a threat to U.S. national security.

[Bo]

McCain in his own words, February 2000:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html

KING: Senator?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is obviously a place where this -- one of the signal failures of this administration. Although there are certainly many failures throughout the world.

But I would also look very -- revise our policies concerning these rogue states: Iraq, Libya, North Korea - those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. As long...

KING: And you'd do what?

MCCAIN: I'd institute a policy that I call "rogue state rollback." I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments.

As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security. "The New York Times" reported just a few days ago that administration officials worry that Saddam Hussein continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Congress passed a law a couple of years ago, called the Iraqi Liberation Act; the administration has done nothing. We should help them with arms, training, equipment, radio and a broad variety of ways. Until those governments are overthrown, they will pose a threat to U.S. national security.

So basically, McCain said that he would be more active in aiding the opposition in rogue dictatorships in the hopes that they will overthrow those regimes in the future. Nowhere here did McCain say that he supports using U.S. troops to overthrow those dictatorial govts. Besides, a candidate often says one thing and does another--Bush Jr. said he opposed nation-building in 2000 yet proceeded to invade Iraq after he was elected. Thus everything McCain says here (or anywhere, for that matter) should be taken with a grain of salt and some skepticism.

[The Mikado]

McCain in his own words, February 2000:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html

KING: Senator?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is obviously a place where this -- one of the signal failures of this administration. Although there are certainly many failures throughout the world.

But I would also look very -- revise our policies concerning these rogue states: Iraq, Libya, North Korea - those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. As long...

KING: And you'd do what?

MCCAIN: I'd institute a policy that I call "rogue state rollback." I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments.

As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security. "The New York Times" reported just a few days ago that administration officials worry that Saddam Hussein continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Congress passed a law a couple of years ago, called the Iraqi Liberation Act; the administration has done nothing. We should help them with arms, training, equipment, radio and a broad variety of ways. Until those governments are overthrown, they will pose a threat to U.S. national security.

So basically, McCain said that he would be more active in aiding the opposition in rogue dictatorships in the hopes that they will overthrow those regimes in the future. Nowhere here did McCain say that he supports using U.S. troops to overthrow those dictatorial govts. Besides, a candidate often says one thing and does another--Bush Jr. said he opposed nation-building in 2000 yet proceeded to invade Iraq after he was elected. Thus everything McCain says here (or anywhere, for that matter) should be taken with a grain of salt and some skepticism.

First of all, you're right that we have to take things with a grain of salt.  That said, that applies to any alternate history conclusion ever.  What I was arguing was that McCain was clearly as hostile to Iraq as Bush and was closely advised by neoconservatives.

PS: Rereading that transcript, I have to wonder what sort of domestic resistance movements McCain was considering supporting in North Korea.

[Bo]

McCain in his own words, February 2000:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html

KING: Senator?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is obviously a place where this -- one of the signal failures of this administration. Although there are certainly many failures throughout the world.

But I would also look very -- revise our policies concerning these rogue states: Iraq, Libya, North Korea - those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. As long...

KING: And you'd do what?

MCCAIN: I'd institute a policy that I call "rogue state rollback." I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments.

As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security. "The New York Times" reported just a few days ago that administration officials worry that Saddam Hussein continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Congress passed a law a couple of years ago, called the Iraqi Liberation Act; the administration has done nothing. We should help them with arms, training, equipment, radio and a broad variety of ways. Until those governments are overthrown, they will pose a threat to U.S. national security.

So basically, McCain said that he would be more active in aiding the opposition in rogue dictatorships in the hopes that they will overthrow those regimes in the future. Nowhere here did McCain say that he supports using U.S. troops to overthrow those dictatorial govts. Besides, a candidate often says one thing and does another--Bush Jr. said he opposed nation-building in 2000 yet proceeded to invade Iraq after he was elected. Thus everything McCain says here (or anywhere, for that matter) should be taken with a grain of salt and some skepticism.

First of all, you're right that we have to take things with a grain of salt.  That said, that applies to any alternate history conclusion ever.  What I was arguing was that McCain was clearly as hostile to Iraq as Bush and was closely advised by neoconservatives.

PS: Rereading that transcript, I have to wonder what sort of domestic resistance movements McCain was considering supporting in North Korea.

In regards to North Korea, maybe McCain hoped to contract some generals there who might secretly dislike Kim Jong-Il and try to have them organize a coup there (similar to what Bush Jr. tried to do in Venezuela in 2002). Still, even though McCain was using hostile language against Iraq (in this interview), Bush Jr. said in one Republican primary debate in 2000 (I beleive) that if he was elected and Saddam would be perecived as a large threat, he would order U.S. forces to remove Saddam (or something along those lines). In 2000, McCain was never nearly that specific and threatening to Iraq as Bush Jr. was that year.

[Derek]

He wouldn't have had to. Saddam would've cooperated with him the same as he would have with Reagan.

[Bo]

He wouldn't have had to. Saddam would've cooperated with him the same as he would have with Reagan.

I agree about McCain not invading Iraq, but keep in mind that Saddam also cooperated with Bush Jr. (by allowing the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq), yet Bush Jr. proceeded to invade Iraq anyway.