Bush Gored!

[Griff]

Gore suprised me with a little common sense here.

I had a discussion with a hard core Democrat who is pretty upset about the pending conflict. His belief is that the elected Dems are almost universally opposed to the war but can't resist because of the upcoming election. Of course he also believes that the escalation in Vietnam was the fault of the Republicans not the Johnson administration. That was one reason I quit supporting Democrats, holding office is more important than anything else.

Anyway, Gore who is conveniently not up for election comes out with comments anti-war Dems can hang their hats on. I don't think the Green read communist impact on the Dems last election cycle was a fluke. Its a direct result of mouthing ideals while running, which they have no intention of following up on. Of course, the other war party does the same with small government platitudes and huge spending increases.


New York Times
Gore Calls Bush's Policy a Failure on Several Fronts
By DEAN E. MURPHY


SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 23 — Former Vice President Al Gore accused the Bush administration today of weakening the war on terrorism by turning the country's attention to Saddam Hussein. He also said the Congressional resolution on Iraq sought by President Bush was too broad and did not do enough to seek international support for a possible military strike.

"From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of the solidarity among all of us as Americans and solidarity between our country and our allies," Mr. Gore said.

Mr. Gore said that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 had yet to be avenged and that Mr. Bush's approach would make it more difficult to punish those who were responsible. He suggested that the administration had become distracted by Iraq because Mr. Hussein was an easier target than Al Qaeda.

Mr. Gore seemed careful not to minimize the threat posed by Mr. Hussein, at one point describing him as "an evil man." He pointed out that as a senator he supported the Gulf war resolution in 1991. But he harshly criticized Mr. Bush's willingness to go it alone against Iraq, especially since the war on terrorism was unfinished.

"It is impossible to succeed against terrorism unless we have secured the continuing, sustained cooperation of many nations," Mr. Gore said. "And here's one of my central points. Our ability to secure that kind of multilateral cooperation in the war against terrorism can be severely damaged in the way we go about undertaking unilateral action against Iraq."

In one of his strongest assessments of Mr. Bush, Mr. Gore said the administration had wasted an opportunity to rally international support after the attacks. He cited new instances of anti-Americanism even among traditional allies of the United States, including in this week's national elections in Germany.

"In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, more than a year ago, we had an enormous reservoir of good will and sympathy and shared resolve all over the world," Mr. Gore said. "That has been squandered in a year's time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world, not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do."

Republicans reacted angrily, accusing Mr. Gore of using the Iraqi situation for political advantage.

"It seems to be a speech that was more appropriate for a political hack than a presidential candidate, by someone who clearly failed to recognize leadership," said Jim Dyke, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "There's clearly a lot of people stepping forward with productive solutions, productive ideas, as far as how to address the problem that face us, and this seems to be someone content to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks."

Mr. Gore made the speech to the Commonwealth Club of California on short notice and before a largely partisan crowd of about 450. Some welcomed him to the lectern by humming "Hail to the Chief." Mr. Gore, who took California by a large margin in the 2000 presidential election, responded by telling jokes about the voting problems in the Florida primary this month and remarking about how much he likes California.

Mr. Gore's speech came under increasingly scrutiny by Democrats over whether he would run for president again in 2004. Until today, he has kept a low profile over the past two weeks as other potential Democratic presidential contenders have offered their views on Iraq.

His appearance here suggested a shift in positioning by Mr. Gore, who has for 10 years portrayed himself as a moderate, particularly when it comes to issues of foreign policy, and repeatedly invoked his 1991 vote on the gulf war resolution as a way of distinguishing himself from the rest of his party.

Asked pointedly about his ambitions, Mr. Gore said he would not decide on whether to seek the presidency again until the end of the year. After the speech, he said that his motivation in criticizing Mr. Bush was not related to electoral politics. Rather, he said, he hoped to encourage a greater national debate about the war on terrorism and Mr. Bush's proposed policy of pre-emptive strikes against enemies like Iraq.

"The intention is to present what I think is a better course of action for our country, and to advance debate on a real important challenge that we face as a country," Mr. Gore said.

Yet with most prominent Democrats lining up behind President Bush on Iraq, Mr. Gore was certain to attract attention by taking a contrary view. Copies of his speech were handed out to reporters by a former California campaign worker and the choice of venue — a friendly crowd in a friendly state — invited speculation about his future.

Mr. Gore was asked after the speech whether his remarks were out of step with the Democratic Party.

"I don't know and I don't really care, in the sense I am going to do and say what I think is right," he said. "I was accused of being out of step with my party back in 1991 when I supported the Persian Gulf war resolution. A lot of people who criticized that later came to believe that was the right decision."

Programming officials with the Commonwealth Club, which is a nonpartisan organization founded in 1903 that has also recently featured speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, said that aides to Mr. Gore expressed an interest in the club because of its long history of presenting important public figures. The Gore aides specifically mentioned an appearance before the group by Franklin D. Roosevelt, a club official said.

[jaguar]

Re-elect gore in 2004!

Gore got it right, which is unusual, never really was my favoirte pollie.

I think this issue will make or break the UN and certainly put some shape into what has been a shapeless international community since the cold war finished. What i fear is that shape is going to be rather ugly. If the US ignores international law the results could be disasterous, it will give a precident for everyone to, fundamentally changing international politics, International law is used as a lever to do things, without that lever and the method of being a GIC, things could be very ugly.

America's stance is making even america's closest allies termble. If Blair is not careful he's going to lose allot of support over this, the British don't support it. In German it won that slick bastard another term, here the sentiment is turning against Howard on this.

Unless bush can find an igniter, an actual justification, unlike the utter crud they've tried to pull far (weapons of mass destruction! On his own people! oh by the way we sold them to him and authorised thier use on Iran... ) this will polarise the international community and few will be willing to go with the US.

[Tobiasly]

Mr. Gore said that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 had yet to be avenged and that Mr. Bush's approach would make it more difficult to punish those who were responsible. He suggested that the administration had become distracted by Iraq because Mr. Hussein was an easier target than Al Qaeda.

Bush isn't trying to "avenge" the attacks. He's trying to ensure nothing like it ever happens again, even if much of the rest of the world doesn't hop right on the bandwagon.

It's called leadership, and I can understand why the flaccid Mr. Gore may not comprehend that. The Bush administration seems to have made great strides in swaying world opinion on this situation of late, instead of caving in at the first sign of resistance.

But as a very last resort, if the UN fails us, we must be prepared to act in our own interests. Having the world behind us is great, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should just lay down and do whatever the world body wants.

[Undertoad]

<i>weapons of mass destruction! On his own people! oh by the way we sold them to him and authorised thier use on Iran...</i>

Nuh-uh.

[juju]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

Bush isn't trying to "avenge" the attacks. He's trying to ensure nothing like it ever happens again, even if much of the rest of the world doesn't hop right on the bandwagon.

Well, other nations have WOMD too. What makes Iraq so special?

[jaguar]

Bush isn't trying to "avenge" the attacks. He's trying to ensure nothing like it ever happens again, even if much of the rest of the world doesn't hop right on the bandwagon.

How doesattacking Iraq do this exactly? This is the bit i seem to be misssing. You destabilise the most volatile reigon on earth and justify the hatred of exactly the people you're trying to stop. Remind me how this stops the attacks again? When will the US learn that in asymmetrical warfare minds are more important than land, and you cannot win those with blind force.

Nuh-uh.

Oh? Really?
Sure? Really Sure?
Need more?

[Undertoad]

If your links would only agree with each other you'd have a stronger case.

Originally posted by Undertoad
Nuh-uh.

I think this is my favorite rebuttal of all time.

On a side note... is anyone else here not totally convinced of the validity of an attack on Iraq? Am I missing all the news or have they completely <b>not</b> presented any evidence to the public that says "we need to spend a boatload of money and numerous American lives to get him out of power"?

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by juju
What makes Iraq so special?

Saddam is a maniac. We don't like maniacs having nukes. Especially maniacs who hate us.

This isn't an issue of fairness. "Iraq should have 'em because lots of other countries do too" doesn't work. We had 'em first, and we're bigger and stronger, so now we get veto power (both in the U.N. and in real life) when other regimes who hate us try to build 'em.

Like it or not, that's the way the real world works.

[Undertoad]

I didn't say enough about Jag's links and exactly how much they suck.

Common Dreams: According to a Scottish newspaper, US Sen committee says we sold Hussein biological agents. (Not weapons.) Immediately it contradicts itself; we didn't sell to *Hussein*, we sold to their universities, for study. The problem, says CD, is that they're DUAL USE. That is, the antidote for a nerve agent might be reverse-engineered to produce the nerve agent itself. Damn, does that count? Because doves are saying DUAL USE doesn't constitute an act of war. In fact I would be surprised if this was not the policy of Common Dreams. Just because a centrifuge can also be used to separate out fissionable materials doesn't mean they wanted it for that reason, right?

Business Week says the CDC sent biological samples to Iraq in the 80s. (Not weapons. A pattern emerges.)

smh says that some former US officers say that Iraq would build chemical attacks into the battle plans drawn up by the US. The "smoking gun" in this story is that one single "veteran of the program" said that the Pentagon "wasn't horrified." Somehow "not horrified" indicated "backed use" to the headline writer.

The Guardian - I could stop right there - says the US participated in a "covert program" to help Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. It then goes on to quote the same "veteran" that smh quoted, with the same "not horrified" quote. That's interesting reporting! The Guardian headline-writer is even more schemy: "US helped as Saddam plotted chemical attacks". The reader is encouraged to draw the inference that the US helped with the chemical part. This is not journalism.

The Yahoo/AP story: Is a piece about statements made by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, speaking on state-run radio.

Rense: I'm not even going to address this pathetic excuse for a rumor-mongering web site.

[juju]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

Saddam is a maniac. We don't like maniacs having nukes. Especially maniacs who hate us.

So, why is he a maniac?

I like the story about how after he assumed power, he went through their parliament and had members executed, on the spot, for "thinking about conspiring to overthrow" him.

I would say that definitely lends itself to the "yeh, he's a maniac" camp.

[Tobiasly]

Not to mention using biological agents on his own people. I'd say that qualifies one for maniac status.

Just because you're tired of hearing it doesn't make it untrue.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Griff
Anyway, Gore who is conveniently not up for election comes out with comments anti-war Dems can hang their hats on.

Unfortunately, those Democrats who are interested in winning elections aren't exactly coming out in droves to hang their hats on Gore's words:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D7M8S1GO1.html

<I>Some top Democrats are distancing themselves from former Vice President Al Gore's criticism of President Bush's policy on Iraq while others are just keeping quiet.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Gore's running made in the 2000 election, said Tuesday he did not agree with Gore's assertion that action against Iraq could detract from the overall fight against terrorism.

"I respectfully disagree with that part of it," said Lieberman. "I am confident the American military can do, and will do, both at once."

...

Terry McAuliffe, national chairman of the Democratic Party, said through an aide he would have no comment and House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt offered no immediate response.

...

With Gore campaigning for Democrats in New Mexico for two days this week, one congressional candidate in the state, John Arthur Smith, distanced himself from the former vice president's remarks.

Smith "is supporting President Bush. He's the commander in chief. If John Arthur Smith were a sitting member of Congress he would ... support President Bush," said a spokesman, Tony Bawidamann.</I>

[hermit22]

The best points made here were the ones that looked at the whole region's security and didn't focus on the single-minded goal of Iraq.

There are several problems I see with the whole Iraq invasion idea. First, it's going to infuriate the region. It's going to stoke the flames of anti-Americanism that our relative inaction on Israel/Palestine (and other actions) sparked. This could very easily lead to the toppling of some pro-American governments; namely Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. (Egypt's been headed down that path ever since Nasser left office.) You don't fuck with people that hold the keys to your economic stability.

Second, Iraq has made no move of attack on the United States or any of its allies. Even the hawks stopped trying to link Hussein to September 11th because there just wasn't the evidence to do so. Some will say that Hussein's promise of money to the families of Palestinean suicide bombers constitutes such an attack, but it does not. It has been a relative non-issue in this debate, and that would be like saying American assistance in helping Afghan or Nicaraguan or any other fighters in the Cold War constituted an attack on the Soviet Union.
Now, without an attack, there is no legal (according to international law that we not only signed but helped write) recourse to attack him. That's where Bush's whole pre-emption doctrine comes in. The problem with that is it gives any state anywhere the right to do the same, as it has set the precedent. So what's to stop Pakistan from invading India to stop them from using WMD? Russia to take over Georgia? Or some other state with an even less valid reason?

Third, the administration has offered no plan of what this regime change is going to entail. Are they going to put the Shiites, who have strong ties to Iran up? (I might have been wrong, it might not be Shiites - but whatever group is the majority ethnicity.) Maybe the Kurds, another minority group, will rise to power. And how long are we going to stay to ensure the stability of the nation? It could very easily dissolve into civil war, and then there'd be more concerns, ie. al-Qaeda or some other operative gaining access to unguarded WMD.

Fourth, and this is the most shaky reason for going in and not going in, is the actual availability of WMD. Blair's report (I haven't read all of it, but I've gone through a good portion of it) unfortunately offered no real evidence. But then again, Hussein's history has shown that he is hungry for these toys. So that one's a toss-up.

Fifth, if we can't convince the rest of the world and just go it alone (with England's support, of course), then we risk upsetting the order of the entire international system. We will be completely rebuffing the UN (which wouldn't be the first time, but it would be the most glaring example of it) and it would spread an imperialistic image of the nation. The French paper Le Monde compared it to the US's imperialistic tendencies at the beginning of the 20th century. This could upset the authority of the UN, further enrage our allies in Western Europe (and possibly give the EU a better stand in world affairs, which could then upset the balance of power) and kill our credibility on the war on terrorism in places like Pakistan.

I'm fine with going into Iraq to punish Hussein for violating UNSC resolutions. But that would require the backing of at least the security council, and hopefully a good percentage of the general assembly. It would also require assistance from a coalition, even if its not as broad as the one in 1991 or 2001. Any way we spin this, it's going to be incredibly difficult to get some of the conservative sections of the Arab world on our side, but this is the only viable path that I can see, Ann Coulter's laughable reccomendations aside.

What I'm not fine with is the fact that this seems like GW getting back at Hussein for his dad, or trying to set up an Arab oil colony. The second is obviously more far-fetched than the first, and even that one is by some means a stretch. But that doesn't make it invalid.