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

[Bo]

No.

[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).

[Bo]

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

Jeb Bush?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Bo]

McCain in his own words, February 2000:

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Bo]

McCain in his own words, February 2000:

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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.

[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.

That's due to what he thought was harboring terrorists and killing the innocent. I don't think it was really ever about the WMD. Sometimes scare tactics are the only way to get liberals to support something though.

Saddam hated al-Qaeda. As for killing the innocent, why didn't we invade North Korea or Sudan if that was the case? Since the official reason for invading Iraq was the WMDs, and since Saddam allowed the inspectors back into Iraq before the invasion, but Jr. screwed up majorly by invading Iraq. It's a shame that many Democrats and Republicans were a bunch of pussies and decided to support Bush in his reckless foreign adventure. We could ahve used that money to reduce the deficit and pay down the national debt, which is what you Republicans are always saying we should do with extra money. Or we could have used that money to provide healthcare toe veryone in the U.S. for a decade.

[Bo]

And as far as we know Saddam ws playing hide and seek with the inspectors by moving the weapons around. We have found WMD but it hasn't been reported on the news other than a few seconds of clips here and there. It's not like the liberal media wants voters to think Iraq was justified.

There were no WMDs in Iraq. I never saw a news story proving there were WMDs in Iraq after the invasion. And the media is not liberal--it was biased in favor of Reagan twice, Bush Sr. in 1988, and Bush Jr. twice.

[Bo]

Of course. McCain loved wreaking war and death and havoc on the world under the Clinton regime, why wouldn't he continue if he became "commander-in-chief" himself?

Clinton never invaded any country.

[Bo]

Of course. McCain loved wreaking war and death and havoc on the world under the Clinton regime, why wouldn't he continue if he became "commander-in-chief" himself?

Clinton never invaded any country.

Yes, Clinton launched a war of aggression in the Balkans.

No. Clinton stopped the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo.

[Bo]

And as far as we know Saddam ws playing hide and seek with the inspectors by moving the weapons around. We have found WMD but it hasn't been reported on the news other than a few seconds of clips here and there. It's not like the liberal media wants voters to think Iraq was justified.

There were no WMDs in Iraq. I never saw a news story proving there were WMDs in Iraq after the invasion. And the media is not liberal--it was biased in favor of Reagan twice, Bush Sr. in 1988, and Bush Jr. twice.

92% of the press voted for Kerry and only 6% for Bush. Look it up. There is absolutely no way anyone can rationally believe the press to be anything but liberal. Fox News does better than the liberal media as far as ratings because they are more in touch with ordinary Americans and therefore more Americans want to watch.

This has to be a joke.  We all have to remember that the political "commentary" (more like entertainment) shows that hundreds of people watch it to get nothing more than a laugh.

not true

No, Archangel Zero is correct. Fox News is extremely biased. And I looked up your claim about 92% of the media voting for Kerry. I found absolutely nothing. In fact, the media consistenly critcized Gore and Kerry while giving Bush a free pass.

[Bo]

Regardless, I think McCain would've been better qualified to handle Iraq if need be.

Of course. So would Gore have been better qualified. Neither of them would ahve launched a pointless war there like Bush did.

[Bo]

Probably although not definitely.

Reasons for your assumption?

[Bo]

Regardless, I think McCain would've been better qualified to handle Iraq if need be.

Of course. So would Gore have been better qualified. Neither of them would ahve launched a pointless war there like Bush did.

Gore would not have the people around him that Bush did to give such advice. The guys around Bush were brilliant; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Ridge, his father, Condaleeza Rice.

ROFLMAO!!!!

What's so funny? Those were some hardcore warhawks.

They were hardcore warhakws alright, but they were by no means brilliant.

[Bo]

I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must.

Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq.

[Bo]

I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must.

Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq.

No he didn't. The president doesn't have much to do with intelligence reports unless he asks for them. We went to Iraq to bring freedom to the oppressed, promote WOMEN'S RIGHTS, build schools, build hospitals, remove a dictator, and make the world a better place.

That's great and all, but it's a shame we had to have used our taxpayer money that we didn't even have (we were in a deficit even before Iraq) to do this. That money should have been used to pay down our debt. And if you're so eager about bringing freedom to oppressed people, then we should have invaded North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Burma before invading Iraq. And we should have taxed the rich very heavily to do this so that we wouldn't increase our deficit and debt.

[Bo]

I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must.

Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq.

No he didn't. The president doesn't have much to do with intelligence reports unless he asks for them. We went to Iraq to bring freedom to the oppressed, promote WOMEN'S RIGHTS, build schools, build hospitals, remove a dictator, and make the world a better place.

That's great and all, but it's a shame we had to have used our taxpayer money that we didn't even have (we were in a deficit even before Iraq) to do this. That money should have been used to pay down our debt. And if you're so eager about bringing freedom to oppressed people, then we should have invaded North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Burma before invading Iraq. And we should have taxed the rich very heavily to do this so that we wouldn't increase our deficit and debt.

You democrats will jump at any opportunity you can to tax someone who makes a dime more than you. We lose lives at war and all you can think of is taxing someone who makes more money than you.

No, we just care about actually balancing the budget to make sure that our children have a better future and not be burdened by the massive amounts of debt that this generation has accumulated. And if a President starts a war, they better be prepared to pay for it. You Republicans are hypocrites. You claim to be fiscal conservatives yet you spend like crazy when you come into power.

[Bo]

I don't think McCain would've done so but with the intelligence reports we had it was a must.

Bush manipulated the intelligence to make a stronger case for war in Iraq.

No he didn't. The president doesn't have much to do with intelligence reports unless he asks for them. We went to Iraq to bring freedom to the oppressed, promote WOMEN'S RIGHTS, build schools, build hospitals, remove a dictator, and make the world a better place.

That's great and all, but it's a shame we had to have used our taxpayer money that we didn't even have (we were in a deficit even before Iraq) to do this. That money should have been used to pay down our debt. And if you're so eager about bringing freedom to oppressed people, then we should have invaded North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Burma before invading Iraq. And we should have taxed the rich very heavily to do this so that we wouldn't increase our deficit and debt.

You democrats will jump at any opportunity you can to tax someone who makes a dime more than you. We lose lives at war and all you can think of is taxing someone who makes more money than you.

No, we just care about actually balancing the budget to make sure that our children have a better future and not be burdened by the massive amounts of debt that this generation has accumulated. And if a President starts a war, they better be prepared to pay for it. You Republicans are hypocrites. You claim to be fiscal conservatives yet you spend like crazy when you come into power.

You sound uneducated and assumptive. I never said that I spend like Bush did. Stop using our children for your political advancements too. You democrats are ALL THE SAME. You hide behind America's youth after you can't sell your policies to those with an IQ above 35.

I was talking about Republican politicians. And last time I checked, the Democratic Party won the last elections. Thus, the Democratic polciies can appeal to the majority of American voters.