Open thread to document and discuss Al Gore's statements regarding Iraq

i sometimes wonder whether we are still capable of OBJECTIVE research amidst all the candidate hysteria, both pro and con. i suppose, some will suspect there are hidden motives behind starting this thread. here's a hint: the title is the motive. if you have something to contribute, please do.

as a political community, it seems to me, regardless of our biases, we should at least begin with the facts regardless of how we might interpret them.

in another thread I started yesterday about an interesting article about Al Gore that's appearing in Rolling Stone magazine, several people made very strong assertions about Al Gore's opposition to the war in Iraq. i've read a few of his speeches today that raised many interesting points about Gore's view on the war but never seemed to clearly oppose it. i don't state that as an assertion but rather as a request for you to provide links and documentation to clarify Gore's position.

i also found very strong statements by Gore regarding the unfortunate collusion between the media and the administration. truer words were never spoken. this is not intended to be a "political thread" about pro-Gore or anti-Gore; it is intended to document Gore's position on the war. before we agree or disagree with his positions, it might be useful to know exactly what they were and were not ...

for starters, here's a link to a rather lengthy speech Gore made about a month before the IWR vote. My read of the speech indicated that Gore was highly critical of bush's rush to war and some of bush's methods and tactics, but that there was no clear statement opposing the invasion. again, i am not stating that as a criticism; if you can support a different conclusion, and i truly hope you can, i more than encourage you to do so.

specifically, and i'll include a link to the text of the full speech below, Gore made the following statements:

1. "Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

2. "Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it."

3. "However justified our proposed action may be, this change in role nevertheless has consequences for world opinion and can affect the war against terrorism if we proceed unilaterally."

4. "The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States."

source of the above statements: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

btw, i very much hope Gore decides to run ...

However, I think we'll be hard-pressed to find too much documentation on his stance to the war since he's been out of politics for 6 years and been "campaigning" to save the earth.

Yet for anyone undecided about whether Gore has what it takes, reading his powerful August 2003 speech at NYU will lay the issue to rest:

"The way we went to war in Iraq illustrates this larger problem. Normally, we Americans lay the facts on the table, talk through the choices before us and make a decision. But that didn't really happen with this war -- not the way it should have. And as a result, too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price, for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments, and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm's way."

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

i watched Gore's MoveOn speech when he gave it. it was great! i remember how dark those days were and Gore's harsh criticisms of bush's blunderings in Iraq were a "sound for sore ears". in the link you provided, Gore highlights bush's entire bogus case for war. He goes further, in fact, and clearly says that the American people were intentionally misled.

but, he also said this in that same speech:

"The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the President deserves credit, just as he deserves credit for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. But in the case of Iraq, we have suffered enormous collateral damage because of the manner in which the Administration went about the invasion."

again, Gore was critical of the "manner" bush went about the war but did not clearly state his opposition to its stated objectives. is that a fair conclusion to draw? also, I could find no statements laying out a program for withdrawal.

Also, the same theme is present in the excerpt you provided:

"The way we went to war in Iraq illustrates this larger problem." Again, the "way" we went to war is cited as the problem but NOT whether all of the war's objectives were wrong.

I didn't start this thread because I "wanted a 'down with war' kind of statement". I just wanted to clarify Gore's position. Having said that, IF AND ONLY IF he chooses to run, I think it's necessary for him to play a leadership role on Iraq during the campaign. As I said, I truly hope Gore decides to run.

being out of politics he was not privy to any information beyond that given to the general public.

There's a difference, though, between you or me saying, "This sounds like bullshit. How can Saddam prove he *doesn't* have WMDs? Why can't we wait 90 days for inspections?" etc., and Al saying it. The difference is that he just lost (at least in many American's eyes) an election two years earlier and it sounds like sour grapes. If he's wrong -- if the so-called intelligence was right and Saddam did have a nuke half-built -- his political career is over.

In addition, I think Al, like many reps, was caught off-guard by the depths of deception and conniving to which the Bush administration had sunk. He accepted the claims at face value. Had he still been a senator I'd like to think Al would lead the charge in support of a "wait-and-see" approach, and possibly succeeded. We'll never know.

this paragraph from the article highlights the basis for the inferences I made in the OP:

"Gore, speaking Monday at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, warned that unilateral action against Saddam Hussein would ''severely damage'' the more urgent war on terrorism and ''weaken our ability to lead the world.'' Gore declared that the president has turned the broad reservoir of good will for America ''into a deep sense of misgiving and even hostility.'' In a pointed dig at President George W. Bush's go-it-alone cowboy rhetoric, he added, ''If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first.''"

Gore was highly critical of bush's rush to war and thought bush needed to build a real coalition instead of the fake one he said he built. But, in spite of that, he didn't say we shouldn't go to war. That's what I was trying to determine. Did Gore clearly say he opposed the war in Iraq?

by taking stock of the IMPRESSION of Gore's opposition to the war, i.e., perhaps by virtue of inference and the gist of his statements rather than overt declarations. Don't forget, he was a senator at one time where they learn to say in 50 words what they could say in 10.

From two very different pespectives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-23-gore_x.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/041006a.html

His support for Dean was in part because of his opposition to the war.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/elec04.prez.gore.dean/



I couldn't agree with him more regarding judgment and basic common sense as qualities to look for in a president.

#2. "Indeed, should we decide to proceed...". "Should" qualifies the rest of the statement of course, making it a proclamation on the need to be prepared to act if necessary, and not a simple road map for an anticipated course of action.

In your point #1, Gore said this:

"we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons..."

Eliminating access as a strategy strongly implies that Hussein would be left in place, while prevented from having access to certain types of weapons, if that strategy were put in place.

This is similar in some ways to the questions that some frequently raise about whether Wes Clark really firmly opposed invading Iraq. The answer is: No, not under what were then all conceivable scenarios that then seemed plausible. No inspectors had been inside Iraq for years for one thing. Who really knew? But the decision making process was sound, the criteria for making decisions was sound, and had that been insisted on and followed, we never would have invaded Iraq.

A leader worth his or her salt will plan ahead for several very different contengencies. I believe Gore's speech reflected that reality, but the sum and gist of his statements were consistent at the time, and I think more than reasonable.

the remainder of point #1 stated: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." My read on that, coupled with Gore's later statement in his MoveOn speech giving bush credit for removing Saddam, draws the conclusion that he felt Saddam should be removed. Gore also stated that he was very disappointed that the US didn't push on to Baghdad during Gulf I.

I certainly don't intend to debate your statement that the sum and gist of his statements at the time were consistent and reasonable. But to conclude, at least from the limited data presented thus far in this thread, that Gore "opposed the war" seems to be a bit of a stretch. His strong and appropriate opposition to bush's lies and bush's rush to war are very well taken, but, clear opposition to the war? i can't see it from what little I've read so far.

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

I'm speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country, which I sincerely believe would be better for our country than the policy that is now being pursued by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.

I don't think we should allow anything to diminish our focus on the necessity for avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists that we know were responsible for it. The fact that we don't know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify. We have other enemies, but we should focus first and foremost as our top priority on winning the war against terrorism.

Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that America's most urgent requirement of the moment - right now - is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving its host government from power, even as Al Qaeda members slip back across the border to set up in Afghanistan again; rather, he is telling us that our most urgent task right now is to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And the president is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

Moreover, President Bush is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and, for that matter, under the language of his resolution, against any other nation in the region, regardless of subsequent developments or emerging circumstances. Now, the timing of this sudden burst of urgency to immediately take up this new cause as America's new top priority, displacing our former top priority, the war against Osama Bin Laden, was explained innocently by the White House chief of staff in his now well-known statement that "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

that excerpt was from the speech I linked to in the OP ... again, Gore was very clearly critical of bush's rush to war but he also called on the Congress to give bush the authorization to deal with Saddam ... and Gore focussed on the importance of dealing with Al Qaeda first before addressing "other enemies" ...

It seemed like Gore was strongly opposed to bush's timing on Iraq but not necessarily the need to take out Saddam when resources became available. Gore also put great emphasis on building a real coalition before we invaded Iraq which bush clearly had not done.

AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it's a mistake to tell the American people, as President Bush has, that the al Qaeda terrorist group of Osama bin Laden is the same thing as Iraq under Saddam Hussein. He said they're virtually the same thing. Well, that's not true. They're not.

And if you ask the intelligence community, they say we don't have any evidence of a connection there, and the White House hasn't been willing to make any evidence public. I don't think they have any.

But -- so why...

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR (on camera): Of any connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

GORE: Iraq and al Qaeda, that's right. And so, why did they launch a war against Iraq right before the elections, when the war on terrorism should have remained our top priority and our principal focus.

ZAHN: But the war has never been launched. It was just the prospect of war.

GORE: Well, OK, a good point, but it certainly dominated the political dialogue between Labor Day and Election Day. And...

ZAHN: Are you accusing the Bush administration of the "wag the dog" syndrome?

GORE: I can't see inside their hearts. I don't know what their motivations are. I do know that the White House chief of staff, Andrew Card, was asked about the timing, and he said, well, you don't launch a new product line until after Labor Day. I don't think war is a product line. And I don't think that you reach out for a new product line just because the old one may be getting less public attention or something, particularly if it's something like the war on terrorism. They have diverted resources from the war against terrorism to the war against Saddam Hussein.


Now, Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, and I'm all for him being removed from power. I don't think it's wise for us to unilaterally invade another country for that particular purpose. And more importantly, I don't think that it's wise to lose focus on the war against terrorism in order to launch a new war, whether it's after Labor Day or before the election or whatever time. I think we need to keep our eyes on the ball.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/11/ltm.13.html

Thanx for all the quotes posted above - especially to Pirate Smile :)

Gore is a thoughtful and intelligent leader. He does not rush to judgement, but tries to make decisions and define his positions on the basis of all the available facts. This is one of the main reasons why I think he is the best-qualified person to be President of the US.

As I understand it, Gore has not called for a specific timetable for US troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. I guess right now he doesn't want to distract attention away from his focus on the climate crisis. It's also because his position on how and when to withdraw is let's say "nuanced".

Personally I agree with Gore's position - even if I know many folks here on DU are listening to their hearts on this issue and want all US troops out of Iraq in the next 48 hours (in fact I just know someone here will say that's too long and we should get out in 24 hours!).



Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore!

In Gore We Trust :)
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com - Sign the petition!
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

:)

came out but he talks in detail about what, in his opinion, were the reasons behind the war and how it was the worst strategic mistake in American history.

Talk on Iraq begins around minute 29 and goes for at least 10 minutes.

It is very good.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3412657607654281729

Gore went into greater detail on PBS that he did on CNN.

Thanks for the link! :)