Hey Stupid: It's not just your moniker. You go, Achebe. It really does seem like so many people discovered politics and international affairs right around a year ago. It's frustrating. I feel you. Keep on rockin in the free world.
I heard what he said. Gore has been in this game long enough to know to choose his words very carefully. I believe he said precisely what he meant. I seldom agree with Al Gore's politics, but I readily admit that he is a sharp guy...sharp enough to not get caught saying things he didn't mean in a published work. In the interest of fairness, he said it at a time when any military threats against us were remote...thus giving him a basis to say such things at the time. But he made a definite, positive statement. He made no parenthetical asides or illustrations to supplant his point. For the record I NEVER said that Gore is irrelevant, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from attributing that to me by putting it in quotes in a post directed at me. Given that Gore was Vice President, his thoughts are very relevant, even though I may disagree with him. It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at Bush right now. He is the guy tasked with making sure that 9/11 never happens again. After 9/11 people said Bush hadn't done enough. Now he's doing what he feels will ensure it does not happen again (don't debate this...we've done it to death already), and people are blasting him saying it's all about oil. How simplistic. Could it be that it is incidental that there's oil over there? Could it be that Bush isn't some monster hell-bent on dominating the oil supply? If you say no then you are crediting Bush with a plan that you don't give him credit for the brainpower to think up...much less execute. This is a very difficult time for our leaders...people are taking sides (which they should)...but sometimes in life there are no "right" answers.
Guess who said it: 1991: “I want to state this clearly, President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein’s survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus that the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that out objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop.” 2002: “Back in 1991 I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s departure from the battlefield.”
Never really believed him (after all, he is a politician) but really didn't believe him after he wagged his finger at me!
You don't think that undermines his credibility on this issue? If you were inclined to agree with a Republican-- perish the thought-- and you found out he'd said exactly the opposite of what you were agreeing with him on just a few years earlier, wouldn't that make you suspicious of his motives? Or are you only being casually dismissive of Gore's duplicity because you voted for him? I think this is a clear case of Gore playing politics with the war effort. It's disgusting and he should be held accountable for it by the media. Rather than simply regurgitating what he's currently saying, the media should be questioning why Gore has completely changed his story on his reaction to our failure to exceed our UN mandate in 1991 and eliminate Saddam Hussein. Let's stay on topic here. The topic is Gore and the possibility of war in Iraq. I am quite sure you could find dozens of examples of conservative politicians saying one thing and doing another; they're politicians after all (as you pointed out), so this isn't uncommon. But since we're talking about a specific issue and a specific politician's reaction to it, I think your response would be a lot more relevant if it showed conservative politicians having similar changes of heart regarding US policy towards Iraq after the Gulf War. If that's how you want to handle it. You could actually explain how you feel about Gore's comments in light of the quote I posted from 1991.
I voted for Gore? News to me. As for how I feel about Gore's comments...I do think it's a little disheartening. However, I don't think that it necessarily means that he's not saying what he believes at this point in time. Possibly, he was told silently that if he supported Bush and the Gulf War, it meant that Hussein would be taken care of, and when he wasn't, he had to defend his position of supporting the war. However, he did feel betrayed at Hussein not being ousted. Maybe at the time, he felt one way, and upon further reflection, he feels differently. I don't know.
Hmmm. Who did you vote for, then, if you don't mind my asking? Your explanation is plausible but awfully convenient for the Gore 2004 campaign.
and it's not like the clinton administration never talked about the need for regime change in iraq...hell, gore contradicted himself within his own speech yesterday a couple of times...
Nader...the ballot confused me. You're right...it's a rationalization. That's probably not how it went down, but you never know what was said behind closed doors to get some Democrats to support the war in 1991. Like I said, I don't like how he's seemingly flipflopped like this.
Bull****, the arguement could be made both ways. This is a two-sided coin. Simply because you see it from one angle then all others don't exist or are wrong and are therefore irrelvant. Amazing. The silence is overwhelming when the lack of movement by the Clinton team is rehashed by a "pro-bush" supporter. I wouldn't call myself pro-bush but I consider myself pro-action. And when I see Bush, the only politician without his **** in his hand, continueing the war on terror in no different manner than the few days after 9-11 when he addressed the nation in front of Congress and illustrated to the millions of Americans what action would be taken and why. Bush proclaimed any country that harbors, funds, and participates in terrorist activities they will be dealt with. So here we are, 12 UN Resolutions ignored, a Kurdish genocide later, and a wealth of charges and counter-charges actions undertaken by Saddam later(not only by the US but the international community) we still want to adopt an anti-force policy that contradicts the war on terror. But keep in mind Bush yesterday, on the subject of the resolution Congress is reviewing, at a Republican fund-raiser said that "the military is not our first choice." But people act like Saddam is the victim and Bush is the sinner. The only people in the international community that should be offended if we go into Iraq and obliterate a ruthless dictator are those who are socialist sympathizers. Is there ever really any wonder why the main allies that disagree with force in Iraq are those who have been doing big business with Saddam? If you people have a problem with Bush using political tactics to gain support for the Iraqi war why aren't you outraged at Germany, France, and Russia for their political decisions? Or perhaps you all agree with that German cabinet member who claimed Bush was using Hitler like tactics? I'm not going to demonize Gore here but the man apparently didn't raise too many questions while he was the active Vice President regarding terrorism in his eight year term, mind you. You just don't ignore this and try to argue Gore is the better man. This is the hipocracy people.
So its okay to kill Americans as long as you only do it a few at a time? Or if they are soldiers asleep on their base, or on a ship in a friendly port?
OMG that is the funniest thing ever. No wonder you are a playwright. I was talking international affairs years ago, but thanks for the deprecation. Holy false acusations Batman.
Emerging concern? Ever since I began talking about Saddam I have held on to this. But then I get called the "New American" in which I hold the lives of Americans above everyone else. But when I bring this up people act like I'm using it to get a political advanatage in my arguement. Are the Kurdish people irrelevant? Is it because this was a few years we just forget and forgive? Do we forget and forgive Adolf Hitler for killing millions of jews half a century ago? This man is more than capable of doing this again. Genocide may be a laughing matter to some but the absolute brutallity and racist hate and anger that goes into it is sickening and perverted.
You are making my point. Sadam has been b*tch slapping the Kurds since he gained power in Iraq. Your concern appears to have emerged when the Bush Jr Admin threatened to "change regimes" in Iraq.
Column in the Washington Post today... Gore on War By Richard Cohen Bully for Al Gore! Speaking in San Francisco the other day, the president of most of the people -- he won the popular vote, remember -- ventured where few prominent Democrats have dared and criticized President Bush's approach to a war with Iraq. Almost instantly, of course, Gore was excoriated for playing politics with such a serious matter and, worse -- much, much worse -- complicating his party's strategy for the midterm elections. One of the first responses to Gore's speech came from Jim Dyke, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "It seems to be a speech that was more appropriate for a political hack than a presidential candidate," he said, calling the kettle black. This, though, was the very same Republican National Committee that was told back in January to use the war on terrorism as a way for the GOP to win back the Senate and retain control of the House. The speaker was Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser. "We can go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America," Rove advised his partisan audience. For some reason, I cannot find any record of Dyke's criticizing that remark, but I shall, as always, persevere. As for the Democrats, many of them are so afraid of being labeled appeasers that they want to quickly give the president the war resolution he wants -- so they can then turn to the weak economy as a campaign issue. Many of these Democrats happen to share Gore's misgivings, but, to put matters in their crassest terms, they seem quite willing to sacrifice the odd 19-year-old soldier for the odd congressional seat. From the reaction to Gore's speech, you would have thought he had advocated unilateral disarmament followed by an aid package for Iraq. On the contrary, he advocated "taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion," but only after the United States had built an "international coalition" to do so. He also said that Washington ought to first finish the job against Osama bin Laden and ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become a Club Med for terrorists. These are some of the same points made by three retired four-star generals who testified that same day before Congress. The three -- John M. Shalikashvili, Wesley K. Clark and Joseph P. Hoar -- warned the Bush administration against going it alone on Iraq and said that war there could detract from the campaign against terrorism. These three are not generally considered to be in the peace wing of the Democratic Party. For that matter, neither is Gore. He was one of only eight Senate Democrats to vote for the Persian Gulf War -- and, just for the record, he served in Vietnam. He knows a bit more about war than some of the drumbeaters who want not only to knock out Hussein (I'm for that) but also to virtually annex the Middle East. (What are these people talking about?) War is a serious matter and it ought to be debated seriously. But it is not. All across the landscape, charges of "appeasement" fill the air. The accusers range from Fox News's Sean Hannity -- "Am I wrong? Are we watching something similar to appeasement before our eyes?" -- to the editorial pages of more than a few newspapers. Almost always, Hussein is likened to Hitler, Munich is mentioned and sometimes the Holocaust as well. The question, though, is not whether to give Hussein the Middle Eastern version of the Sudetenland but how -- and when -- to render him impotent or, better yet, gone. The means, not the ends, are in doubt. You may not agree with everything Gore said. But he raised some legitimate concerns. After all, the Bush administration has promoted this war with something less than a punctilious regard for fact or, for that matter, tact. It implied a nonexistent connection between al Qaeda and Hussein. It suggested the imminence of an Iraqi nuclear capability that's hardly imminent. It barged ahead unilaterally, pausing at the United Nations only after being forced to do so, and it shredded international law and precedent by asserting it can do whatever it wants in the name of self-defense. This is not a doctrine; it's an impulse. So, bully for Gore. He has raised some important issues. This is the solemn obligation of the opposition party and its de facto leader. And the solemn obligation of the president and his supporters is not to shout appeasement but to provide some answers. We're waiting.
Ugh.... The Iraqi regime installed a policy against the Kurds, particularly during the years of 1987 through 1989. I know what has been going on don't belittile me with your liberal rhetoric. It has been proven there was deliberate intent on the part of the government of President Saddam Hussein to destroy, through mass murder, part of Iraq's Kurdish minority. (the Kurds) . Saddam Hussein's regime committed array of war crimes, together with crimes against humanity and genocide.' This is not based on conjecture or for political prowess but because you and many others cry fowl when the president of the United States attempts to fulfill his war on terror which began a few days following 9-11 when he identified the threat to the United States by illustrating what is a terror state. Iraq isn't a threat that just recently reared its head. Iraq has been a threat to the United States since we got involved with the Kuwait invasion in the early 90's. For you to blame me for using this matter for political advantage to run to Iraq with our rifles drawn is offensive. You obviously are bias and most probably still bitter because "Bush stole the election". This is nothing new at least to me. Its funny how some neglect this and paint the Kurds as insignificant and consider it this old news. You want to get into politics? Everyone from the liberals to the conservatives on the day of September 21, 2001 were standing shoulder to shoulder with the President. Even Tom Daschle, yes the lunatic yesterday who blasted the President for playing politics but only a year ago today he was standing shoulder to shoulder with the president when Bush proclaimed for Daschle and the rest of the world who the United States considers a hostile state that will be dealt with. " From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security." - President Bush in front of Congress [September 21, 2001] -Chairman of the Defense Policy Board and former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the Reagan Administration Richard Perle claims "There can be no victory in the war against terrorism if at the end of it Saddam Hussein is still in power." -Fomer Iraqi Lt. General who served Saddam Hussain for decades along with another Iraqi defector tells of terrorists training in a Boeing 707 resting next to railroad tracks on the edge of Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. The existence of the plane has been confirmed by U.N. inspectors. -The other Iraqi defector Sabah Kodadah was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992 describes what went on at Salman Pak, including details on training hijackers. -Khidihir Hamza is an American-trained nuclear physicist who headed the Iraqi nuclear weapons program before defecting to the West in 1994, claims Iraq is building nuclear weapons and are hiding its weapons development from U.N. inspectors. Hamza has already written a book called "Saddam's Bombmaker". PBS is currently putting this program together of people who have been there and done that. This and more will shown on a future "Frontline" program. There is absolutely no reason not to topple this regime. So what now will I be blamed for using the oppression Saddam strikes upon his people as another political ploy? This man has one of the worst human rights policies this world has ever seen and you have the wherewithal to accuse me of just bringing up the Kurdish genocide for political motive? This is evidence against this dictator you paint a victim and Bush the sinner. This is evidence this man is an opponent of we the people. This man should had been taken care of a long time ago but because of the failures of past administrations we are faced with a decision today. Saddam is a threat to the world but you and the few liberals believe tolerance is the answer not action. So what now? Are we going to insult President Bush's intelligence and rule him incapable of making decisions to protect this country? Oh wait this has already been done. Or perhaps you want to belittle the deliberate ignorance of Saddam not complying with 12 UN resolutions. But Saddam is the victim right?
Kagy, Don't know if anyone's answered your questions about the two Gore statements in another thread, but here's an attempt from the Daily Howler with a little swipe at Fox News. ""We report, You decide!" ________________ Starting in 1999, the press corps—typing RNC spin—invented a story it very much liked: Al Gore is a great big liar. Al Gore has a problem with the truth. And the treasured theme has been dragged out again in the wake of Gore’s speech this past Monday. Was Gore correct in his seminal claim—the claim that a War on Saddam would harm the War on terror? Spinners don’t want to bother with that. Instead, many ran to a treasured claim—Al Gore is lying again. In particular, they claimed that Gore was lying about his reaction to the Gulf War in 1991. On Tuesday evening’s Special Report, Brit Hume spun the spin quite nicely. First he played video from Gore’s Monday speech: GORE (9/23/02): Back in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield. “All right,” Hume remarked, continuing directly. “Hasty departure from the battlefield.” Then he quoted something Gore said back in 1991: GORE (4/18/91): I want to state this clearly. President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein’s survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that our objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop. Hume implied that Gore had contradicted himself. “How do we explain that, as against what he said yesterday?” he asked his crack, “all-star” panel. But, as is so often the case in these GORE LIAR tales, Hume was quoting selectively. Here is the fuller text of what Gore actually said on Monday: GORE (9/23/02): I was one of the few Democrats in the U.S. Senate who supported the war resolution in 1991. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield, even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds of the North and the Shiites of the South—groups we had encouraged to rise up against Saddam. Absent-mindedly, Hume forgot to include the highlighted passage. When the highlighted statement is omitted, Gore’s comment on Monday seems to contradict what he said in 1991. With the highlighted passage left in, the statements are not contradictory. Did Gore criticize Bush in 1991? Yes, he unmistakably did. He defended Bush’s decision to leave Saddam in place, but criticized his failure to protect the Kurds when Saddam began to persecute them (many others made this complaint). Here for example is a story segment from the 4/13/91 New York Times: NEW YORK TIMES (4/13/91): Gore Criticizes Bush The difficulty for President Bush is that before he can extricate himself from Iraq, his postwar policy may become the centerpiece issue at the outset of the 1992 Presidential campaign season. One possible Democratic contender who supported Mr. Bush’s decision to go to war, Senator Al Gore of Tennessee, said today that Mr. Bush’s handling of the postwar insurrection in Iraq “revives the most bitter memories of humankind’s worst moments.” That sounds like a criticism to us—and, of course, that “postwar insurrection” was the matter involving the Shiites and the Kurds. In short, Gore’s statement on Monday was perfectly accurate—if you quoted the statement in full. But Hume chopped off the passage which explained what Gore meant, and then Hume and his hapless band began to do what they do best—slander Gore. How utterly stupid was Hume’s hapless panel? Greatest Hits began to fly by as they replied to Hume’s presentation: HUME: How do we explain that, as against what he said yesterday? BILL SAMMON: It’s inexplicable. It’s puzzling why he would flip-flop on something so easily checkable. MORTON KONDRACKE: He invented the Internet. He’s got a bad memory. CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: He’s the guy who told us about prescription drugs, the mother-in-law and the dog. He hasn’t learned. “It’s inexplicable,” said the hapless Sammon. “He hasn’t learned,” Krauthammer said. And Kondracke took the big prize, calling “invented the Internet” back for a bow. WHAT GORE SAID ON MONDAY WAS PERFECTLY ACCURATE: What Gore said this past Monday was perfectly accurate. Here is an AP report from April 13, 1991: THE AP (4/13/91): Later Friday, Sen. Al Gore, D-Tenn., delivered a broad policy speech to the editors. He said President Bush has failed to adequately protect the environment, help the middle class and, more recently, aid Kurdish refugees… Gore noted that he supported the war against Iraq to liberate Kuwait, but he said Bush has since let down the Kurdish and Shiite rebels who sought to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. “We should not have allowed Saddam Hussein to violate the terms of the cease-fire and use his helicopters to slaughter men, women and children,” Gore said. The Bush administration has insisted it would be unwise to send U.S. troops into Iraq to support rebels, but recently warned Iraq not to attack refugees fleeing north. What Gore said this past Monday was perfectly accurate. We wonder if the hapless Hume will let his viewers know that.
