Gore on Iraq

Gore doesn't seem philosophically opposed to toppling Saddam, but does question the basic path Bush seems to have chosen, including the preemption doctrine.

washingtonpost.com
Gore Challenges Bush's Iraq Policy


By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 23, 2002; 4:50 PM


Former vice president Al Gore sharply challenged President Bush on Iraq this afternoon, warning that the administration's apparent determination to launch military action to dislodge Saddam Hussein will "seriously damage" efforts to win the war on terrorism and "weaken our ability to lead the world."

In the most forceful critique of the administration by any leading Democrat, Gore challenged the administration's new doctrine of preemption, gave voice to critics who question the political timing of the administration's push for action in Congress and the United Nations and argued that Bush has shifted focus toward Iraq because the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorists has bogged down.

Gore's critique, delivered before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, put him at odds with most of the other possible 2004 Democratic presidential candidates, who have been generally to strongly supportive of Bush on Iraq. A text of the speech was made available in Washington.

Gore, who last winter said the war on terrorism would require "a final reckoning" with Saddam Hussein, restated his belief that the Iraqi leader is a potential menace to the world. But he argued that even if the United States has the theoretical right to move unilaterally against Iraq, such a course could have disastrous consequences for America's standing in the world.

"I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following 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," he said.

Gore said the war on terrorism requires a multilateral coalition that likely would be shattered by anything approaching unilateral action against Iraq. He also chided the administration for trying to start a new war without finishing the job of hunting down those responsible for the attacks of last Sept. 11 or of stabilizing a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

"I do not believe we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted," he said. "Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another."

Gore said Hussein "does pose a serious threat" to stability in the Persian Gulf and urged the administration to take the time to assemble an international coalition, much as Bush's father did before launching a war against Iraq in 1991. Whatever good will the United States created in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks has been put in jeopardy by the administration's concentration on Iraq, he added.

Noting that in 1991 he voted for the resolution authorizing Bush's father to wage war, one of a handful of Democrats in the Senate to do so, Gore argued that current UN resolutions are enough to justify action against Hussein for being in violation of those resolution. But he said the administration's saber rattling and talk of preemption and acting without broad international support is the wrong course.

Gore urged Congress to narrow the scope of the draft resolution Bush submitted last week and said lawmakers should also ask Bush to explain why unilateral action is justified, to seek more support from the United Nations and to outline in more detail what its post-Hussein plans are for reconstruction and stability in Iraq.

On the doctrine of preemption, Gore said the danger is that other nations will assume the same right as that asserted by the administration, and that the "rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear."

 

The NY Times weighs in. (my bold)

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


AN 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.