Help me, Gore Supporters. What about Gore's 2002 Iraq Statements here?

[FrenchieCat]

Gore gave a speech not very long after Bush's imfamous State of the Union Address with the Axis of Evil and "Iraq better watch out" comments. Many are currently saying that Gore was very much anti-Iraq invasion? But what does this speech means if that's the case? Did he do flip-flop, or is there a better explanation? Thank you for your responses.

Here's reports on Gore's speech dated Feb 12, 2002.

Gore, Championing Bush, Calls for a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq

Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust President Saddam Hussein.
snip
Mr. Gore, speaking four miles from the ruins of the World Trade Center, applauded Mr. Bush for singling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address.
snip
In advocating that the administration consider whether the time had come to try to remove Mr. Hussein, Mr. Gore seemed to be in line with Mr.Bush's emerging policy.

But if Mr. Gore found himself on the same side as the White House about what to do now about Mr. Hussein, he was sharply critical of the way Mr. Bush's father had handled the matter during the 1991 war against Iraq. Mr. Gore noted that, back then, Mr. Hussein "was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade — and still do."

"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right," he said.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0213-01.htm

Same speech coverage.....with more quotes....

"As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the table," Gore said.

"There is value in calling evil by its name. One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president of the United States.

"There is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms."--Al Gore
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/gore-f20.shtml

Here's the link to that speech in its entirety....and some choice excerpts. Some of the speech is very good...but the part about Iraq is pretty hawkish, and certainly was not a speech that would have discouraged the Bush administration.....as this is the point where the rattling about Iraq started to manifest itself.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=4343
The Axis of Evil
I also support the President's stated goals in the next phases of the war against terrorism as he laid them out in the State of the Union. What I want to talk about tonight are the fundamental, strategic questions before us as a nation. What are the next steps in the war against terrorism? And beyond immediate next steps, what is the longer-range plan of action? And finally, what should be done to deal with root causes of this threat?

Since the State of the Union, there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an "Axis of Evil." As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name.
snip
if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.

In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/gore-f20.shtml

[buzzsaw_23]

1. hmmm?

"To survive, the spectacle must have social control. It can recuperate a potentially threatening situation by shifting ground, creating dazzling alternatives- or by embracing the threat, making it safe and then selling it back to us"- Larry Law

Who's next?

The impending Cakewalk in Iran 

By Mike Whitney 

09/26/05 "ICH" -- -- "Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that the US has plans to invade Iran before Bush's term ends. In 2002, a year before the US invaded Iraq, high-ranking Americans had similarly shared their definitive vision of a post-Saddam Iraq, making it clear that they would change the regime in Baghdad." Calcutta Telegraph 9-25-05 

The UN's nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, officially signed Iran's death-warrant yesterday. By passing a US-backed resolution that refers Iran's nuclear program to the Security Council, the member states have endorsed America's genocidal Middle East policy and paved the way for another war. Even though Tal Afar, Samara and other civilian enclaves are still under a withering attack from American forces, and even though reports of rampant prisoner abuse and torture continue to surface around Falluja, and even though increasing numbers of young Sunni men, who've been beaten and shot in the back of the head, are being fished from the Euphrates River every day; the sycophantic Euro-allies have thrown their support behind a resolution that will unavoidably lead to another war. Everyone who signed on to this treacherous pact is equally culpable of the misery it will inevitably produce. 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10402.htm

[FrenchieCat]

2. Sorry, I don't get your post.

and how it relates to my OP. Please clarify. Thank you.

[drummo]

57. What the F@$# do you want with this?

What does this have to do with Gore's Feb speech?

[Clarkie1]

138. self-delete

[Clarkie1]

139. self-delete.

[TrueAmerican]

3. Who cares?

Didn't we here enough about "flip-flopping" from juvenile petty republicans?

[FrenchieCat]

4. I'm sorry?

But I beg your pardon if I am irritating you. Do you have any substance to offer me in response to my OP, like some context or something?

[TrueAmerican]

5. No

Just tired of childish Gotcha Games.

[FrenchieCat]

6. My support is not a childish thing

Are we not allowed to ask questions about Gore's words now?

Please let me know if that's the case.

[drummo]

60. Of course we are allowed

to ask questions about Gore's words now.

Here's how Iraq would look like under a President Gore: no Saddam but no 150 000 US troops in Iraq, either.

Wouldn't it be nice?

I think sooner of later Gore would have gone after Saddam. He was one of the first members of the Congress who spoke out against him when it was not politically fashionable in the 80s. Fuerth made suggestions during the campaign that Gore would like to take him out. Then someone asked him how and he said even if I knew I couldn't tell because Saddam could hear it.
I'm sure a Gore adminstration would have found a way to do away with the bastard but he wouldn't have invaded the country.

[drummo]

58. You have your full context in the two speeches themselves

What don't you understand?

It's clear as sky. No flip-flopping, no advocacy for invasion of Iraq in Feb.

What's your point?

[LittleClarkie]

25. To her credit, Frenchie did not use those hated words

And as opposed to "who cares" it would be nice to hear if someone knows how Gore woke the fuck up.

Just as with Kerry, it was likely not a flip flop, so much as a change of mind upon further review. Intelligent folks do that.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to find out how Gore would explain the above. It might be that, like Dean or Clark or a myriad of others who were talking like this early on, they were still in the throes of 9/11-itis.(I think I've seen quotes from both in support of the war early on. I'd have to dig to find them however)

People are made to hang by their votes on things like IWR or the Patriot Act, but not everyone is made to hang by their words at the beginning of the war.

So I think it's a valid question, but perhaps not the "gotcha" it appears.

[loyalsister]

171. He simply demanded convincing evidence

What I got from it is that he supported Bush speaking out strongly and putting Iraq on notice.
But, he never supported invading when inspections had not gone through.

[BlueJac]

7. Gore has been against the Iraq war all along!

He is on top of global warming and the repugnus are not admitting that, while GW cooks those books! Gore in 2008!

[Texas_Kat]

8. Okay.... I'll take your word for it....

That was then, this is now. Since bush won't be running in 08 (and may be such a lame duck in 06 that he has no influence) how will 'being against the war (then)" be a show stopping statement?

I AM interested if he thinks we should "Get out NOW' or "stay the course" or somesuch other position.

Has he mentioned anything? Proposed an exit strategy? Set a timetable?

[FrenchieCat]

9. My OP has not been answered by your response.

But thank you for your words.

So was Gore anti-Iraq War, or Anti-Iraq War in the way that Bush ended up conducting it?

[BlueJac]

10. Not a politician at the time....

no voting record, that is what kills all the fools on the hill. They are afraid to flip flop.

[drummo]

62. There was no flip-flop here.

[drummo]

61. You are a little bit slow.

Where in the Feb speech does Gore promote war against Iraq?

Gimme a quote.

[FrenchieCat]

86. You are a little bit rude, impolite, impatient and out of line....

I have a right to ask a question....and I don't have to get on the defensive just because you are becoming offensive, now do I?

I wrote the OP. Read it. if you want to give me your take, that's fine. Insulting me and my intelligence, is not...

Check yourself...Gore is a political figure who is fallible and human. Don't think otherwise.

By the way, what is Gore stance on Iraq presently? Does he favor withdrawing immediately, or what? Please let my "Slow" self know.

Thanks!

[ladylibertee]

96. OMG No wonder.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NCarolinawoman]

11. I love Al Gore.

I bought his book which he actually wrote himself...no help from a ghost-writer. Environmental issues are my top concern even before health-care issues; and I have no health insurence.

Having said all that, this sounds like Joe Biden talking. I aways assumed Al was against the war. What did he say that makes everyone think he was against the Iraq war? There must be another speech somewhere. I can't believe the Shrub's speech regarding yellow-cake and the axis of evil fooled him.

I would very much like to know what his feelings on Iraq are now.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Yes, Gore made another speech on September 23, 2002....

in where he does slam Bush, and does believe that invading Iraq is not the way to go...hence, my question. I have read that speech....but the speech featured in the OP...no, I hadn't heard about this.

I was researching Gore's stance on Iraq when I found references to it.

The speech does seem to come from a hard liner, which is why I am asking for a plausible explanation as to why he spoke that way then...."sometimes the diplomatic cards have to come off the table"? I don't like that...and it makes it appear that Gore was not so Anti Iraq war....He just didn't think that Bush was going to conduct it property. Certainly he was right....on that count. But that speech sound more hawkish then it needed be, if you ask me.

[dogman]

17. I think that goes back to the moment.

Many have forgotten the support,both domestic and international, that Bush enjoyed after 9-11. These leaders all knew that Saddam wanted revenge on the US. That was the opening Bush used and some leaders picked up on that fact a little quicker than others. Clark warned us early on and even risked his job at CNN to tell us. Probably Dean and Gore were among the earliest political figures to see what Bush was doing. Like most Dems I would give Gore the benefit of hindsight, but this does show his thinking has evolved, as that of others, and it is certainly fair to ask where he stands now. As many supporters as there are now, I would think a lot of posters must know what they are supporting.

[drummo]

65. Nope this doesn't show

that his thinkig evolved. He made it clear in the Feb speech under which conditions should the US take any action against Saddam. (Any action does not mean automatically the invasion of the counrty. Get it? Which is what Bush did.)

Bush did not create those condictions in the summer and autumn of 2002, hence Gore gave another speech which explained why the language of the draft resolution was wrong.

I can't believe that liberas here can be just as stupid and shallow and soundbite-driven as cons. No reasonable person would say that the Feb and the Sept speeches are somehow at odds with each other. But apparently all you care about is the "tone".

[dogman]

99. Where do I mention tone?

Since you are one of his prime advocates, can you tell the rest of us, what is Gore's stand now?

[CarolNYC]

100. I don't think anyone knows where Gore stands on Iraq right now...

...except that I would guess he still thinks we shouldn't have invaded....If anyone does know, I guess they're not telling.

Someone, though, is really pissed off that Frenchie dared to ask the question she did, aren't they? Go figure....I had no idea it was such an offensive question.

Thank you to those who did answer in a much more constructive manner.

(I like Gore, BTW, in case anybody thinks I'm trying to attack him here.)

[Usrename]

112. My opinion, big Al thinks it's a total disaster that needs fixing.

He's a pretty smart guy. I think he made statements of the sort when the torture started. Yeah, he pretty much knows it's broken real bad, if you ask me.

He tore Poppy Bush a new one on the Senate floor after the first Gulf War because he quit before getting Saddaam. I think he knew it would not make the future easier. Lotta angst there.

[dogman]

129. That's well and good, I like Gore as a Dem spokesman. But

there is a big push to declare him THE candidate for '08. How does this come about when the biggest criticism of Dem leaders is that they have no plan. Those that have presented a plan are criticized by both sides. I think if you propose that someone be THE candidate that you tell me his plan.

[drummo]

144. That's because none of those "plans"

can be taken seriously because they are just a bunch of overly general statements that are not convincing regarding a situation that is extremely fluid and cannot be resolved. When a war is already lost you cannot have a plan about how to win it.

[drummo]

135. Thanks for raising that issue

Many people now forget that right after the Gulf War there was a major uprising against Saddam by the Kurds and Shiites. Bush Sr even urged them to do it in a speech. Gore -- along with others in the Congress -- urged Bush to support the uprising using air power, but they never said he should send the US military to Badghad.
It was a missed opportunity to kick out Saddam by using the Iraqis themselves. We wouldn't have occupied Iraq but Saddam still would have been history.

And the monkey wouldn't have had the opportunity to create this mess
in Iraq now and use the war in 2002 to put Reps in the Congress and to
get votes in 2004. And Roberts would not be chief-justice nominee now.

:banghead:

[drummo]

131. It's irrelevant because as I said earlier this war is lost.

No matter what he or anyone else says there is no good solution.

Liberals believe, foolishly, that getting the troops out of Iraq now would somehow serve our national security. It wouldn't. Nor would keeping them in Iraq. It's doomed if we do and doomed if we don't.

Furthermore, Gore cannot possible give you a detailed plan since he doesn't have access to the information necessary to make such a plan. This is a rapidly changing situation about which only those who are actually on the ground can know enough to be able to put together an end-game plan -- if at all they can know enough.

Gore first should have a position in the government where he can have access to real-time on-the-ground info before he could tell you what exactly should be done with Iraq. And, even if he had the info it's not sure he could tell you the details because a certain segments of it likely would be classified.

So what do you mean when you say "tell us where Gore stands now"?
It's not enough to say that we should pull the troops out. That's not a plan. And if you would be satified with such a statement as a solution to the problem then you are not much better than the right-wingers who are completely satified with Bush's soundbites.

The last time I heard Gore talking about Iraq was 9/28/2004 in a debate with Bob Dole.
Then he said he believes the most likely outcome of the situation would be civil war.
Actually a civil war war aleady going on at that time, since the majority of casualties were Iraqi citizens and the majority of insurgents were also Iraqi citizens. But it only intensified since then so much that even some in the MSM are starting to use the phrase.

(CBS) Behind the blood and chaos of the insurgents' bombs, there is an undeclared civil war already underway in Iraq, between the Sunni minority who ruled this country under Saddam and the Shiite majority.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/26/eveningnews/main886305.shtml

(Actually Zarqawi did declare an all-out war on Shiites.)

And no, you did not mention the word 'tone' but based on what you wrote, that Gore change his mind on Iraq, I have to think you don't care about anything else in that speech just the tone of it, which was not particularly anti-Bush.
You failed to pay attention to the meanings of the words he said and instead got away with the impression -- just like the right-wingers who latter accused him of changing his mind -- that Gore was supporting Bush's policy on Iraq.
The main problem with that is that Bush's policy on Iraq was not an invasion back in Feb 2002. He started to push for it in the summer of 2002 AFTER Gore made that speech.

[dogman]

132. If you read my other posts you'll see I don't criticize Gore for his

stance. I criticize those who say Gore is THE candidate without even knowing where he stands on such a critical issue. Maybe those pushing his candidacy can get back with some answers. These are the same questions being asked about other potential candidates. Wes Clark has proposed a success strategy and is not a declared candidate but a concerned Democratic leader attempting to provide an answer for all of the critics that say the Dems have no plan. Individuals in neighboring countries in the region have already indicated Clark's plan is a possibility. Maybe that is because he has attended conferences with them to achieve these ends.

[drummo]

134. Clark cannot possibly propose a success strategy

for the same reason why Gore can't.

He doesn't have access to the info that would make his plan credible but most of all because there is no way for success in this case anymore.

You have to be really naive to believe otherwise. Don't be fooled by
a strategy that sounds like a success strategy. Clark cannot provide a detailed enough plan without access to on-the-ground info about the real situtation over there.

The reason why I would put Gore to the White House because he already demostrated that he can analyse available information quickly enough to make the right decision about what should and what should not be done.
That cannot be said about Clark who supported the resolution even though he knew it was a blank check for war, then later denied that he would have voted for it because it was no longer politically beneficial.

[Tom Rinaldo]

136. That is an uninformed statement

It assumes that a deep understanding of underlying issues, of competing entrenched national interests, of traditional flash points for violent disagreements, of historical grievances, of both regional and localized balances of power, of military tactics, of available resources, of attitudes held by allies and enemies alike, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is who is being handed the daily CIA briefing, because only those people are "in the know". Wrong.

By that standard those who believed that the Bush Administrations was mistaken to elevate preventing rogue nuclear States from launching missiles at the United States to its number one national security priority after taking office, above Terrorism, should have just shut up because they couldn't possibly know what they were talking about, since they were "out of the loop". By that standard no Democrat had a leg to stand on in arguing against a Bush invasion of Iraq because only Bush had access to on the ground info about the real situation over there.

There is plenty of information available to any astute observer, from first hand accounts of those who are "on the ground" coupled with sound reasoning, to arrive at sensible positions, not to mention a person like Clark or Gore, who both have extensive inside personal sources and long years of experience in dealing with international and national security issues first hand. Bush isn't personally on the ground in Iraq any more than you or I are. I don't count an express turn around Turkey delivery service as being "on the ground". Bush has people he listens to and so does Clark, but Bush's "advisers" wear ideological blinders. Clark has spent a lot of time in the Mid East meeting with regional leaders, including significant time spent there in the last year. Unlike our President, he doesn't just go there for photo ops.

Here are two threads some of you might enjoy looking over. They deal with Clark's ability "to analyze available information quickly enough to make the right decision about what should and what should not be done". Clark has usually been well ahead of the curve and taken plenty of flak for being there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1879608

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1912872#1913121

Your comment, "That cannot be said about Clark who supported the resolution even though he knew it was a blank check for war, then later denied that he would have voted for it because it was no longer politically beneficial" is your opinion and you seem quite determined to stick with it. My opinion is that that is a bald faced falsehood and willful misinterpretation of facts that flies in the face of a very consistent pattern of Clark opposing any military action against Iraq except "only, only, only, as a last resort" and that Clark was very clear on numerous occasions that War with Iraq never remotely got to the point of being a last resort. But this argument has been recycled more than enough for several life times, let alone one day. I won't hold my breath expecting you to change your opinion and I won't waste either my or board readers time going around in an endless circle with you. Believe what you will. And I believe Al Gore is a good man, and you can do what you will with that also.

[drummo]

141. Re:"That is an uninformed statement"

It assumes that a deep understanding of underlying issues, of competing entrenched national interests, of traditional flash points for violent disagreements, of historical grievances, of both regional and localized balances of power, of military tactics, of available resources, of attitudes held by allies and enemies alike, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is who is being handed the daily CIA briefing, because only those people are "in the know". Wrong.

Not wrong. Since it is not just about the CIA but the entire IntelCom and the Pentagon and whoever else is there to serve some kind of US interest.
And Clark doesn't get up to date information about enemy activity, or the political dynamics (who is against who and exactly why) or activities of governments in the neighboring countries and many other factors which you would need if you really want to have a "success strategy".

And what is "a deep understanding of underlying issues" regarding the current situation in Iraq?
Clark cannot possibly know since he doesn't know what is going on in Iraq more than either you or I know it. If "a deep understanding of underlying issues" in this case means that there is not a solution which can be called "good solution" and Clark can see that then Clark has indeed "a deep understanding of underlying issues". But that's not a "success strategy".

What are "traditional flash points for violent disagreements" regarding the current situation in Iraq?
Clark cannot know it not the least because in Iraq the situation is way too fluid to know on Monday who will oppose who on Tuesday and such newly born confrontations do not necessarly follow tradition.

The Middle East's history is full of "historical grievances" which are thrown out of the window in a minute if a common enemy emerges. Yesterday's enemies can be today's allies and vice versa.

As for the "attitudes held by allies and enemies alike", Clark cannot know who the enemy is in Iraq let alone their attitude. Guess what? Not even the commanders on the ground know the enemy in Iraq. How could Clark?


By that standard those who believed that the Bush Administrations was mistaken to elevate preventing rogue nuclear States from launching missiles at the United States to its number one national security priority after taking office, above Terrorism, should have just shut up because they couldn't possibly know what they were talking about, since they were "out of the loop". By that standard no Democrat had a leg to stand on in arguing against a Bush invasion of Iraq because only Bush had access to on the ground info about the real situation over there.

1.There were many people who were "in the loop" and opposed Bush's missile defense madness. Many of those who were "out of the loop" opposed SDI because of what they heard and read from those who were "in the loop".

2.The reason why you and many other people say now that counter-terrorism should have been the national security priority for the Bush administation instead of Iraq or missile defense is that 9/11 happened. And you can know about that for sure even if you were not in the loop.

3.Do you really want to compare the evaluation of something that happened in the past (Bush's pre-9/11 priorities) with something that is going on right now (the war in Iraq)? With regard to the first you have the benefit of hindsight but you don't have a crystal ball to see how certain actions would affect the situation in Iraq say 2 years from now?

Clark has usually been well ahead of the curve and taken plenty of flak for being there:

He was so much ahead of the curve that he supported that insane resolution which started this whole mess. Then he was so much ahead of the curve that he wrote after the toppling of Saddam's statue that "already the scent of victory is in the air." Sure.


My opinion is that that is a bald faced falsehood and willful misinterpretation of facts that flies in the face of a very consistent pattern of Clark opposing any military action against Iraq except "only, only, only, as a last resort"

Not true. Check this out:

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

This is not a right-wing site.

Having " reservations about the country's move toward war" is not enough. You have to oppose a blank check for war -- which the resolution passed in Oct was. And Clark knew that or if he didn't he was blind.
So where is the misrepresentation?
He had the chance to come out in Sept or Oct and say the current language of this resolution is unacceptable because it's a blank check for war and Congress should reject it.

But he didn't. He never said the language should be changed so
that Bush could go to war but only as the last resort.
The one who did it was Al Gore.

I won't hold my breath expecting you to change your opinion

I cannot change my opinion since I cannot change facts.
And the fact is that Clark waffled on the IWR.

Otherwise how do you explain this:

The New York Times, September 19, 2003 :

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question."

(It was not a too simple question. The resolution was a blank check for war and should have been rejected.)


then

The New York Times:

I never would have voted for war . . . What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war. That's what we needed to avoid a war.

So what is it? Probably or never?

The IWR was not about "leverage". It was about war.
Didn't Clark know that in Oct 2002? That's what you want to say?

[Tom Rinaldo]

175. The run up to 2004 ended two years ago, the run up to 2008

starts in about a year. I gave you slack on all this, I really did, partially because I could understand how the OP of this thread may have been interpreted as an attack on Gore who is obviously your guy. Personally I see no attack but that can be a matter of opinion.

However your behavior on this and other threads to me is way too reminiscent of the behavior on DU in 2003/4, the era not affectionately known as the "Primary Wars". The underlying point of this thread, as I saw it, was to remind us all here and now that most Democrats in 2002 can be found on record describing Hussein as at least a potential threat to America and affirming America's right to take whatever actions needed, including use of force, to defend itself. There is some value in pondering the implications of that.

However you in my opinion have made this into a virtual candidate war, attempting to pit Clark's positions against Gore's at every turn. Perhaps you misunderstand why I am allowing you to make 5 posts for every one that I answer. Perhaps you misunderstand why I do not make a full scale point for point defense of Wesley Clark every time you label him as being pro Iraq war or complicit in allowing Bush to get away with what he did. I do not hold back out of lack of debating skills. I do not hold back because I can not find adequate "facts" as you call them to rebut your statements. Believe me I have been down this road before on DU and have had this full debate with a whole lot of posters before you. I am very very confident in my position and in Wesley Clark's position.

No, I am not jumping into a full scale debate with you because I think that debate now would be counter productive to the DU community, to the Democratic Party, and to all of our efforts to focus on the issues that need to be confronted here and now.

I know all about your factcheck link. I have been through this dozens of times before. I've reprinted the full articles that distorted extracts were lifted from and gone over them line for line. I've explained the timing and motivation of Lieberman's 2004 National Co-Chair in disputing Clark's own statements. I've looked at the politics of the NY Times reporter and the corporate media. I've linked to several pre and post IWR video links of Clark being very clear and consistent about his position about Iraq and much much more. I have thought of a dozen arguments that I am tempted to throw in your face, but you know what? I don't think it would be productive to go there now. Ask me again in 2007 if Clark decides to run for President again, OK? I will be more than willing to debate you in the proper time and place.

Right now I suggest it is time to move on, there are real current issues to discuss. If you want to remind everyone at DU what a great guy and brilliant leader Al Gore is, by all means go right ahead. If you keep trying to reignite the debates from 2003, I obviously can't stop you from doing so, but I will not be complicit in them. Some of the debate you are so focused on having has already taken place, but it doesn't seem to be accomplishing any good, from any perspective I can identify anyway. Last time I checked most posters at DU were still sick to death of candidate wars, and virtually no one is itching to start new ones about candidates who haven't even declared that they are running for anything. 2006 happens before 2008. Wesley Clark is among many Democratic leaders already helping to raise money for Democratic candidates in our effort to regain Congress. I assume Al Gore will help in any way he can also. Can we at least wait until after the 2006 Elections to continue this little debate of ours?

[drummo]

178. Yes.

[Tom Rinaldo]

184. LOL. Fair enough. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

137. Don't generals generally analyse available info

and in the heat of battle, I would also imagine they must make the right decisions quickly enough or they'll sorta be spam in a can, if you know what I mean.

[drummo]

142. As I said in another post

just because you are a general you can screw up military operations.
Some generals can analyse available info quickly and make the right decisions quickly. And some generals cannot.

[LittleClarkie]

143. And just because you used to be the vp, you can screw up

administration operations.

Same difference. Both have been in heavy duty decision making positions. Both have the capacity to screw up despite that experience.

[drummo]

145. Actually

Gore was a vp, senator and congressman not just vp.

But I never said that he can analyze information quickly and make the right decision because he was a vp. That wouldn't make much sense not the least because his decision to oppose the IWR was made when he was a private citizen not vp.

Same difference. Both have been in heavy duty decision making positions. Both have the capacity to screw up despite that experience.

But you said that generals analyze info and make the right decisions
so because Clark is a former general he must be able to
analyze info and make the right decisions.

By contrast I never said that Gore is able to do it because he is a former vp.

[LittleClarkie]

146. Actually the part you left out is that he'd be dead

if he couldn't. Not all generals have the capacity. But since this particular general is still kicking after having seen active combat, I can only conclude that he made the right ones.

[drummo]

148. Just because someone survived combat

does not mean that he has an inherent ability to analyse information and make right decisions.
By the same token you could say that every combat veteran in the US is qualified to be president or qualified to handle a crisis like
the invasion of Kuwait or the Balkan wars or prevent 9/11.

[LittleClarkie]

149. Meh. Whatever. I support both men

And would be happy with either one as prez.

[drummo]

151. I would support Clark over Hillary

but not over Gore because if Clark was really against the idea of Bush invading Iraq he should have opposed the IWR the way Gore did and warn the Congress of the possible consequences if they pass it as it was drafted by White House.

[AlGore-08.com]

152. Colin Powell is alive and kicking - - his decision making ain't that hot

I'm not saying anything against Clark, just pointing out that making it to General means nothing more or less than that person made it to General.

Douglas MacArthur was a successful, highly decorated General during WWII. Early in the Korean War, when Truman asked whether there was any chance that the Chinese would fight in North Korea, MacArthur was dismissive. When the Chinese entered the war, MacArthur wanted to nuke them. Since the Chinese and Russians both had nukes, Truman thought that this would lead to a nuclear world war. They had a public power struggle and Truman ended up dismissing McArthur - - whose Presidential aspirations were destroyed by a Senate investigation into MacArthur's dismissal.

Again, I'm not saying anything against Clark. I'm just saying that there is no office or rank that proves somebody has wisdom or intelligence or will make the right decision. Folks should be judged on what they've done in public office.

[drummo]

154. And on what they do after they leave public office.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/7/164747/4155

[FrenchieCat]

191. "They?"

My goodness...should I put all politicians in the category of George Bush....I mean, talking about stereotyping! How silly this exercise seems to be!

[dogman]

159. Yeah, right.

Spin, spin, spin.... Try the facts next time, please?

[drummo]

161. And what was not factual in my post? What was the spin?

[dogman]

174. Not fact:

Snip>Clark cannot possibly propose a success strategy
Snip>there is no way for success in this case anymore.
Snip>You have to be really naive to believe otherwise
Snip>Clark who supported the resolution even though he knew it was a blank check for war
Snip>then later denied that he would have voted for it because it was no longer politically beneficial.

Spin:
Snip>He doesn't have access to the info that would make his plan credible
Snip>Don't be fooled by a strategy that sounds like a success strategy.
Snip>The reason why I would put Gore to the White House because he already demostrated that he can analyse available information quickly enough to make the right decision about what should and what should not be done.

[drummo]

180. Re:Not fact:

Clark who supported the resolution even though he knew it was a blank check for war

That's a fact which Clarkies do not want to hear.

then later denied that he would have voted for it because it was no longer politically beneficial.

That's a fact which Clarkies do not want to hear.

He doesn't have access to the info that would make his plan credible

That's fact. He doesn't have access to info generated by our military and intelligence apparatus either about Iraq or about the region. If he had it would be illegal.

The other statements you quoted are my opinions. Which is hardly a basis to say "Spin, spin, spin.... Try the facts next time, please?"

By that standard any opinion expressed on this board should be dismissed as spin because it cannot be called a fact.

[dogman]

182. As I said those are not facts.

Whether Clarkies want to hear them or not. That's what makes your opinions spin. This discussion has moved here if you want to see the facts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2121094

[drummo]

185. That post itself is a long line of spins. More about it tomorrow.

[Usrename]

167. Depends on your meaning of "lost".

I think the neo-cons are winning in Iraq. This current situation there is EXACTLY what they are trying to accomplish.

TRUTH

Everthing that is being done there is for the purpose of creating chaos and division among the civilian population. Shall I make a list?

[drummo]

168. That's an interesting theory.

But it's certainly not what we here would call victory.

[Usrename]

177. Not so sure it's just a theory.

1. no Arab allies
2. looting allowed to go unchecked
3. bombing of unprotected U.N. Headquarters
4. bombing of unguarded International Red Cross Headquarters two weeks later (duh?)
5. torture photos (some released to enrage the resistance / other not that would enrage the public)
6. the list is endless of things that cannot be 'mistakes'

[drummo]

181. I'm sure shit would happen in Iraq even if the neocons wouldn't like it.

[drummo]

64. Re:"Yes, Gore made another speech on September 23, 2002....

The speech does seem to come from a hard liner


Huh? Hard-liner?
What was so hard-line in it?

[karynnj]

106. You are right - also most of the Democrats were

not far from Gore in either speech. They wanted to insure that Saddam was contained and not a threat, but were willing to go to war only with the rest of the world and as a last resort. (Gore wanted the IWR tightened - but so did many Senate Democrats)

The RW tried a share the blame action as soon as the war started to ge poorly. We shouldn't repeat it. The Gore Sept 23 speech was not pro-war. Kerry, on September 6 wrote a NYT editorial (before the IWR) which sounds exactly like his statements two years later (that were distorted). You have posted Clark statements warning about Iraq and one that suggested the difficulty with the IWR. We shouldn't allow the media (which was complicit in the run up to the war) to attempt to re-write history. This is Bush's war.

Kerry's op-ed
We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
by Sen. John F. Kerry

It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to — not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein — the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism — should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war — that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

The administration's hasty war talk makes it much more difficult to manage our relations with other Arab governments, let alone the Arab street. It has made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the implications of war for themselves rather than keep the focus where it belongs — on the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his deadly arsenal. Indeed, the administration seems to have elevated Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he would never have achieved on his own.

There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. But knowing ahead of time that our military intervention will remove him from power, and that we will then inherit all or much of the burden for building a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, is all the more reason to insist on a process that invites support from the region and from our allies. We will need that support for the far tougher mission of ensuring a future democratic government after the war.

The question is not whether we should care if Saddam Hussein remains openly scornful of international standards of behavior that he agreed to live up to. The question is how we secure our rights with respect to that agreement and the legitimacy it establishes for the actions we may have to take. We are at a strange moment in history when an American administration has to be persuaded of the virtue of utilizing the procedures of international law and community — institutions American presidents from across the ideological spectrum have insisted on as essential to global security.

For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

John F. Kerry, a Democrat, is a senator from Massachusetts.

[BlueJac]

14. cool

[FrenchieCat]

15. You are not reading.....

Your "cool" response was to someone wanting to know Gore's current stance on Iraq. Got an answer for her? :shrug:

[BlueJac]

18. Oh well

[BlueJac]

19. If you bought his book that was cool.....

what ever on what you thought, he is on the environment

[drummo]

63. This speech WAS NOT for promoting a war with Iraq.

Read it carefully.

After Bush started to push for a unilateral invasion of Iraq and he wanted a blank check from the Congress Gore gave another speech on Sept 23, 2002 in which he warned against passing the resolution for
various reasons.

[CarolNYC]

12. hmmm...

Well, that's interesting. Thanks for posting....

So does anyone know where Gore stands on Iraq now? Is he for an immediate pullout? stay the course? change the course? propose a timeline? You know, I have no idea and now I'm really curious. Surely, some of the folks paying close attention to Gore know, yes?

Thanks in advance for any info on his current stance.....

[FrenchieCat]

16. This doesn't seem to be a popular Gore thread.

Cause no one is answering!

[Adelante]

20. The only popular ones

are those in which nobody asks questions.

We can't have this! Just stop it, Frenchie :spank:

[dogman]

21. Is there a corelation between MNF and those who know?

Or is it like religion? You just gotta believe.

[buzzsaw_23]

22. Maybe this will help explain my earlier post

From d.a. levy
"Really"
                     the police try to protect
                     the banks - and everything else
                     is secondary"

Nominated

The Gores' are very, very wealthy folk.

"Fortunate Son" by CCR was written about Al Gore

"I ain't no Senator's son"

[dogman]

23. I'd have to see proof.

Snip>The Gores' are very, very wealthy folk.

"Fortunate Son" by CCR was written about Al Gore

"I ain't no Senator's son"<snip

Gore is a Vietnam vet.

[buzzsaw_23]

28. Did he see active duty? n/t

[dogman]

29. The country of Vietnam was active duty.

Much like Iraq there was no defined safe area. I'm not saying what you say is not true, I'm asking for verification. My interpretation of "Fortunate Son" was a generic Senators son as I'm sure there were a number of them.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[buzzsaw_23]

32. Gore was a reporter for five months in Viet Nam

Also instrumental in the passage of NAFTA. A lifetime insider.

Here is a bit more and googling Al Gore-Viet Nam will tell you even more. Also read some of Gore Vidal's writings on second-cousin Al. We must do better, altogether differently I'd say.


On Al's Service:
Gore's campaign launched a multimillion-dollar ad campaign this week to tell his "life story." The ads will include references to his service" in Vietnam-however brief. Gore spent less than five months of a typical twelve-month tour in Vietnam. He spent every minute of his "tour" as a "rear-echelon...." (call any combat veteran and they can complete that phrase for you). He was classified as a military journalist after telling recruiters he was a newspaper trainee" (read "copy boy") for the New York Times while a student at Harvard.

He was assigned as a noncombatant "information specialist" to the Army's 20th Engineers Brigade headquarters at Bien Hoa military base near Saigon. Gore's immediate supervisor in Vietnam has confirmed that his posting there came with explicit instructions to baby-sit him and make sure he was never in any danger. That fact notwithstanding, Gore has claimed to the Washington Post that he was "shot at" and "spent most of my time in the field." He later told the Baltimore Sun that " pulled my turn on the perimeter at night and walked through the elephant grass and I was fired upon." He has since backed off these exaggerated claims. On May 22, 1971, not five months into his "tour of duty," Gore was given special dispensation and a one-way ticket home to attend divinity school in Nashville. He dropped out of Vanderbilt shortly thereafter. As for the seven months cut from Gore's tour of duty in Vietnam, we suppose "someone else in the small town of Carthage, Tennessee" had to finish his tour "in his place."

http://www.snopes.com/military/goreviet.htm

Gore Served as reporter in Vietnam
Dorris Gagnier (letters, Jan. 7) cited some interesting numbers
about sons of senators and congressman serving in Vietnam but
got it all wrong on the son of Senator Al Gore, Sr. Vice President
Al Gore, Jr. was not in infantry and did not serve a year in Vietnam.

In 1992 Democrats sought to balance President Clinton's disgraceful
draft evasion by putting Al Gore, Jr. on the ticket. I thought then,
"Is this the best they can do?"

Hank Hillin's book "Al Gore, Jr. Born to Lead" sets the record
straight on the VP. Most GIs including me were sent to Vietnam
for a year but Al Gore, Jr. barely scratched out six months
in-country (Nov. 1970-May 1971) and was assigned as an Army reporter.

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rongstad/bio-0001/ltcct199.htm


As a side note I don't think that one's military service, or lack of, is the most integral aspect of any candidates qualifications. I'd love to see a draft dodging peacenik in the White House.

[dogman]

37. As a combat veteran I can complete the REMF phrase.

I spent a month in Bien Hoa. We took incoming, granted it was safer than in the field but like I said the whole country was a combat zone, you did not have to be in the infantry to be in danger. I don't doubt he did not feel his service was heroic or he would have challenged Bush's awol tour. Much of your post seems akin to the Swift Boat garbage and was likely RW spew to head off any revelations of Bush's record. As I said i would not define him as a "Fortunate Son". There was a large number of those, just like today. I would like someone in the White House who knows what they are doing if they should ever need to ask the military to put themselves at risk.

[buzzsaw_23]

40. Admittedly

those particular links weren't the best but the info is accurate. I'm pretty ambivalent about Gore and also weary of the entire militarized mentality in America. All the candidates seem to feel a need to beat the drums to prove to the voter "I'm strong". Well the world can't take any more of the patriarchal chest beating.

The children wish for the men to lay down their arms.

Peace to you and yours.

"Do not worry over the charge of treason to your masters, but be concerned about the treason that involves yourselves," he concluded. "Be true to yourself and you cannot be a traitor to any good cause on earth."

"Your honor, years ago, I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

-Eugene Debs

Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism... Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others.

-- Emma Goldman

[FrenchieCat]

45. So why did Clark argue about going into Rwanda?

Do you think it was because he was busy beating his chest, or do you think there might have been a few lives to save there....like 800,000 Black folks?

Please, do not stereotype the military. Wes Clark was in it for 34 years...and he states, and I agree, it is one of the most socialistic institutions on the planet. Hell, that's why he can easily support Affirmative Action, while other pols have to grunt and sigh before doing so.

So, I beg to disagree...it is not the military that is the problem IMO (although there are plenty of bad ones out there, don't get me wrong), it is the civilian leadership....they are who gets us into wars.

And I also believe that one can be tough and still be a humanitarian.

Clark was "retired" because he made too much noise about getting some "boots on the ground" and low flying helicopters in order to minimize casualties in Kosovo. The Clinton administration, with its "civilian" Defense secretary didn't want to risk any US soldiers....cause I guess he didn't feel that civilians lives were worth as much. Somalia had just happened, and the Clinton administration were "skeered" that any US Casualties would mess up their "politics".

So check yourself, and don't put all under one umbrella. Doing so could be had for your political health.

[buzzsaw_23]

48. At present

the US military is so far beyond the pale, spending more than the rest of the world combined and the world's worst polluter/contributor to greenhouse gasses, that reducing military spending by at least 80% is necessary for our survival as a species.

At present over $800 billion per year goes into the coffers of Halliburton etc. How much do candidates on both sides of the aisle reap from the Pentagon. The figures are staggering.

The Warfare $tate is killing us all.

It's not just the civilian "leadership" as appalling as they are it's the entire machine Lockheed. Boeing, KBR etc. It's on auto pilot dropping it's destruction all over. What politician is going to confront that. That's who I'll support.

[FrenchieCat]

49. But that is not the point that you were making....

the 400 billion dollar budget that CIVILIAN CONGRESS passes everyyear is getting bigger...that much is true.

Did you know that Wes Clark has promised to cut that shit....by 25%? One of the way that we can get the deficit in line. He knows where the waste is, and has called that budget the "make-want" budget.

So again, the military personnels are not the problem, the CIVILIANS elected to congress and the WH are. They are the ones you need to look at a little more closely before making general pronouncement on some good people in the military.

Plus, you didn't even address any of the questions that I asked on a tough mother f*cker...that ain't gonna take no shit for the likes of the military, the GOP and their Democratic appeaser weak links.

[buzzsaw_23]

50. War is a Racket

The Real Budget is twice the $400 billion stated.
I'm not a Wesley Clark fan.

Here's my protest banner held in DC.


Anyway
Gettin' late
gotta hit the hay.

[FrenchieCat]

53. I could tell you weren't a Wes Clark fan.....

I was just trying to figure if you actually knew why.
Based on your responses, I suspect not.

[drummo]

70. You are right. The more US casualties the better.

After all it's all about politics. It's not about Cindy Sheehan's son.
So why oh why did Clinton avoid US casualties? Because they could have messed up his politics.

Crap.

[FrenchieCat]

75. Oh, I see, it's colateral damage a volunte is fine with you?

and minimizing it is not?

WHo said this, "If there is nothing worth dying for, then there is nothing worth living for".

The point is when I have to weigh the life of a military personnel and the life of a civilian, they both are of the same value to me.

Maybe to you U.S. lives are more "valuable". Sounds familiar.

And it is true that after Somalia, Clinton did not want any more US Casualties. Look it up!


Crap my ass!

[drummo]

82. You don't have any evidence that shows

if more US troops had been put in harms way in Kosovo somehow more civilians would have been saved.

This is just baseless specualtion.

And whether you like it or not the US commander-in-chief if primarly responsible for protecting US troops.
And that's the formula in other countries, as well.
France cared more about French troops than about Algerian citizens. The NATO countries who sent troops to Afganistan care more about their own citizens than about Afghan civilians.
An Indian cares more about Indian troops in Kashmir than about Pakistani civilians. Etc.
It's not an exclusively American phenomenon.

I'm gald that Kosovo went without a single US casualty. Not the least because US casualites could have shot down the entire mission -- thanks to public outrage here at home -- and then Milosevics would have killed even more civilians. Do you have any doubt that he would have done "finished the job" with the Kosovars if he had been left alone?

[FrenchieCat]

87. Are you a General or something?

Did you even follow Kosovo, cause it doesn't sound like it.

79 days of bombing at high altitudes vs. low flying helicopters and boots on the Ground? Even a fool knows which would be more precise in aiming for its targets. Doh! :eyes:

If you can't even admit that Clinton didn't want the bad publicity that U.S. Casualties might have wrought, and therefore he decided not to take any "risks".....then you don't know Kosovo.

Same reason that 800,000 Rwandans were macheted to death without any intervention from us. Because Clinton felt that any move that might have jeopardized American soldier's lives wasn't worth it--it as a political liability. He did apologize, so I will have to live with it, but it doesn't make it as the "right" thing to have done.

I liked Clinton a lot.... but he certainly wasn't perfect, and Rhwanda was not one of his finest moment. And neither was the fact that a Republican Defense Secretary was calling the shots behind his back in Kosovo.

So please, don't overwhelm us with your compassion! :sarcasm:


You go by the "formula" I see. So in that case, I've got your number.

[drummo]

133. Re:"Are you a General or something?"

Actually generals can screw up military operations big time, which can include disregard for
the size of collateral damage. People have had a few wars in the last few thousand years so you can find a bunch of examples of stupid or inept generals.

I assume you don't want to say that common sense is somehow the exclusive ability of generals.
And no general so far has produced evidence that a ground war in Yugoslavia would have produced fewer civilian casualties than the bombing campaign, not the least because noone has proven that a ground war wouldn't have been less effective against the Yugoslav military therefore it wouldn't have prolonged the war which would have likely increased the number of civilian casualties -- both of those who would have died in the crossfire and those who would have been killed in the ongoing genocide.


79 days of bombing at high altitudes vs. low flying helicopters and boots on the Ground? Even a fool knows which would be more precise in aiming for its targets. Doh!

Wrong.

1.High altitude bombing can be done with different technologies which can give different results. Carpet bombings with "dumb bombs" probably result in more collateral damage than "smart bombs" which were used in Kosovo - -- depending on the target, timing and number of civilians in the area.
And, although HRW criticized high altitude bombing several incidents in which they claimed civilians were killed were related to air attacks against road convoys. But they never proved that those convoys wouldn't have been on NATO's target list if they had used ground forces and low-flying helicopters.
Call it intelligence failure but those convoys could have been taken out by Apache helicopters as well in case the commander had thought they were legitimate targets.
You really think such incidents have not happened in the ground war in Iraq?

Moreover, HRW also pointed to evidence that in at least one case, Yugoslav forces used displaced civilians as human shields.

2.Ground wars can result in more civilian casualties than air wars depending on:

-the size of force (tell me how many US ground troops should have been sent to Yugoslavia)
and the size of enemy force, including their own disregard for civilian casualties
You cannot possibly know what the Serbian military would have tried to do against out troops and where exactly (how populated those areas would have been) but you can know that in Fallujah where there was a serious ground war more civilans died in a few days than during those 79 days in Yugoslavia alltogether. If you add the number of refugees and the conditions which always go with refugee crises (such as lack of sanitation, lack of medical care, lack of clean water and food) the number of civilian casualties could be even higher.
-type of weaponary used by the ground forces on both sides (tell me what US troops should have used and what Serb forces would have used against them. What about landmines, for example, which can kill civilians even long years after the war ends, just like cluster bombs?)
-the number of helicopters (tell me how many should have been used)
-type of weaponary used on helicopters -- including the precisity of those weapons (gimme a list of weapons that you think should have been used on those helicopters)
-target selection (gimme a list of all targets you think should have been hit by those helicopters and attacked by ground troops and prove that there were less civilians in those areas then were in the areas hit by the NATO planes)
-timing of operations

According to Human Right Watch about 500 civilians were killed by Nato's air campaign against Yugoslavia. How can you prove that a ground war wouldn't have resulted in more casualties?
You can't. Nor can Clark.
He never demostrated that the Serbian military wouldn't have been effective against those low flying helicopters and ground forces therefore increasing the chance not only for US casualites but a prolonged war and never demonstrated that target selection would have been more precise or that the enemy forces engaging our troops would have had high regard for protecting civilans, nor did he elaborate exactly where those ground troops should have been sent to and how populated those areas were or how severe of a refugee crisis such ground operations would have caused or how effective a ground war would have been against legitimate Yugoslav military targets (considering that those fascilities were very well protected)

In my view, given the brutality and fanatism of the Serb military, the fact that they were at home (you can see the advantage of that now in Iraq or previously in Vietnam or Somalia for that matter) a ground war would have been a much longer and bloodier conflict than the 79-day bombing campaign.

If you can't even admit that Clinton didn't want the bad publicity that U.S. Casualties might have wrought, and therefore he decided not to take any "risks".....then you don't know Kosovo.

There was no need to take such risk because a ground war wouldn't have been a better solution.
Otherwise why should he have taken the risk of killing US troops just
in case that would save some Serbs or Kosovars? It would have been foolish, since as I said earlier, US casualties could have convinced the Congress to cut funding for the operations (like they wanted to do that after Somalia) therefore leaving Milosevics and the Serbs alone which would have led to continued genocide in Kosovo. And how many civilians would have been killed then?

Same reason that 800,000 Rwandans were macheted to death without any intervention from us. Because Clinton felt that any move that might have jeopardized American soldier's lives wasn't worth it--it as a political liability. He did apologize, so I will have to live with it, but it doesn't make it as the "right" thing to have done.

Rwanda and Kosovo are apple and orange.
We didn't send troops to Rwanda because there wouldn't have been public support for it, or congressional support, therefore Clinton didn't even try. Don't tell me that Americans care about a bunch of blacks in sub-sahara Africa. They don't. In fact hey don't care about poor blacks in New Orleans, let alone in Rwanda.

But not using ground forces in Kosovo was a good tactical move which made the victory against Milosevics far more likely thus ending the genocide.
BTW I don't remember Clark publicly making the case to send ground troops to Yugoslavia. Did he argue for it somewhere?

I liked Clinton a lot.... but he certainly wasn't perfect, and Rhwanda was not one of his finest moment.

Do you think Congress would have been willing to fund such an operation? I don't think so. Somalia was very much on everyone's mind.

So please, don't overwhelm us with your compassion!

I don't think it's compassionate to sent US troops to their death when that not only wouldn't reduce the number of civilian casualties but would make victory less likely therefore actually increase the civilian toll.

[LittleClarkie]

51. Nice spin there fella

From what I heard, Gore put himself in more danger than a journalist normally did in such circumstances. He was hardly hiding in the back.

And as for me, I don't see how we could do much better. If I can't have Kerry, I'd be proud to call Gore my president.

Also, I'd recommend the Daily Howler as a better site for finding out who Gore really is. I discovered how much of my knowledge of the man was RW spin by going there.

And the line of reasoning I'm seeing from you reminds me of the RW talking points I get about Kerry on occasion. RW talking point from my own side get on my last nerve. Gore served honorably. So did Kerry. Don't buy the bullshit.

[drummo]

73. Amen.

[drummo]

74. So you want to deride Gore's military service?

He could have found a way out like Bush, Clinton, Cheney, Limbaugh
but he went even though he opposed the war.

If you think it was a joke to travel all over Vietnam during the war why don't you go to Iraq now as a journalist and try it out?
How many of them have been killed? 40? 60?

And why do you rely on spin, anyway?
Gore was no privileged in Vietnam. He did his duty just like the others.

[Tom Rinaldo]

176. Gore volunteered to go to Viet Nam because he felt it was the right thing

for him to do. I am fully with you on this one. Gore felt it was his obligation to serve. I give him full credit.

[win_in_06]

39. "Fortunate Son" & "Love Story" ?

Al had it going on in the 70s.

[drummo]

77. Was this sarcasm

or you really believe the crap about Love Story?

It's just another media generated lie about Gore and it was discredited a long time ago. Go to dailyhowler.com and read it yourself in the 1999 archives.

As for Fortunate Son what does that mean?
Gore did not grow up in a rich family. They didn't even have the money to buy a house in Washington, they rented a two-bedroom apartment in the Fairfax Hotel, which was owned by Gore Sr's cousin.
Fairfax back then was not a fancy hotel that it is today. It was a fairly modest building in the 50s 60s.

[AlGore-08.com]

84. For those who don't know the truth behind the Love Story flap

From the Howler, probably the best resource for studying the 2000 election coverage:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h052500_1.shtml

Robinson and Scales were repeating a standard part of iconic Gore Lore. You've heard it said a million times. (1) Gore claimed that he and his wife inspired Love Story. (2) Author Erich Segal contradicted what he said.

Unfortunately, this two-part tale is flatly wrong, on the record—both parts of the story are demonstrably wrong, and have been, on the record, for years. Back in December 1997, when this pointless incident first came to light, Melinda Henneberger did a lengthy article on the topic for the New York Times. She interviewed Erich Segal, Love Story's author; she interviewed Karen Tumulty and Richard Berke, the two journalists present for Gore's remark on the subject. Had Gore stretched the truth, and been contradicted? Sorry. As is quite clear from what Henneberger reported, everyone agreed that the trivial things which Gore had said were in fact perfectly accurate. And Segal agreed with every word Gore had said. Yet, three years later, this incident is still being cited, day after day, as the standard proof that Gore stretches truth. Few incidents better display the destructive pathology—and the love of sheer trivia—which now grip our troubled press corps.

Background: In November 1997, Gore was returning from a three-day trip to Texas on Air Force Two. Tumulty and Berke were present on the plane (Tumulty was working on a profile for Time.) Around midnight, according to Tumulty's profile, Gore came back to the press compartment and spent two hours "swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums." The two "old chums" which the profile mentioned: Erich Segal, author of Love Story, and Gore's college roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, who played Ryan O'Neal's roommate in the Love Story movie.

That's right, kids. Erich Segal was an old friend of Gore's. He had known Gore and Jones when Gore was a Harvard student—when Segal, a young visiting prof, was slaving away writing Love Story.

At any rate, it was in this Time profile that Love Story surfaced. In a seven-page article, Time devoted one sentence to what Gore had said on the subject, although Tumulty and Berke would later tell Henneberger that Gore had actually said something slightly different. According to Time, Gore said that Segal "used Al and Tipper as models for the uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in Love Story." So was born the silly story that has—incredibly and foolishly—helped define presidential politics over the course of the past fourteen months.

Had Segal used the Gores as models? Partly yes and partly no, but Gore hadn't made the claim to begin with. Segal told Henneberger that Gore had been one of two models for the Oliver Barrett part (Jones had been the other model), but Tipper had not figured in the characterization of Barrett's girl friend, Jenny Cavilleri. Had the story ended there—with Gore half right and Gore half wrong—it would be incredible to think that this pointless event could have gotten ten seconds attention. But in fact, Tumulty and Berke told Henneberger that Time had slightly misstated what Gore had said. What had Gore actually told the scribes? Henneberger quoted Tumulty:

HENNEBERGER (paragraph 22): "He said Segal had told some reporters in Tennessee that it was based on him and Tipper," Ms. Tumulty said. "He said all I know is that's what he told reporters in Tennessee."

Gore had said that he'd seen a newspaper article quoting Segal on the subject. And there had been such an article, Segal said, in the Nashville Tennessean:

HENNEBERGER (15): (A) reporter for The Nashville Tennessean who knew that Mr. Gore and the author were friends had asked if there was not a little bit of Al Gore in Oliver Barrett. Mr. Segal said yes, there was, but the reporter "just exaggerated," Mr. Segal said. "He made it out to be the local-hero angle."

So someone had "exaggerated," all right, but it was a reporter for the Tennessean, not Gore. What Gore had said on the plane was perfectly accurate—there had been a story which quoted Segal saying Gore and his wife were the models. And listen to Segal as he "contradicts" Gore:

HENNEBERGER (18): "Al attributed it to the newspaper, he talked about the newspaper," Mr. Segal said at another point in the interview. "They conveniently omitted that part. Time thought it was more piquant to leave that out..."

Does that sound like Segal is "contradicting" Gore? More than two years after Henneberger's piece—given more than two years to nail down their facts—Robinson and Scales, like many others, misstated what Segal had said.

Tumulty has stressed to us how trivial and fleeting Gore's remarks were; "at most, three sentences in a two-and-a-half hour conversation," is how she recently put it. Indeed, Tumulty devoted one sentence to the matter; Berke never wrote about it at all. So how in the world did so pointless a matter turn into a 3-year cause celebre? It happened because Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, reading Gore's mind from a thousand miles away, wrote columns interpreting Gore's motive for the fleeting comment. Gore had said that he and Tipper were the models, they declared, to make himself seem more exciting.

Dowd and Rich hadn't been present for the conversation. They hadn't been able to gauge Gore's demeanor. They didn't have a transcript or tape. Indeed, they were working off a single sentence—in which Gore was slightly misquoted! But Rich and Dowd, in a trio of columns, explored Gore's motives for his remark. In particular, Rich's exceptionally aggressive, 12/16 piece is one of the most striking example of grisly journalism we've covered here at THE HOWLER. Rich said Gore was "boasting," "bragging," "inflating his past," making an "effort to overcompensate for his public stiffness by casting himself as the role model for Ollie," being "disingenuous," displaying his "character problem," and "prevaricating." Never mind that Segal had already stated that Gore was a "role model for Ollie" (Rich's column appeared in the Times two days after Henneberger's article). In fact, never mind the facts at all—that's what Rich did, and it's what the press corps has done for more than two years at this point.

Just out of curiosity, where did the press corps get the idea that Segal contradicted Gore? It's clear from reading Henneberger's report that Segal did no such thing. In part, it came from the hazy writing that opened Henneberger's lengthy piece. The article bore a tangy banner headline: "Author of 'Love Story' Disputes Gore Story (Hint: Tipper Wasn't Jenny)." One would think that Segal had disputed something. And it's true—Segal had disputed something. He just hadn't disputed something Gore said:

HENNEBERGER (paragraph 1): Erich Segal, author of the weeper "Love Story," said today that only the family baggage of the romantic hero in the novel was inspired by a young Al Gore.

(2) Mr. Segal knocked down recent reports, based on comments by the Vice President, that Mr. Gore and his wife, Tipper, were the models for the young lovers in the 1970 book and the subsequent movie starring Ryan O'Neal and Ali McGraw.

(3) Those reports were half-true, Mr. Segal said...

Henneberger didn't say that Segal disputed Gore. Henneberger, a professional writer, carefully stated that Segal disputed "recent reports" which were "based on" Gore's comments. She later made it more precise: "Segal said he had been 'befuddled' by the report, which was published in Time magazine." It was the Time report which Segal disputed—and Henneberger's article eventually made it clear that the Time report had misquoted Gore. But one had to read all the way down to paragraph 22 to find Tumulty's account of what Gore had really said. One had to read down to paragraph 18 to find Segal defending Gore's comment.

If future generations are lucky, historians will look back with utter amazement that so absurd an incident could have become a major affair—that newspapers wasted their time on such an event, and continued to misstate simple facts over the course of several years. Gore said he saw a newspaper story. Everyone agrees that there was such a story. Segal "contradicted" nothing Gore said. But more than two years later, this silly story is still being cited by the Globe as a sign that Gore has a character problem. The character problem may belong to the press corps, as we'll see revealed quite clearly tomorrow when we review a more troubling event.

[NMDemDist2]

98. AlGore-08.com, please note DU copyright rules

4. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.

Thank you.

[LittleClarkie]

52. So they're weathy

why would that be an automatically bad thing?

[drummo]

78. You guys automatically believe every shit that pops up here?

Gore started making more money after he left public office.
But while he was still in government he was not particularly rich.
Certainly he was not wealthy. He was in the upper middle class, like millions of other Americans, by the way.
He never had stocks after he sold all of them in 1976 before he went to Congress. He did that because he wanted to avoid any potentional conflict of interest. Gore did not get richer during the 90s. He did not profit from the stock market boom.

Today he has more money than he had when he was veep, senator and congressman but he is poor compared to Clinton let alone Bush.

[LittleClarkie]

80. Point being, I wouldn't care if he was

Sorry, I was responding to the basher's meme. I didn't know one way or the other.

And, actually, I've had to defend Kerry against the same charge. He wasn't exactly Mr. Gottrocks either growing up. Even now, it's not him who's rich, but the missus. He gets toys, however.

I didn't like the insinuation that having money is somehow an evil thing, regardless. And we saw what Gore did with his money a couple of weeks ago when he spent some of it to get planes into Louisiana, and then back out again filled with sick folks.

It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.

[drummo]

68. Are you all right?

Which Gores are very, very wealthy folk?

Gore Sr and Pauline who are now dead or Al and Tipper who now have more money than they had when Gore was still in the government but they are not very, very wealthy.

Al Gore never was a fortunate son. He grow up in a middle-class family, his father did not become rich until after he left the Senate. But that time Al was an adult and worked for a living. He was not rich at all.

Now go back to your cave.

[AlGore-08.com]

79. To start with... Fogarty said "Fortunate Son" was about David Eisenhower

http://www.creedence-online.net/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=9&topic=11

1.) Fortunate Son
Review by J. Fogerty
A very, very personal song, a confrontation between me and Richard Nixon. The song, after all, was written in 1970. "Fortunate Son" was one of the fastest songs I'd ever written. I had it in my book of titles, "Fortunate Son." Hmmm, now what could that mean? "Fortunate Son," the "haves", the people who have it all not a positive image the people who live up on the hill, with their big cars. People I don't respect. During the Vietnam war, these were the people who didn't have to go to war. I was thinking about David Eisenhower, the grandson of Dwight, who married Julie Nixon. I always confused her with Tricia. I guess it's easy to pick on somebody named Tricia. It sounds so silver-spoon. Anyway, I was showing the band the song. I didn't have much. I knew the chord changes and could feel the energy. I had a title, "Fortunate Son," but no song. Yet I was showing the band the structure, my normal gig as the musical director of the band, the arranger, if you will. It was a Monday or Tuesday night and I was well-disciplined enough about staying ahead, always ready with my parts. So I went into the bedroom, sat at the edge of my bed with a yellow legal tablet and my felt-tipped pen. Out came the song. "It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son." I was screaming inside, very intense, but not saying a word. Out it came, onto three sheets of yellow legal paper. "Some folks are born/made to wave the flag/oooh they're red, white, and blue." I always used that phrase, "look at him, he's red, white, and blue." It wasn't a nice image, like you'd picture Carl Sandburg, Walt Whitman or Abe Lincoln. I was thinking more about if you were to use modern examples of people guys like Bob Dornan or Newt Gingrich, people who wave the flag with pomposity and pretension, as if they're hiding behind it. I wasn't one of their children! I wasn't David Eisenhower! When I played the song at Shea Stadium at an anti-war protest, I dedicated the song to David Eisenhower and Tricia Nixon, that's how messed up my venom was. As I was walking in the hallway after our set, someone came up to me and told me what an awesome version we had played. I remember telling them, "Richard Nixon is a great inspiration."


2.) While he was serving in Vietnam, Gore ran the same risks that other Army reporters did - - which involved much less danger than serving in combat. Gore freely admitted that; this is from his 2000 acceptance speech:

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=84

I was an Army reporter in Vietnam. When I was there I didn't do the most or run the gravest danger, but I was proud to wear my country's uniform.


From Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1004078/

The "bodyguard" charge first surfaced in a long story about Gore's Vietnam experience that ran in the Los Angeles Times last month. The story, by Richard Serrano, quotes Alan Leo, a photographer assigned to the engineering unit to which Gore was also attached. Leo says that he was ordered to keep the senator's son out of harm's way. "It blew me away," Leo told the Times. "I was to make sure he didn't get into a situation he could not get out of. They didn't want him to get into trouble. So we went into the field after the fact after combat actions, and that limited his exposure to any hazards."

This quote leaves the impression that Gore was treated specially by not being sent into combat situations, and possibly that he or his politically connected family sought such favoritism. But other comments by Leo dispel these implications. Leo is both more specific and less incendiary in quotations that appear in Newsweek this week, as part of an excerpt from Bill Turque's forthcoming biography of Gore. Leo told Turque that the request to watch over Gore came from Brig. Gen. K.B. Cooper, the commander of the 20th Engineer Brigade. But Leo also told Turque that he never disclosed Cooper's request to Gore himself, and that he does not believe Gore was ever aware of the arrangement.

When I reached Leo by phone at his home in Maryland, he said some other interesting things. He told me that the flap was "much ado about nothing" and that he thinks the use of the term "bodyguard" is inaccurate. For Army journalists in the unit, not visiting a battlefield until the battle was over was standard operating procedure. Leo himself was more daring--or "stupid" in his words--because he was single and addicted to adrenaline. He says he had mixed feelings about being asked to serve as Gore's "security escort." On the one hand, he resented Gore's special treatment. On the other hand, he felt honored to be chosen. And while he at first thought Gore was privileged and out of touch with the real world, "after I'd been around him for a while, I kind of changed my attitude--I found him to be a straight guy."

Gen. Cooper told Turque that he had no memory of asking Leo to watch over Gore. But whether or not the conversation occurred, Gore clearly was not specially protected for much of the time he was in Vietnam. Journalists in the 20th Engineer Brigade would often go into the field in pairs on reporting assignments that were in practice largely voluntary.

Gore went on many such trips, where he and other Army journalists caught a whiff of combat without participating in it. And often he went not with Leo but with other writers and photographers assigned to the brigade. Leo says he has no reason to believe these other journalists got the request he did to keep Gore out of danger.

One who says he was never asked to protect Gore was Mike O'Hara, a fellow reporter attached to the 20th who became Gore's closest friend in the unit. O'Hara, who is now a sportswriter for the Detroit News, calls the idea that Gore was specially protected in Vietnam "a pile of shit." He recalls that he spoke to Gore soon after Gore arrived in Vietnam. O'Hara explained to him that he would have to choose between hanging around the base in Bien Hoa in relative safety or venturing out into the field to report on stories. "That's a decision I'm going to have to make," he remembers Gore telling him. Gore's decision was to go and see the war for himself, often in O'Hara's company. "Never once did I notice he was treated differently or asked to be treated differently from anybody else," O'Hara says. "We all would have known it. If you're not pulling your weight, you're an outcast. (Gore) was one of the best-liked guys in the unit."

The field trips Gore made with O'Hara were not highly dangerous forays--Leo says he can't remember a casualty in the public-information office of the 20th during the several years he was stationed there. But they clearly did expose Gore to hazards he wouldn't have faced had he stayed back at the base writing up press releases. Riding on helicopters, sleeping in foxholes within range of North Vietnamese artillery, and even playing basketball in villages near the base were all things Gore did that involved a degree of avoidable risk.


3.) Gore's family was not wealthy until his Dad retired from the Senate - - by that time Gore was an adult. A lot from the Howler, because a lot of the source material is offline.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h101899_1.shtml

But just how wealthy were the Gores? One writer has told us: Not very. Writing a decidedly mixed piece on Gore just last year, Marjorie Williams profiled the vice president's class background. "While Gore has been lampooned as 'Prince Albert,'" she wrote, "product of a silver-spoon childhood, the reality was more complicated." The parents had both grown up poor, Williams wrote. She described their status when Gore was a kid:

WILLIAMS: (Gore's father) would become rich after he left the Senate, in the employ of Armand Hammer. But the senior Gores' correspondence is full of suggestions that, when Al was young, the family's upper middle-class existence was a stretch. "I may be the poorest senator up here," Albert Gore wrote in a letter to a supporter shortly after his first Senate victory, and Pauline wrote a letter to a friend that there was no way the family could afford a new car. She shopped zealously for bargain antiques and carefully noted the stock number of some shoes she tried on at Bergdorf's so that she might find a way to get them wholesale.

And what about that fancy hotel? Not so fancy, according to Williams:

WILLIAMS: Although the Fairfax Hotel later became the Ritz-Carlton, it was not a posh place at the time Gore was growing up; in any case, the apartment was in their reach only because the hotel was owned by a cousin.

Cousin Grady let the Gores live at the Fairfax for free, according to biographer Bob Zelnick.


http://www.dailyhowler.com/dailies_wk1.shtml

HENNEBERGER: (S)ome of what is generally assumed about Mr. Gore's childhood is not true: he did not, for example, live in luxury back in Washington during the school year.

Say what? But we've read it again and again and again, in all of our greatest newspapers! But Henneberger kept on debunking:

HENNEBERGER: Mr. Gore's parents were both famously frugal and were not well off until after their son had grown.

But what about that fancy, luxurious, and elegant hotel? We've read about it everywhere:

HENNEBERGER: (They) lived in a hotel because it was owned by a relative who gave them a break on the rent.

Some summers, the Gores had to pack up their four-room suite and put their belongings in storage so the place could be sublet while they were in Tennessee. And Al shared a bedroom with his sister, Nancy, who was 10 years older, both before and after her college years.

This is life in that "fancy hotel" we've so long heard portrayed. A four-room apartment, with sibs sharing a room, is the "elegance" we've heard described at such length.


http://www.dailyhowler.com/h040699_1.shtml

SHEEHY (1988): (O)n the last day of every term at his Washington school, Al was already packed and raring for the all-night drive to Tennessee...The population of Carthage, roughly 2,700, has hardly changed since the late forties and fifties, when the family spent every school holiday, summer, and congressional recess here.

According to Sheehy, Gore’s father, who had come from humble roots, was determined that his son would get the best education. But she also described a second desire:

SHEEHY: But the senator was not going to have his son alienated from his southern heritage, either. “Mr. Gore always had him to get up early just like the farmhands,” says Mattie Lucy Payne, who worked for the Gores. Al senior laid down the law: “I’m not going to have a boy who lays up in the bed!” Steve Armistead, a boy from a poor holler up the road, became young Al’s best friend. “He didn’t have any privileges,” recalls Armistead, who spent many a day hoeing and weeding the Gores’ tobacco fields right beside their son. “I guess I was a little severe,” reflects Albert senior today, “but I didn’t want my son to have the easy tasks.”

But it wasn’t all chores, according to Sheehy. Maybe that’s the point Kelly was making:

SHEEHY: As a teenager Gore chose to join a one-room, plain-board country Baptist church in Carthage with pews lumpy from hundreds of coats of paint equipped with paper fans, the image of Jesus Christ on one side and a funeral-home ad on the other.

Sheehy’s profile was full of images from Gore’s rural Tennessee background.

But every profile described the Carthage experiences--the ones that began to seem so “preposterous” when the RNC faxes arrived. Sarah Booth Conroy, in the Post, upon Gore’s nomination for vice president:

CONROY: Gore Sr. said his son has always been fond of Tennessee and the farm. “I think his collie dog, Fido, and Buck, his pony, were his main interests as a boy. Every year, the day he got out of school in Washington, he’d want to head home. Back then, Congress recessed in June, so he spent a lot of time here.” On the farm, he worked “harder than any of the hands” in his father’s view.


http://www.dailyhowler.com/h051100_1.shtml

Since MacPherson wrote in 1988, biographers and journalists have frequently described Gore's experience in the Carthage schools. His second-grade teacher, Eleanor Smotherman, has been quoted in several major profiles of Gore. In fact, she was quoted by Gail Sheehy in a Vanity Fair profile right at the time of MacPherson's piece. We're not quite sure how the Globe missed it:

SHEEHY: He attended the local country school for a few weeks at the start of every summer and when the folks were away on long trips, leaving young Al on the farm. Miss Eleanor Smotherman, a dedicated spinster teacher who to this day brings her own bread into the coffee shop to be toasted so as to confine her expenses to coffee, had Al Gore in her second grade class. She set him to tutoring the rural kids, who trucked in with their runny viruses from hollers that weren't even places, only near places.

If Robinson and Crowley missed Sheehy in 1988, they could have read Alex Jones in 1992. Jones profiled Gore in the New York Times magazine:

JONES: Despite protestations that his childhood was normal, Gore seemed to grow up much faster than most of his peers. "When I talked to him, I almost had to look to see whether I was talking to a child or an adult," recalled Eleanor Smotherman, Gore's second-grade teacher in Carthage.

Jones elaborated on Gore's Tennessee experiences, describing his life when his parents were off campaigning:

JONES: Usually, young Al was left in the care of Alota and William Thompson, the tenant farmers who ran the Gores' spread outside Carthage, a small town about 50 miles east of Nashville...(T)he Thompson home had no indoor plumbing and was heated by a single coal-burning fireplace. Al shared a bed with the Thompsons' only child, Gordon.

Marjorie Williams expanded this portrait in 1998, writing in Vanity Fair:

WILLIAMS: (I)n Carthage, "when he was around us, he never did mention his life in Washington," says Gordon Thompson, the son of the couple who managed the Gores' farm. "He brought himself down to our level. Because he knew, to get along with us, he had to."

Gore's parents sometimes left him with the Thompsons for long periods; when he was in the second grade, he lived with them from Christmas until the end of the school year, sharing a bed with Gordon. They were the first of a series of surrogate parents from whom he drew a needed warmth.

[drummo]

66. I did answer but it is a futile attemtpt

since you are here for copying the right-wingers silly gotcha game with these two speeches. They did exactly what you are doing now.

It was stupid then it is stupid now.

The speech Gore mad in Feb was consistent with the speech he made in Sept. Can can Tim Noah see that while and you can't? Is he that much smarter?

[mzmolly]

24. OK I'LL BITE. "The Socialist Web" and "Common Dreams?"

These are not what I'd consider reliable sources. These sites are both as objective as Newsmax. ;)

Another Article by Common Dreams - which contradicts the first (note their tone toward Gore, while TRYING very hard to compliment him:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0925-01.htm

AL GORE, remarkably, has stepped into a leadership vacuum and said several things that most congressional Democrats may well believe but have been too fearful to utter.

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.''

More from USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack? There is a case to be made that further delay only works to Saddam Hussein's advantage, and that the clock should be seen to have been running on the issue of compliance for a decade: therefore not needing to be reset again to the starting point. But to the extent that we have any concern for international support, whether for its political or material value, hurrying the process will be costly. Even those who now agree that Saddam Hussein must go, may divide deeply over the wisdom of presenting the United States as impatient for war.

From Moveon.

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

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.

I'm convinced that one of the reasons that we didn't have a better public debate before the Iraq War started is because so many of the impressions that the majority of the country had back then turn out to have been completely wrong. Leaving aside for the moment the question of how these false impressions got into the public's mind, it might be healthy to take a hard look at the ones we now know were wrong and clear the air so that we can better see exactly where we are now and what changes might need to be made.

In any case, what we now know to have been false impressions include the following:

(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.

(2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again.

(3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones and ourselves against a grave threat.

More at link above.

Gore was opposed to the administrations hurry to attack Iraq and felt it was misguided from the get go. Gore is at times tactful and diplomatic in HOW he states his position, but there is no mistake when one reads ALL of his words (in context) that he was opposed to the war in Iraq.

One more moveon link here:
http://www.moveonpac.org/gore5/

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

26. I understand that he gave a great speech on 9/23/02

That's not a problem at all.

The problem is this 2/12/02 speech which followed Bush State of the Nation speech in where he mentioned the Axis of Evil, etc.

I want to know why Gore was so hawkish about going after Iraq then? It appears that he was even willing to say that "diplomatic cards could be taken off the table".....etc...

Common Dreams is not a righ wing site. That's I'm for sure about.

Common Dreams stories are not contradictory...it's Gore's words that seem to have made an 180 turn.

Check the dates of both Common Dream articles, and see that Gore gave two speeches.

[mzmolly]

27. Common Dreams is a "Nader" site, and if one reads the 2/12/02

speech in context, it is clear that Gore stressed caution. If you want to find out how "open" common dreams is, search for Clark in their archives.

Also note how common dreams "paraphrased" Gore's position? That's something to be cautious about.

Note the contrast of CNN's take on Gore's speech.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/gore.speech/

They both make claims that are not backed up by Gore's words.

Find the the specific Gore quotes "in context" that you take issue with (paraphrasing aside.)

For example here is how Gore supported the Axis of Evil phrase:

Gore adopted the "axis of evil" phrase to describe his own priorities.

"There is another axis of evil in the world: poverty and ignorance, disease and environmental disorder, corruption and political oppression," Gore said.

Ah, found the original speech in context:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore021202t.html

I see NO support for the war in Iraq in this speech. In fact, anyone with half a brain who reads this speech will note that Gore used the "evil" reference to expand upon the evils of this administration.

Again, lets take the quotes in FULL context:

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means also thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; including avoiding a huge escalation of the already horrific violence in the Middle East; including provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; and having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.

In 1991 as a member of the United States Senate, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to entirely different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.

But still the question remains - what next? Is Iran, under the hard-liners, less of a proliferation threat than Iraq? Or less involved with terrorism? If anything, Iran is at this moment a much more dangerous challenge in each of those areas than is Iraq. Iran is flight-testing longer range rockets. It has loaded up at least one merchant ship with a cargo of death for Israel.

Read.between.the.lines

[PeacePal]

38. Thanks for the full text, Mzmolly.

I read the speech in its entirety. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech was one that I will never forget, and I now remember reading Gore's speech the next day. It was his appropriation and redefinition of the phrase "Axis of Evil" that moved me at the time, and moves me still.

Gore's speech is clearly no 'call to war', but rather a call for us to acknowledge likely sources of Middle-eastern anger, and his proposed policy changes to defuse that anger.

My parallel reality is that Gore, rather than Bush, is in his rightfully won second term, and we are all safer and saner than ever.

If it were only so....

Thank you, FrenchieCat, for asking a real question. I only wish all the responses had been answers to your question, rather than swipes at you for caring enough to find out where our Democratic leaders really stand.

[mzmolly]

42. Thanks for your reasoned reply. And I also thank Frenchie for asking

a very important question.

Welcome to DU backtotheuniverse.

"My parallel reality is that Gore, rather than Bush, is in his rightfully won second term, and we are all safer and saner than ever."

What a wonderful "reality" you indulge in. I may join you if you don't mind?

:hi:

[kid a]

44. Thanks for clarifying this question - we need to beware this

kind of out of context paraphasing so Gore isn't smeared.

Excellent Post

[LittleClarkie]

46. Oh for pete's sake! Common Dreams?!

They do the same shit to Kerry as well. And when someone called them on their use of a Right Wing source that no one would believe usually (Boston Herald, always snarky about Kerry), their comment back was "even a broken clock is right twice a day" but only because they agreed about Kerry.

Since then, I haven't had such a high opinion of them. Same with Counterpunch. A "Nader" site just about describes their points of view, as in "formed a conclusion and stopped thinking right there."

[FrenchieCat]

54. Actually, Common Dreams is an uneven site...however,

I also posted Gore's transcript at the bottom of the OP.

Regardless, of the newspaper articles, the speech does have a hard line to it, which cannot be denied. The speech has some very good issues in it, don't get me wrong, but the Iraq mentions are very hawkish....

That's my impression, anyways.

I don't dislike Al Gore. I'm just saying that even in 2002, he was not the peacenick that some are attempting to portray him as. I like a little reality along with my Gore threads...

Just read the at the link of the actually speech transcript and judge for yourself:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/gore-f20.shtml

[LittleClarkie]

55. Thanks. I like the same reality no matter who we're talking about

I wonder if we put a serious of transcripts together, if we'd see his evolution on this issue. Or would we see an abrupt change? Reading this speech, he sounds alot like Dean was talking at the time, and Kerry, and I think even Clark. But then, I think they all had 9/11-itis, as I said before. Still trying to support the president.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Clark was advocating a different avenue after 9/11.....

Of course he was overuled, and had to go with the Afghanistan War on Terror routine.

But no, Clark never talked about taking the cards of diplomacy off the table.

[LittleClarkie]

71. Kerry talked about "holding Saddam accountable" all the way back to 1997

Though I don't think he took the card of diplomacy off the table either.

Too often the words of many of our Dem leaders are taken out of context. I want them all treated fairly, be it Clark, Kerry, Dean or Gore.

As for Gore, there is alot I don't know about him. Only within the last six months or so have I figured out that at least some of what I thought I knew was RW malarky (the Daily Howler be praised.)

[drummo]

147. Which is why Clark should not be president

There are times when diplomacy should be off the table.
It should have been off the table with regard to Milosevics as early as 1991. A bunch of people wouldn't have been killed by his little genocide. Gore advocated military action against him long before the genocide in Bosnia started. But noone cared about that at the time. And Clinton didn't have the stomach to do it only after Srebrebnica happened. Action to stop the Kosovo genocide came too late, as well because there was the belief diplomacy would convince a nutcase like Milosevics to stop it. Of course it didn't work.

And yes Afghanistan had to be invaded. Clark's "diplomatic" solution would have been good for nothing. In fact more troops should have been sent in to stabilize the south of the country after the Taliban fell instead of sending them to Iraq.

[mzmolly]

114. What we would see are reasoned approaches to foreign policy.

Democrats by and large (Clark/Gore/Dean/Kerry) all warned that we needed to be cautious and think things through. They also argued that Saddam was not the party responsible for 911 and that Osama Bin Laden was top priority. And, they maintained that allowing the inspections process to continue was vital to understanding the threat (if any) that Saddam posed.

In the beginning when Bush said "war as a last resort" ... Democrats thought (ok, I can live with that - we'll have inspections and find out if Saddam is a threat to the US or not) ... as we all know now, Bush was full of shit.

There was no change of position. However, when the Dems were made aware that Bush was lying to forward his personal agenda, the language was understandably more forthright.

[drummo]

164. You forget that when Gore made that speech

Bush was not yet totally insane.

Meaning, he did not propose the invasion of Iraq in Feb 2002, he did not bully everyone in the worldstage who didn't like what he said, he didn't pull out critical resources from Afghanistan to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. This was soon after the Taliban fell and there was no sign that Bush would change the channel from Osama to Saddam.

[mzmolly]

113. I don't see the actual transcript, I see spin?

Gore is not a peacnik and no one here thinks he or Clark are. I for example believe that Gore/Clark/Dean and others have a reasonable approach to foreign policy - not a pacifist approach or an agressive approach.

I thank you for posing these questions as they are sure to be a pre-cursor to the primaries if Gore does run. :hi:

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

41. I don't think...

"diplomatic cards could be taken off the table" means war. He could simply have indicated there were other means open to the West (such as coercive inspections, sanctions, things that are not really diplomatic, but necessarily war either).

I have followed Gore pretty closely since 1999 and I see a lot of growth in him with respect to presentation, breadth and scope of issues he analyzes and then presents. For instance, he is the only (prominent Democrat) one that makes really sweeping charges of corrosive lying by, and corruption in, this administration.

However, what has not changed since I have been watching him, is his unerring focus on the issues most important for the time. A full scale invasion of Iraq would endanger the focus on Bin Laden and his ilk; but intelligent, back channel, non-diplomatic options with respect to Iraq might have actually aided the fight against terrorism (by draining the finances for suicide bomber' families, for example) and that was what he was advocating, me thinks...

[drummo]

163. RE:"I understand that he gave a great speech on 9/23/02"

I want to know why Gore was so hawkish about going after Iraq then? It appears that he was even willing to say that "diplomatic cards could be taken off the table".....etc...

But not regarding Iraq. He said that about the Axis of Evil remark and it was a general statement not linked to any particular situation.
And it is true. Sometimes diplomacy should be taken off the table.

And just because someone mentions the possible use of force will not make him hawkish. Unless you think that Clinton was hawkish when he fired some cruise missiles to Afganistan and Sudan.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. I have no problem with Gore's past positions on Iraq at all

But they weren't more "anti war" than those held by Dean or Clark for two examples. The last source that you cite really is in a different context since the statements made there were post invasion, correct to be sure, but said with the advantage of hindsight, and Gore is not in any way alone in making those type comments.

As to the Commonwealth speech, statements like "warned that unilateral action against Saddam Hussein" and ''If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first.'' indicated a significant disagreement with Bush over the way he rushed the United States to War under unfavorable conditions, and Gore was right of course. But so were Clark and Dean etc.

Your last snip from USA Today included this: "But to the extent that we have any concern for international support, whether for its political or material value, hurrying the process will be costly." Again it was advice not to hurry the process, not to jump the gun so to speak.

I only make these observations because I have seen other posters elsewhere on DU twist virtually identical comments that Wesley Clark made prior to the Iraq invasion into supposedly pro war expressions, boiling it down to "going to war Bush's way is foolish, but I know a better way to go to war; with allies".

To be clear, virtually all Democrats prior to the Iraq invasion saw Hussein and Iraq as at least a potential threat to American security that might have to be dealt with militarily in the future, depending on how facts and events unfolded. I personally had no problem with that position at that time. Some however, like Edwards and Lieberman, supported Bush's approach. I honor those who like Gore, Dean, and Clark did not.

However Gore has not been heard from much about what the United States should be doing about Iraq and the entire volatile Middle East now and for the near and long term future, and in my mind strong leadership requires staking out a clear position on what the United States must do now. Agree or disagree, that is part of leadership, taking a stand.

[mzmolly]

31. I posted Gore's statements in context above.

I disagree that Gore has not taken a stand, I don't know that he's running for President in 2008 as Clark apparently is, so he's likely not as vocal - but he he has taken a stand.

Also, I consider Dean and Clark to be opposed to the war as well. I agree that just about anyone can be taken out of context.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. My post was far from anti-Gore, I said I honored his position.

And I do honor Gore's position about how the situation with Iraq should have been handled. I apologize if I gave any other impression. But you don't have to be running for President to have an opinion about how the situation in Iraq should be handled now. Many Americans have taken stands on that, including people from very varied walks of life. I did not say that it is the responsibility of possible Presidential candidates to offer a position on one of the most crucial issues facing America, I said those offering leadership must do so, whether or not someone has specific political aspirations.

I don't think it is a crass political exercise for anyone to offer detailed positions on how they think America should deal with any major problem, more power to those who do. No one is obligated to offer leadership of course, but there are a lot of Gore 08 threads suddenly popping up at DU, and those threads cite Gore's leadership abilities. My remaining questions concern now, not 2002 or 2003. I respect and appreciate where Gore stood then.

[mzmolly]

34. I didn't think you were "Anti-Gore" sorry if MY post came across as such.

I simply don't think one's position is particularly notable unless they have a concerted effort to get their message out. Gore seems more intent on living his life and keeping opinions to himself these days, than some who are considering a run for office.

However, I understand your greater point that Gore supporters should consider what his position is on X etc. I believe that some here are so familiar with Gore that they have great confidence in his abilitiy to provide a solid/hopeful/rational road map for our future.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. Gore is doing good things with his private life. Peace n/t

[mzmolly]

36. Clark would make a great candidate in 2008.

Peace to you as well.

:hi:

[ourbluenation]

43. Gore /Clark - a helluva ticket, imo. eom

[mzmolly]

47. Heck yeah!

:toast:

[drummo]

150. RE:"I have no problem with Gore's past positions on Iraq at all"

As to the Commonwealth speech, statements like "warned that unilateral action against Saddam Hussein" and ''If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first.'' indicated a significant disagreement with Bush over the way he rushed the United States to War under unfavorable conditions, and Gore was right of course. But so were Clark and Dean etc..

I don't know about Dean but if Clark thought the same why didn't he oppose the resolution back in Oct 2002? Why didn't he say this is a blank check for war and it's wrong?
If he thought Bush should not be allowed to invade Iraq unilaterally before every other option was exhausted why didn't he demand to change the language of the resolution?
Clearly the IWR did not require Bush to get a UN resolution, did not make it clear that Bush can go to war only as a last resort, it did not require an international coalition. Clark knew that. Why did he then say that he would advise Swett to vote for the resolution?

Wesley Clark made prior to the Iraq invasion into supposedly pro war expressions, boiling it down to "going to war Bush's way is foolish, but I know a better way to go to war; with allies".

That's probably because no matter what Clark said he did not oppose Bush's resolution. That's the only thing that matters because without that resoution Bush couldn't have invaded Iraq.

And in 2003 Clark made conflicting statements about whether he would have voted for the resolution or not. First he said he probably would have voted for it. Then he said he would have never voted for war -- even thought that resolution was a war resolution without any "last resort" section.

However Gore has not been heard from much about what the United States should be doing about Iraq and the entire volatile Middle East now and for the near and long term future, and in my mind strong leadership requires staking out a clear position on what the United States must do now.

It is foolish to think that "such clear position" can exit. The Middle East is the most volatile region in the world. You hear something from a pol today and it is invalid tomorrow.
As for the war in Iraq, noone has a clear position because no position can be a solution to this
lost war.

BREAKING NEWS on CNN: Tal Afar bombing

You see?

p.s. Gore never suggested that sooner or later we would have to deal with Saddam militarly. Use of force in some fashion was just one option on the table but never the only one.

[drummo]

56. Jesus, why don't you promote Andrew Sullivan rather

Right wing nuts tried to play gotcha with this speech and they failed.

Gore Is Consistent on Iraq
A close look at the evidence.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2002, at 3:52 PM PT
http://www.slate.com/id/2071500


This speech never advocated the invasion of Iraq let alone a unilateral invasion in March 2003 without any idea what to do in the aftermath of regime's fall, for that matter.
Using force can mean a hell of alot of different things such as launching a cruise missile or covert operation with special forces. If you think that Gore with this speech was somehow promoting the idea that we have to send 150,000 or more US troops to Iraq as soon as possible you are crazy.

There is nothing in this speech which contradicts his speech in Sept 2002 not the least because Bush was pushing for a unilateral full scale invasion at the wrong time under the wrong circumstances.

As for regime change in Iraq? What's you problem with that?
Until it is not an invasion it's fine with me. I certainly would not cry for Saddam. It has been official US government policy since 1998.

What's you point with highlighting parts like this:

" we must be prepared to go the limit" ?

Yeah and what do you think that means? That he wanted to invade Iraq?

The one who flip-flopped on Iraq was Clark not Gore.

Clark Waffles on Iraq War
General Clark says he's been "very, very clear" about opposing the U.S. war with Iraq, but earlier statements show otherwise
December 4, 2003
http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

[FrenchieCat]

72. Primaries 2003?

The implication was that if these other things couldn't be done, the United States shouldn't go to war with Iraq.
From the Slate article

Does this mean that Gore was for the Iraq War as long as it would have been conducted correctly?

My point, and after reading the speech....Gore's words, is that Gore is no more of a peacenick than any other Democrats out there who opposed the Iraq War...

That point is certainly true. It's not about COmmon Dreams, etc....it's the fact that Gore's consistent view was that it was the right war conducted by the wrong folks. I can live with that, can you?

In reference to Clark and his view on Iraq, which you attacked in another thread, is what prompted me to look up Gore's view on Iraq. Thanks for that. I appreciated it.

Obviously you weren't here during the primaries, or else you wouldn't have brought up Clark's stance on Iraq. We done did that.

Check it out!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=315302
Iraq War Flip/Flop debunking
When you open this link, Don’t let the title of this thread fool you...as the Drudge posters are trying to do a "hit" on Wes Clark. The subsequent posts within the body of the thread provides all of the documentation needed to show that Clark’s position on the Iraq war was consistent throughout.

[drummo]

88. Re:"Primaries 2003?"

Does this mean that Gore was for the Iraq War as long as it would have been conducted correctly?

No. Can you find anything in that speech that says we should go to war with Iraq? Or invade Iraq? Or send ground troops to Iraq?

"Using force" can mean a lot of things.
The Clinton administration used force against Iraq regurarly in the no-fly zones. There was the retaliation for the assassiantion attempt against Bush in 1994 and Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
But did they invade Iraq? Obviously not.
Nobody in the Clinton administration ever proposed the invasion of Iraq.
Using force can mean covert actions with spec ops forces and any combination of various operations by various parts of our military which operations are not like a full-scale land invasion with 150 000 troops -- which is what Bush did.

So be careful with the words war and use of force. The two do not necessarly mean the same. And Gore only mentions use of force in his Feb speech. Even that is and IF.
Maybe he or Clinton wanted to target Saddam himself during Operation Desert Fox in 1998. There were some rumors about that. That for example could have resulted in regime change but obviously wouldn't have put 150 000 US troops in harms way for years.

My point, and after reading the speech....Gore's words, is that Gore is no more of a peacenick than any other Democrats out there who opposed the Iraq War...

Gore is not a peacenick , never was, never will be.
He is a hawk when it makes sense and he is a dove when that makes sense. Invading Iraq in 2003 March didn't make sense so he opposed it. But "using force" against Saddam can make sense if it is done under the the right conditions with the right preparations with the right operations.
As I said I'm sure sooner or later Gore would have found a way to get Saddam -- or kill him -- but not by invading and occupying Iraq. This was not the only way let alone the best possible way to deal with this problem.

That point is certainly true. It's not about COmmon Dreams, etc....it's the fact that Gore's consistent view was that it was the right war conducted by the wrong folks. I can live with that, can you?

No, it's not accurate. It was not the right war because it was a full scale invasion which led to a full-scale occupation of Iraq. Gore never supported that as a solution for the Iraq problem.
Saddam shouldn't have been overthrowned by a US-led air/ground war. It was not necessary because he was contained, there was no need to remove him as soon as possible.
The concept behind ILA was that the US slowly but surely can built up a big and strong enough opposition on the ground in Iraq which may get air support or even some level of ground support from US forces but that would be a far cry from sending 150 000 US troops to Iraq and shock and awe and what not.

The bottom line is this: Bush could not or was not willing to separate regime change from invasion.
He never thought about alternatives. Gore would have. Just like the Clinton administation did.
Because Saddam was successfully contained there was no need to rush to war or rush to use force in a less destructive manner. As you can see in that speech Gore's didn;t say when that "final reckoning" should occur. Under a Gore administration it might have happened in 2001. Or in 2003. Or in 2006.
But over the last few years Bush and the press mixed the goal of regime change and invading Iraq together so much that seemingly noone asks the question: if you wanted to get Saddam why did you invade Iraq? Wasn't there a better way to do achieve that?

So when you read that Gore said a final reckoning with the Saddam regime should be on the table do not think about the invasion of Iraq. There would have been other ways to do it. As Sandy Berger said soon afer ILA passed these things can happen overnight.

[Tom Rinaldo]

101. It seems to me you are missing the point here.

Even the IWR as it was passed by Congress did not specify the Bush invasion plan. It authorized the possible use of American force in Iraq, it did not call for an American led invasion of Iraq. There were a number of Democrats who voted for the IWR who subsequently condemned the Bush Administration's unwillingness to give the United Nations inspectors the time that they asked for to search for WMD in Iraq, before Bush launched his Iraq invasion.

You make a point in the post I am responding to that Gore never supported a full scale invasion and full scale occupation of Iraq, but with the possible exceptions of John Edwards and Joe Lieberman, what leading Democrats did?

You said:
" Gore is not a peacenick , never was, never will be.
He is a hawk when it makes sense and he is a dove when that makes sense. Invading Iraq in 2003 March didn't make sense so he opposed it. But "using force" against Saddam can make sense if it is done under the the right conditions with the right preparations with the right operations.
As I said I'm sure sooner or later Gore would have found a way to get Saddam -- or kill him -- but not by invading and occupying Iraq. This was not the only way let alone the best possible way to deal with this problem."

You also said:
"The concept behind ILA was that the US slowly but surely can built up a big and strong enough opposition on the ground in Iraq which may get air support or even some level of ground support from US forces but that would be a far cry from sending 150 000 US troops to Iraq and shock and awe and what not".

Gore clearly anticipated the possible use of American military force against a national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Gore didn't support the way Bush went about it. Then again neither did most of the Democrats who actually voted for the IWR. The argument I and others have with those Democrats is not that they actually wanted a US led Iraq invasion, it was that they gave Bush a blank check which he then used to do just that. There were other policies that could and should have been pursued instead, and those are exactly the policies that both Clark and Gore proposed. These men were both senior policy makers together for 8 years in the Clinton Administration, they were aligned on this issue.

[drummo]

153. Re:"It seems to me you are missing the point here."

Even the IWR as it was passed by Congress did not specify the Bush invasion plan. It authorized the possible use of American force in Iraq, it did not call for an American led invasion of Iraq.

No but as I said when that resolution was passed the deployment was well underway. Clark, as a military man, had to know that Bush did not deploy so many ground troops to the Gulf just to show Saddam that we had them. He knew that those ground troops were deployed for the invasion of Iraq.

Or you want to say that Clark believed on Oct 9, 2002 that Bush sent those troops to the region just to convince Saddam to disarm? Come on.

He also knew that for mere air attacks Bush didn't need a new resolution. Clinton didn't get one before he attacked the Mukabarat HQ after Bush SR was almost blown up in Kuwait. He didn't get a war resolution before Operation Desert Fox, either.


Gore clearly anticipated the possible use of American military force against a national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime.

What do you mean "anticipated"? Did he anticipate that Bush would use force to get or kill Saddam or that he himself would have used force to do it if he had been president?
And if so what kind of force are you talking about? Air strikes? Ground invasion? Covert action? Because Gore did not anticipate a possible ground invasion of Iraq before Bush started to push for it in the summer of 2002.

There were a number of Democrats who voted for the IWR who subsequently condemned the Bush Administration's unwillingness to give the United Nations inspectors the time that they asked for to search for WMD in Iraq, before Bush launched his Iraq invasion.

Yes there were. Which left me wonder: what on earth were you thinking in Oct 2002?
It was clear that the neocons didn't want to do anything with the UN. The only reason why Bush went there was that polls showed for a while that most Americans wanted a UN resolution before going to war with Iraq. That changed after Powell's presentation at the UN and by March 2003 most Americans didn't care whether there was a second resolution or not. So Bush pulled the inspectors out and did what he wanted to do all along: invade Iraq.
Again, at the time when the resolution was passed the deployment was already well underway.
Noone with a clear mind could believe that Bush didn't want to use those forces. He didn't want disarmament but regime change and he sold the idea that the only way to achieve that was a full-scale invasion.

The resolution said nothing about inspections. It did not force Bush to wait until the inspectors finish their job. So how could so many Democrats believe that somehow after that resolution was passed Bush would not invade Iraq?

You make a point in the post I am responding to that Gore never supported a full scale invasion and full scale occupation of Iraq, but with the possible exceptions of John Edwards and Joe Lieberman, what leading Democrats did?

Everyone who voted for the resolution. Since it was about giving the authority to Bush to do whatever he wanted and it was passed after Bush made clear he wanted regime change not disarmament and the deployment of ground forces to the region was in full force by Oct 2002.
Scrott Ritter understood that and was not fooled by Bush's rhetoric that war would be his last resort and that he didn't want war really he wanted to disarm Iraq. Why were so many Dems fooled by it?
The fact is they were not. They were not that naive. They knew that Bush would use those troops in the Gulf and invade Iraq.
But they didn't want to look "soft on defense" so they supported the invasion. Until it became a complete nightmare in the summer of 2003.

Gore clearly anticipated the possible use of American military force against a national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Gore didn't support the way Bush went about it. Then again neither did most of the Democrats who actually voted for the IWR.

You mean that he clearly anticipated that Bush would use force to change the regime or that he would have used force if he had been president?

And what kind of force are you talking about?
Saddam could have been taken out by a single cruise missile and that would have been "use of force". Or a covert operation with a few hundred spec ops. Or using Iraqi forces on the ground with US air support. None of those options would have been a US war with Iraq. None of them would have required 150 000 troops deployed in the Gulf.
But the IWR was about a ground war with Iraq. I don't know how anybody could believe that it was about "leverage".
Remember that resolution was drafted by the White House not by Congress. The only change was that Congress took out the part that would have given Bush the authority to wage war against any country he thought was a threat against the US.
Do you think that the Dems on the Hill really thought Bush just wanted "leverage" to force Saddam to cooperate with the inspectors? In the summer of 2002 the White House even claimed that they do not need a new congressional resolution to invade Iraq because they had residual authority form the Gulf War resolution. Then they saw the polls which showed the public wanted a new resolution so they proposed one. From that flip-flop alone it was clear they wanted authority to invade Iraq nothing less. And if the Dems didn't want Bush to start a ground war against Iraq why did they give him the authority to do just that?

The argument I and others have with those Democrats is not that they actually wanted a US led Iraq invasion, it was that they gave Bush a blank check which he then used to do just that.

Yeah that's my argument, too. But under the Constitution the Congress not the president has the right to start a war. And the public wanted Bush to request that authority from the Congress. So it was clear what the Hill Dems' responsibility was.

There were other policies that could and should have been pursued instead, and those are exactly the policies that both Clark and Gore proposed. These men were both senior policy makers together for 8 years in the Clinton Administration, they were aligned on this issue.

This still doesn't explain why Clark did not oppose the IWR as it was drafted by the White House
and why he said later that he would have probably voted for it and then later that he would have
never voted for war even thought IWR was about war not "leverage" or "war as last resort".

[HardWorkingDem]

59. Think if you go back and look where Gore's position changed...

you will find out that it was about the time when weapons inspectors and the UN were not finding what Bush said was present.

Also, that you will find all through this same time the Bushites were telling things that others with more expertise were saying otherwise (aluminum tubes, mobile death labs, 45 minute nuclear attacks and so on).

This has been a common attack posture by the right and many Americans fail to go back and look at the time line.

Hope this helps.....

[LittleClarkie]

76. That is exactly what I was wondering about

So he bought the bullshit same as many people did. And it sounds like he woke up about the same time I did (well, partly anyway. I didn't snap awake fully until I discovered Gitmo before it became common knowledge.)

There are those who will say he shoulda known better and realized he was being lied to, knowing Bush.

Thanks for the context. Yes, it does help.

[HardWorkingDem]

81. I wish I could go back and catalog....

my own thoughts. What is really strange is that from all the reading and news that I watched, I knew the Iraq angle was a bunch of bullshit, but I can't recall how I "knew" it from the start.

(One thing that didn't help the Bushies in my book was how Poppy Bush sold the first Gulf War - remember, he sent an ambassador to see Hussein and told him that we didn't really give a shit what he did with Kuwait. Then there was the fake little girl appearing before Congress telling how babies were being ripped out of incubators and how the CIA disputed that Iraq was amassing its tanks on the Saudi Arabia border).

The thing that sticks out in my mind is the aluminum tubes and how the International Atomic Energy Agency said that they were not rocket grade and how the mobile death labs were not what the Bushies claimed they were.

Also, I think something else that filled me in was how the Bushies were trying to link Hussein and bin Laden when other more credible people were writing about how much the two disliked each other and that Hussein was actually secular in nature.

[LittleClarkie]

83. For me

it was when I realized that the rationale for the war had gone from "WMD's" to "war of liberation". Then Wes said during a MTP interview that the president didn't have a blank check dated 9/11.

My uninformed, half-sheeple self followed Wes for a while til he didn't make it though the primaries. I didn't start turning toward "Mr Styrofoam Personality" until I found an article about the detainees on Gitmo and was appalled that we thought we could deny due process to these folks until the war on terror was over, ie until they were a bunch of white haired little old men.

I went straight to ABB at that point, and I went and got the only thing available at that point, which was a Kerry "Real Deal" sign. Didn't support the guy worth spit, but I was going to defeat Bush come hell or high water. That was about May or so of 2004. I hung with the Republicans for Kerry for a while on yahoo, and a few Democrat and Left ezboards, then found you guys.

If I seem at all informed, it's mostly because of all y'all.

I kept reading things about Kerry, looking for a reason to like him so I could campaign properly. I didn't think being merely ABB was gonna do it if I couldn't give people a reason to vote FOR Kerry.

I kinda overshot the mark. I think it was "Going Upriver" that pushed me over the edge. I'm a confirmed Kerrycrat now.

[FrenchieCat]

85. After watching the media report on Iraq for a hot minute.....I saw that

BushCo were using the exact same tactics that they had used during election 2000....with the flags, saying stuff over and over again, without any proof.

After Condi stated that they couldn't have imagined airplanes running into buildings, I was more than through!

Some newspapers stories would debunk some of what they were saying....but those stories never got to the electronic media, which is what the masses watch.

When Bush was at 90% during 9/11....I was one of those other 10% who hated his guts and wasn't buying anything that he was selling...and I smelled that he was up to no good. I didn't even believe that the 9/11 plane that crashed in the field had really crashed. I though it had been shot down. Anyways...I always knew that the Iraq story was nothing but crap, cause everything Bush touches turns exactly to that.

[AlGore-08.com]

105. Rice said that in May 2002 - - the speech you're looking at is from Feb

eom

[FrenchieCat]

118. Because it wasn't the only reason that I didn't support BushCo...

However, you are reading my op as an attack on Gore.

As I have had to explain myself for even committing such as sin, I asked the question...and did post the actually speech, although DU rules doesn't allow more than 3 to 4 paragraphs.

My research on Gore's stance was prompted by a Gore poster who was stating that Gore was against the war from the very beginning of time, while Clark was for the invasion.

I conclude after reading the speeches that Gore gave on Iraq, and already understanding via research Clark's position, that they had a similar position. That's what I thought....but attacking Gore poster made me do the work.....and the speech that I stumbled upon was more hard line in it's descriptions of what to do about Saddam than I had expected....as Gore has been painted as though he was more liberal and dovish than someone like Clark.

That's my story.

I'll take the criticisms that have been leveled against me because of this thread. I'll wear them as a badge of honor....

[HardWorkingDem]

124. Didn't take it as a Gore attack...

FC,

When I read your post I didn't take it as an attack on Gore, but as a valid question.

Many Dems did have a hardline approach to Hussein while Clinton was in office - frankly, for all parties, Hussein was a convenient whipping boy. Also, it is very hard to say anything contrary to the conventional wisdom because when one does the "defending Hussein" angle is thrown in your face.

And through questions like yours, the Dems can build a time line to explain how their thinking changed. To me it was logical - the more the UN and IAEA looked around, the more of the US's case against Iraq was debunked.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drummo]

165. Re:"Because it wasn't the only reason that I didn't support BushCo..."

My research on Gore's stance was prompted by a Gore poster who was stating that Gore was against the war from the very beginning of time, while Clark was for the invasion.

Gore indeed was against invading Iraq from the very beginning of time, as he never supported the idea or any resolution that gave Bush
the authority to invade Iraq. But Clark did support it. And I can't see how you can deny that when his own words confirm that.

[mzmolly]

126. His position has been consistent.

If one reads his speech in context (not the paraphrased commondreams version) it's clear that he was against an invasion of Iraq given the evidence we had before us - at any given time. He spoke about how Iran was a bigger threat etc.

His "tone" however, became more bold as information became available, but his position on the war was always one of caution.

[drummo]

157. His tone changed when he saw

that Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Not only that he wanted to invade it alone. And not only that he wanted to invade it as soon as possible.
And not only that he bullied everyone who disagreed with him.

At that point my tone changed, too. This way: :nuke:

I think Gore was a little bit more diplomatic.

[drummo]

155. Gore's position did not change

Or can you find a quote in the Feb speech where he proposed
invading Iraq?

If not then where is the change?

BTW he made the second speech after the White House released their draft resolution. Gore thought it would be a blank check for a unilateral war against Iraq which he never supported.

[AtomicKitten]

89. Gore would have let the inspectors finish.

And having done so, he would not have invaded. I believe that.
Any sane person would have done the same.

[drummo]

156. I don't think Gore would have played again with the inspectors

He wanted regime change. He said several times that Saddam was a bad guy who should be removed.
And Saddam wouldn't have let the inspectors in without a bunch of US troops threatening to invade Iraq.
Gore didn't believe in the effectiveness of inspections since he didn't believe Saddam would cooperate after what happened in 1998.
Instead he believed that Saddam can be overthrowned by the Iraqis themselves with US help. After all that's what the Iraqi Liberation Act was all about. And that would have been the best possible way to solve this problem. Because under the UN resolutions if the inspectors had concluded that Iraq was disarmed the sanctions should have been removed which would have created the pre-Gulf War situation giving Saddam the chance to once again develop WMD unless the US had made a deal with him -- but who would have had the stomach to deal with Saddam?
Certainly not Gore who hated the guy at least since the 80s.

In all likelihood if Gore had become president Iraq today would not be ruled by Saddam but nor would it be occupied by the US. Of course the monkey cannot imagine one without the other.

[AlGore-08.com]

90. The "essential Gore" part of the speech is the nonmilitary part of it

Don't misunderstand me. Gore isn't an idealist who refuses to even consider going to war. I think the best way to describe him is somebody who works toward the ideal, but lives the practical. One of his greatest strengths is that he spots potential problems (and opportunities) before most folks, and plans accordingly. (This is the reason, IMNSHO, that he never rules out military engagement in any of his speeches.)

Underneath all of Gore's foreign policy speeches and proposals has been that sort of thinking, which he called "Forward Engagement" in 2000: trying to solve the underlying problems that can eventually cause wars (or inspire folks to become terrorists) before they come close to causing wars.

Here is, in my opinion, the meat of the speech - - which is anything but a call to invade Iraq.

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=84

"Draining the swamp" of terrorism must of course in the first instance mean destroying the ability of terrorist networks to function. But drying it up at its source must also mean draining the aquifer of anger that underlies terrorism: anger that enflames the hearts of so many young men, and makes them willing, dedicated recruits for terror. Anger at perceived historical injustices involving a mass-memory throughout the Islamic world of past glory and more recent centuries of decline and oppression at the hands of the West.

Anger at the cynicism of Western policy during the Cold War: often aligning itself with corrupt and tyrannical governments. And even after all that, anger at the continued failure to thrive, as rates of economic growth stagnate, while the cohort of unemployed young men under twenty continues to increase.

This is anger different than the pure evil represented by terrorists, but anger nonetheless -- anger which is the medium on which the impulse to terrorism thrives. The evil we now confront is not just the one-time creation of a charismatic leader and his co-conspirators, or even of a handful of regimes. What we deal with now is today's manifestation of an anger welling up from deep layers of grievance shared by many millions of people.

Military force alone cannot deal with this. Public diplomacy alone cannot drain this reservoir. What will be needed is a far reaching American strategy for encouraging reform, and for engaging day in and day out with societies that are trying to cast off the curse of bitter experience relived continuously. Hope for the future is the only way to put out these fires.

(snip)

We must also expand our idea of what constitutes a threat to our security in the long run, and be prepared to confront and deal with these things, too. It is time to accept that massive environmental disorder including global warming is literally a threat to international peace and stability. We must finally develop alternatives to mid-eastern oil, internal combustion engines, inefficient boilers and the inertia that has paralyzed needed efforts at conservation.

HIV/AIDS is a national security threat. It is now the most deadly pandemic in the history of the world. U.S. leadership is needed.

We must acknowledge that the utter poverty of hundreds of millions of people is not a matter for compassion only, but a threat in the long term to the growth and vigor of the global economic system. We must see it as a part of our charge to help create economic opportunity so that the gap between the richest and poorest does not grow ever wider.

Globalized crime is a cousin to globalized terror, and along with corruption needs to be dealt with as an urgent threat to civil society.

I think the problem some folks have is that Gore does discuss some of Smirk's ideas to see if they have merit, and does see at least some potential value in calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea "evil", and does not rule out military action all together.

I think it's problematic only because we have gotten into the habit of seeing the world as only Blue or Red: if Smirk says or does something, it must be 100% wrong and people with progressive values will say or do only the exact polar opposite. Unfortunately, that's a recipe for disaster. (In the 1930s, many folks backed Hitler uncritically because he was anti-Communist. Other folks backed Stalin just as uncritically because he was anti-fascist. But neither Stalin nor Hitler shared that idealogical purity: they did not hesitate for one moment to sign a non-aggression pact when it suited them.)

Here's what Amnesty had to say in 2001 about Iraq under Saddam Hussein - - which I think explains pretty clearly why Gore was open to calling its government "evil", and why he did not say something in his speech like "There can never be any justification for invading Iraq!":

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/IRAQ

IRAQ
Hundreds of people, among them political prisoners including possible prisoners of conscience, were executed. Hundreds of suspected political opponents, including army officers suspected of planning to overthrow the government, were arrested and their fate and whereabouts remained unknown. Torture and ill-treatment were widespread and new punishments, including beheading and the amputation of the tongue, were reportedly introduced. Non-Arabs, mostly Kurds, continued to be forcibly expelled from their homes in the Kirkuk area to Iraqi Kurdistan.

(snip)

Death penalty
The large-scale application of the death penalty continued. Hundreds of people, including possible prisoners of conscience, were executed. The victims included army officers suspected of having links with the Iraqi opposition abroad or plotting to overthrow the government and Shi'a Muslims suspected of anti-government activities. In many cases it was impossible to determine whether the executions were judicial or extrajudicial, given the secrecy surrounding them.

(snip)

Extrajudicial executions
In October dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process in Baghdad and other cities. Men suspected of procurement were also beheaded. The killings were reportedly carried out in the presence of representatives of the Ba'ath Party and the Iraqi Women's General Union. Members of Feda'iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994 by 'Uday Saddam Hussain, used swords to execute the victims in front of their homes. Some victims were reportedly killed for political reasons.

(snip)

Torture/ill-treatment
Political prisoners and detainees were subjected to brutal forms of torture. The bodies of many of those executed had visible signs of torture, including the gouging out of the eyes, when they were returned to their families. Common methods of physical torture included electric shocks or cigarette burns to various parts of the body, pulling out of fingernails, rape, long periods of suspension by the limbs, beating with cables, falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet) and piercing of hands with an electric drill. Psychological torture included threats to arrest and harm relatives of the detainee or to rape a female relative in front of the detainee, mock executions and long periods in solitary confinement.

[FrenchieCat]

91. Well he sounds a lot like Clark.....

But a Gore supporter who shall remain nameless said that Clark was for the war, etc., etc., etc.

So I gave him the information that Clark was not.....and in the meantime, I decided that I needed to do research on Gore...considering that a Gore supporter was attacking the guy that I have been supporting for the past three years....and who I know very well in reference to his stance.

Hence, in doing that research, I stumbled upon this speech...as he didn't really give that many during that time period. So when I read that speech and compared it to the 9/23/02 speech, the tone was so different, I couldn't reconcile it.

So I decided to ask.

Poster who shall remain nameless is still going around trashing Clark as his defense of your guy, Al Gore.

I don't know if poster who shall remain nameless is really doing any favors for Gore here on DU...considering the approach taken. :shrug:

Maybe such poster should get a hold of himself and understand that in Boosting Gore, there is no need to tear down another good Democrat.

"No Democrat can win in 2008 unless the American people believe that they can defend them! The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America, when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats." Wesley Clark, April 16, 2005
http://www.valuejudgment.org/archives/000974.html

[IndianaGreen]

95. "Defend America"?

The last I checked it was America that was acting as a terrorist state attacking other countries in violation of the UN Charter, and threatening popular democracies and democratic movements such as the Chavez Administration in Venezuela and Evo Morales of MAS in Bolivia.

America is the greatest threat to the peace and security of the world since the Third Reich!

BTW, what is Generalissimo Clark's position on Chavez?

[1932]

110. Norman Solomon said this about Clark, and it applies to Gore as well:

But if Wesley Clark is "antiwar," then antiwar is a pliable term that doesn't mean much as it morphs into a codeword for tactical objections rather than principled opposition.

"Nothing is more American, nothing is more patriotic than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable," Gen. Clark said in a Sept. 24 speech. That's a key point -- and it must always apply to how we deal with all politicians, including Wesley Clark.

Overall, a strong case can be made that Clark would amount to a major improvement over the current president. But those who recognize the importance of ousting the Bush team from the White House should resist the temptation to pretty up any Democratic challenger.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4253

[FrenchieCat]

111. Why so coy, IG?

I've noticed that many many still ask me about Clark's stances on a lot of things. I seem to remember providing them the information as opposed to whining. So why is it that I'm not allowed to ask a Question of AL Gore and a speech that he gave?

[drummo]

158. Pakistan's nukes in the hands of Osama's friends

would be a far bigger threat to the world than the US is even under Bush.

So keep some perspective.

[IndianaGreen]

179. The Shias are viewed as heretics by Osama bin Laden

In case you haven't noticed, the majority of the people Al-Qaeda is killing in Iraq are Shias.

And Bush's invasion of Iraq is no different from Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, Hitler's invasion of Poland, and Hirohito's invasion of China. And Bush wants to use nukes!

[drummo]

183. First, Osama bin Laden actually cooperated with some Shiites

saying Muslims had to work together against the common enemy, the US.
Zarqawi is said to be different. For him any cooperation with Shiites is unimaginable.

But what does this have to do with my post?

I pointed out that if Pakistan's nuke would end up in the hands of
Islamic radicals it would be a far bigger threat to the world than Bush poses.

What does Bush want to nuke?
He will not use nukes. You know that. It's not a threat.
Let's not be paranoid like Rice with her little mushroom cloud, all right?

[IndianaGreen]

192. Pakistan is a military dictatorship

Musharaff overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Sharif and suspended the Constitution and disbanded the national and provincial assemblies.

Musharaff's head on a spike would be a very good thing!

[mzmolly]

115. Ahhhhhh,

I get it. I agree that we needn't tear down other Dems. I've personally had enough of that shit. 2004 was a nightmare. :scared:

:hi:

[drummo]

160. I think the poster who shall remain nameless

claims that Clark supported the IWR because Clark supported the IWR.
He said it on Oct 9, 2002, he said he would advise Swett to vote for it. Later he said probably he would have voted for it then he flip-flopped and he said he would have never voted for it.

Those are facts. I didn't make them up.

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

And obviously Clark cannot have it both ways.

[Tom Rinaldo]

166. Swett is the only source for her claim which she made a year later when...

Swett was National Co-Chair of Joseph Lieberman's Presidential Campaign. She made that claim after Clark entered the race against Lieberman. It is her word against Clark's. That is a "fact". I can run through the whole list if need be but we have been through this elsewhere.

[drummo]

170. No. It was AP that quoted Clark himself in Oct 2002.

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

October 9, 2002:

The Associated Press reported:

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war.

At the time, Clark was backing Democrat Katrina Swett of New Hampshire in her ultimately unsuccessful bid for election to Congress. The AP quoted Clark as saying that if Swett were in Congress he would advise her to vote for the resolution then before the House.

The AP said Clark did call for a vigorous debate on the resolution, that he questioned the need for immediate military action, and that he said “he shares the concerns he hears from many Americans about whether the country should act against Iraq without United Nations support.”

But the resolution then before Congress – which passed overwhelmingly the day after the AP article appeared – did not require President Bush to get U.N. support before going to war.

Clark ’s remarks to Swett were also reported by James W. Pindell of PoliticsNH.com, a web site deboted to New Hampshire political news.

Pindell reported that Clark voiced support for the much-debated war resolution in Congress.”



Then in Oct 23, 2003 following a Globe article which reported asking Clark why he said at the time he supported the resolution and would have advised Swett to vote for it had she been in Congress, and got this response:

Because I wasn't following the resolution and I didn't even know what was in the resolution . . . Had I been in Congress I would not have voted for it because I would have recognized that the administration was going to use it as an authorization to go to war.

Swett indeed disputed Clark's account. She claimed that “at that time, frankly, he spoke with great knowledge about Iraq and the upcoming vote,". And at the time she was indeed a national co-chair of the Joementum campaign.

So it is not the question whether Clark had advised Swett to vote for the resolution or not but whether he gave that advise because he didn't know the language of the resolution.
I certainly find it weird that Clark didn't read the resolution after so much talk about the issue in the months before Oct. Wasn't he curious? And if he didn't know what was in the resolution how could he decide whether congress shold vote for or against it?

Gore certainly did read it and knew that it was a blank check for an invasion.

[FrenchieCat]

173. Please note the ORIGINAL article on the Resolution here....

NOTE that Clark would approve "A" resolution....not "the" resolution, and considering that amendments were being passed on the final language of the Resolution right up to the time that it was voted on....leads me to believe that just like the press played gotcha with Clark one year later, you are now doing same.

Also read the whole article, as the context say more about Clark feeling on Invading Iraq alongside the fact that when one makes the substitution of "THE" for "A", what the story told is "a" different story.

http://premium1.fosters.com/2002/election%5F2002/oct/09/us%5F2cong%5F1009a.asp
Wednesday, October 9, 2002
Retired Gen. Clark supports Swett,
raises concerns about Iraq policy
By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM

Associated Press Writer

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country’s move toward war.

Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.

He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate. The resolution is expected to pass the House overwhelmingly. Swett has said she supports it, as does her opponent, incumbent U.S. Rep. Charles Bass.

The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.

"Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and consider possible solutions. Instead, the president has presented us with a solution before the problem has been fully articulated," he said.

"As far as the information we have now shows, there are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to America," he said. "You can’t wait 10 years to act, but there is time on our side."

He said al-Qaida remains the largest terrorist threat against the United States, and the connection between al-Qaida and Iraq is unclear.

Clark met Swett in Europe while her husband, former U.S. Rep. Dick Swett, was serving as ambassador to Denmark. Clark came to New Hampshire as a guest of another Clinton-era ambassador, George Bruno, a Democratic activist and former ambassador to Belize.

He said he shares the concerns he hears from many Americans about whether the country should act against Iraq without United Nations support and about how the United States will deal with Iraq after a successful invasion.

Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports THE resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas Clark's own words indicate he would only support "A" (key word!) resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be reasonably interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as was." Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.


THE DATE THAT THE CLARK STORY CAME OUT UP ABOVE...IS THE SAME DATE OF THE FOLLOWING "ACTION ALERT" TO BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.

NOTE: AMENDMENTS WERE STILL WORKING THROUGH BOTH HOUSES, AND THESE WERE THE PENDING AMENDMENTS - NOTE THAT FACTS ON THE GROUND WOULD NEGATE YOUR CONTENTION THAT CLARK SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE LANGUAGE OF THE RESOLUTION. NO ONE KNEW THE FINAL LANGUAGE....BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL DEBATING IN BOTH HOUSES!

SO TO SAY THAT CLARK SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THE FINAL FORM OF THE RESOLUTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN....WHEN THE RESOLUTION HAD NOT YET EVEN BEEN FINALIZED IS A DISINGENIOUS POSITION THAT YOU ARE PROMOTING! SHAME ON YOU!

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102
10/09/02: Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine

UPDATE: House of Representatives
The House of Representatives is in the midst of 17 hours of floor debate on the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114. That debate is expected to end sometime tomorrow. There will then be one hour of debate each on an amendment introduced by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and an amendment introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).

The BUSH-GEPHARDT WAR RESOLUTION gives President Bush a blank check to skirt the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war, and allows the President to act in violation of U.S. and International Law. IT CONSITUTES A CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF THE BUSH PRE-EMPTION DOCTRINE. Urge your Representative to vote “No” on H.J. Res. 114.

The LEE AMENDMENT would urge the President to work “through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction..." through peaceful mechanism. It is important that we secure as many votes as possible for this amendment. Even Representatives who do not agree with our position should still vote for the Lee Amendment because it upholds the rule of law and supports the United Nations as the proper vehicle for securing a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis.

The SPRATT AMENDMENT will also reach the floor of the House and be debated tomorrow. This amendment to the Bush-Gephardt war resolution is the most important vote in the House against President Bush. Although it authorizes the use of United States armed forces, it does so ONLY pursuant to any UN Security Council resolution that provides for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150 kilometers, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. The Spratt amendment would mandate A SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS, following the failure of the UN Security Council to adopt such as resolution, AND failure of the Council to sanction the use of force to compel Iraq's compliance. THIS SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT COULD USE MILITARY FORCE.

The Spratt Amendment is being supported by an increasing number of House liberals and moderates alike who see it as the BEST CHANCE WE HAVE TO STOP BUSH. Therefore, any support for the Spratt amendment would be important. This amendment is certainly not perfect, but we need to secure as many votes as we can for Spratt to show the breadth of doubt and opposition to the peremptory approach of the president embodied in H.J.Res. 114.

A MOTION TO RECOMMIT -- At this writing it appears that those opposed to the Bush Resolution will have the opportunity to offer a Motion to Recommit. A “Yes” vote on the motion would send the President's resolution back to the committee of jurisdiction to ensure that Bush cannot go to war until he answers fundamental questions about long-term costs and consequences of an Iraq war to the U.S. economy and the stability of the Middle East. The point of this motion is to require the President to give Congress and the American people the answers they are demanding. (See previously distributed alert on “President Fails to Answer Basic Questions About Iraq War”).

Contact your Representatives and ask them to vote YES to the LEE and SPRATT AMENDMENTS and vote NO to the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114.

Click here to see summaries of the Lee and Spratt Amendments

UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.
Don’t give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority

[Q]

92. Al Gore: Iraq and the War On Terrorism - Sept. 23, 2002

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020923-gore01.htm


Transcript: Iraq and the War On Terrorism

2:12 PM PST
September 23,2002

By Al Gore
INTRODUCTION

Like all Americans I have been wrestling with the question of what our country needs to do to defend itself from the kind of intense, focused and enabled hatred that brought about September 11th, and which at this moment must be presumed to be gathering force for yet another attack. I’m speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country which I believe would be preferable to the course recommended by President Bush. Specifically, 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.

FIRST THING FIRST: WAR ON TERRORISM

To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another.

We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.
I don’t think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists who we know to be 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.

Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the 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 his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

Moreover, he 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 any other nation in the region, regardless of subsequent developments or circumstances. The timing of this sudden burst of urgency to take up this cause as America’s new top priority, displacing the war against Osama Bin Laden, was explained by the White House Chief of Staff in his now well known statement that “from an advertising point of view, you don’t launch a new product line until after labor day.”

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. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.

We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible. By contrast, the war against terror manifestly requires broad and continuous international cooperation. Our ability to secure this kind of cooperation can be severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq. If the Administration has reason to believe otherwise, it ought to share those reasons with the Congress – since it is asking Congress to endorse action that might well impair a more urgent task: continuing to disrupt and destroy the international terror network.

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. It is worth noting, however, that the conditions in 1991 when that resolution was debated in Congress were very different from the conditions this year as Congress prepares to debate a new resolution. Then, Saddam had sent his armies across an international border to invade Kuwait and annex its territory. This year, 11 years later, there is no such invasion; instead we are prepared to cross an international border to change the government of Iraq. 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.

Secondly, in 1991, the first President Bush patiently and skillfully built a broad international coalition. His task was easier than that confronted his son, in part because of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Nevertheless, every Arab nation except Jordan supported our military efforts and some of them supplied troops. Our allies in Europe and Asia supported the coalition without exception. Yet this year, by contrast, many of our allies in Europe and Asia are thus far opposed to what President Bush is doing and the few who support us condition their support on the passage of a new U.N. resolution.

Third, in 1991, a strong United Nations resolution was in place before the Congressional debate ever began; this year although we have residual authority based on resolutions dating back to the first war in Iraq, we have nevertheless begun to seek a new United Nations resolution and have thus far failed to secure one.

Fourth, the coalition assembled in 1991 paid all of the significant costs of the war, while this time, the American taxpayers will be asked to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on our own.

Fifth, President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election. Rather than making efforts to dispel concern at home an abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the President is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a “no” vote – even as the Republican National Committee runs pre-packaged advertising based on the same theme -- in keeping with the political strategy clearly described in a White House aide’s misplaced computer disk, which advised Republican operatives that their principal game plan for success in the election a few weeks away was to “focus on the war.” Vice President Cheney, meanwhile indignantly described suggestions of political motivation “reprehensible.” The following week he took his discussion of war strategy to the Rush Limbaugh show.

The foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of what may lie before it. Such consideration is all the more important because of the Administration’s failure thus far to lay out an assessment of how it thinks the course of a war will run – even while it has given free run to persons both within and close to the administration to suggest that this will be an easy conquest. Neither has the Administration said much to clarify its idea of what is to follow regime change or of the degree of engagement it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place.

By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network – much as we manage to squander in one year’s time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine – of preemption.

The doctrine of preemption is based on the idea that in the era of proliferating WMD, and against the background of a sophisticated terrorist threat, the United States cannot wait for proof of a fully established mortal threat, but should rather act at any point to cut that short.

The problem with preemption is that in the first instance it is not needed in order to give the United States the means to act in its own defense against terrorism in general or Iraq in particular. But that is a relatively minor issue compared to the longer-term consequences that can be foreseen for this doctrine. To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq if the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

The Bush Administration may now be realizing that national and international cohesion are strategic assets. But it is a lesson long delayed and clearly not uniformly and consistently accepted by senior members of the cabinet. 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 solidarity among Americans and between America and her allies.

On the domestic front, the Administration, having delayed almost ---months before conceding the need to create an institution outside the White House to manage homeland defense, has been willing to see progress on the new department held up, for the sake of an effort to coerce the Congress into stripping civil service protections from tens of thousands of federal employees.
Far more damaging, however, is the Administration’s attack on fundamental constitutional rights. The idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the say-so of the President or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale.

Regarding other countries, the Administration’s disdain for the views of others is well documented and need not be reviewed here. It is more important to note the consequences of an emerging national strategy that not only celebrates American strengths, but appears to be glorifying the notion of dominance. If what America represents to the world is leadership in a commonwealth of equals, then our friends are legion; if what we represent to the world is empire, then it is our enemies who will be legion.

At this fateful juncture in our history it is vital that we see clearly who are our enemies, and that we deal with them. It is also important, however, that in the process we preserve not only ourselves as individuals, but our nature as a people dedicated to the rule of law.

DANGERS OF ABANDONING IRAQ

Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist group. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan – with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.

If we end the war in Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, “that’s for the Iraqis to come together and decide.”

During one of the campaign debates in 2000 when then Governor Bush was asked if America should engage in any sort of “nation building” in the aftermath of a war in which we have involved our troops, he stated gave the purist expression of what is now a Bush doctrine: “I don’t think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. We’re going to have a kind of nation building corps in America? Absolutely not.”

The events of the last 85 years provide ample evidence that our approach to winning the peace that follows war is almost as important as winning the war itself. The absence of enlightened nation building after World War I led directly to the conditions which made Germany vulnerable to fascism and the rise to Adolph Hitler and made all of Europe vulnerable to his evil designs. By contrast the enlightened vision embodied in the Marshall plan, NATO, and the other nation building efforts in the aftermath of World War II led directly to the conditions that fostered prosperity and peace for most the years since this city gave birth to the United Nations.

Two decades ago, when the Soviet Union claimed the right to launch a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan, we properly encouraged and then supported the resistance movement which, a decade later, succeeded in defeating the Soviet Army’s efforts. Unfortunately, when the Russians left, we abandoned the Afghans and the lack of any coherent nation building program led directly to the conditions which fostered Al Qaeda terrorist bases and Osama Bin Laden’s plotting against the World Trade Center. Incredibly, after defeating the Taliban rather easily, and despite pledges from President Bush that we would never again abandon Afghanistan we have done precisely that. And now the Taliban and Al Qaeda are quickly moving back to take up residence there again. A mere two years after we abandoned Afghanistan the first time, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Following a brilliant military campaign, the U.S. abandoned the effort to destroy Saddam’s military prematurely and allowed him to remain in power.

What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to America’s prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to America’s prospects for continuing the historic leadership we began providing to the world 57 years ago, right here in this city by the bay.

WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD DO

I believe, therefore, that the resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants, and needs to be narrowed. 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. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration’s thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change.

Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.

The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its gravity.

PRE-EMPTION DOCTRINE

Last week President Bush added a troubling new element to this debate by proposing a broad new strategic doctrine that goes far beyond issues related to Iraq and would effect the basic relationship between the United States and the rest of the world community. Article 51 of the United Nations charter recognizes the right of any nation to defend itself, including the right in some circumstances to take pre-emptive actions in order to deal with imminent threats. President Bush now asserts that we will take pre-emptive action even if we take the threat we perceive is not imminent. If other nations assert the same right then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear – any nation that perceives circumstances that could eventually lead to an imminent threat would be justified under this approach in taking military action against another nation. An unspoken part of this new doctrine appears to be that we claim this right for ourselves – and only for ourselves. It is, in that sense, part of a broader strategy to replace ideas like deterrence and containment with what some in the administration “dominance.”

This is because President Bush is presenting us with a proposition that contains within itself one of the most fateful decisions in our history: a decision to abandon what we have thought was America’s mission in the world – a world in which nations are guided by a common ethic codified in the form of international law -- if we want to survive.

AMERICA’S MISSION IN THE WORLD

We have faced such a choice once before, at the end of the second World War. At that moment, America’s power in comparison to the rest of the world was if anything greater than it is now, and the temptation was clearly to use that power to assure ourselves that there would be no competitor and no threat to our security for the foreseeable future. The choice we made, however, was to become a co-founder of what we now think of as the post-war era, based on the concepts of collective security and defense, manifested first of all in the United Nations.

Through all the dangerous years that followed, when we understood that the defense of freedom required the readiness to put the existence of the nation itself into the balance, we never abandoned our belief that what we were struggling to achieve was not bounded by our own physical security, but extended to the unmet hopes of humankind. The issue before us is whether we now face circumstances so dire and so novel that we must choose one objective over the other. So it is reasonable to conclude that we face a problem that is severe, chronic, and likely to become worse over time.

But is a general doctrine of pre-emption necessary in order to deal with this problem? With respect to weapons of mass destruction, the answer is clearly not. The Clinton Administration launched a massive series of air strikes against Iraq for the state purpose of setting back his capacity to pursue weapons of mass destruction. There was no perceived need for new doctrine or new authorities to do so. The limiting factor was the state of our knowledge concerning the whereabouts of some assets, and a concern for limiting consequences to the civilian populace, which in some instances might well have suffered greatly.

Does Saddam Hussein present an imminent threat, and if he did would the United States be free to act without international permission? If he presents an imminent threat we would be free to act under generally accepted understandings of article 51 of the UN Charter which reserves for member states the right to act in self-defense.

If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack? There is a case to be made that further delay only works to Saddam Hussein’s advantage, and that the clock should be seen to have been running on the issue of compliance for a decade: therefore not needing to be reset again to the starting point. But to the extent that we have any concern for international support, whether for its political or material value, hurrying the process will be costly. Even those who now agree that Saddam Hussein must go, may divide deeply over the wisdom of presenting the United States as impatient for war.

At the same time, the concept of pre-emption is accessible to other countries. There are plenty of potential imitators: India/Pakistan; China/Taiwan; not to forget Israel/Iraq or Israel/Iran. Russia has already cited it in anticipation of a possible military push into Georgia, on grounds that this state has not done enough to block the operations of Chechen rebels. What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.

I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

102. Indiana, you are not a Clark supporter

That explains just about as much or as little as the fact that Frenchiecat and Wesdem are. Wesdem started her thread long after many pro Gore threads had been launched on DU, that isn't exactly nipping anything in the bud. It is a thoughtful and even emotional post about an issue, stolen elections, that is of high concern to many if not most DUers. The scene she referenced from F9/11 is not an obscure memo being dug up to discredit someone. It is also highly relevant today in light of the 2004 Presidential Election. It is not fair nor reasonable to expect a slew of positive threads about any Democrat on DU not to elicit some discussion that is less gushing in perspective. That certainly has been the case when several Clark positive threads have run on DU, or Kerry positive, or fill in the blank positive.

Aside from that straight out explanation made by a DU member about her reservations about enthusiastically supporting Gore (you did note I am sure that she also said that she would support Gore if he became our nominee), the only real questioning of Gore that I have seen has been asking if anyone knows what Gore's current position is regarding how the United States should handle our involvement in Iraq. I have seen a lot of Clark supporters, myself included, saying positive things about Gore on these threads also. No Clark supporter that I know has said anything remotely as negative about Gore as several Gore supporters have said about Clark, just to keep things in perspective.

This particular thread is reactive in nature, which I think any fair observant person can see. Once again, there have been posters using their support of another Democrat, in this case Gore, to drag in Wesley Clark while making a series of accusations about him. In this instance it has been direct accusations that Clark was pro Iraq invasion. Those accusations have been made on threads that boasted about how Gore was anti Iraq invasion. Given that dynamic, the topic of this thread is appropriate, and it has led to some genuine detailed discussion, which overall I think is a good thing.

I am not "worried" about Al Gore. Gore is actually high up on a list of Democrats who I could actively work for in 2008 should he run, though for me Clark is higher on that list. It is 2006 for Christ's sake. I am not interested in stopping anyone for 2008 at this point, but I do care about what is being discussed on DU and how.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

117. Gore is a threat to anyone considering a run.

I expect we'll see more of this if he does so. :(

[drummo]

162. Right-wingers already did it back in 2002 Sept

They, too, tried to spin it as if Gore had wanted to invade Iraq in Feb 2002 then all of sudden he was against invading Iraq in Sept 2002.

Which is bullshit but right-wingers do not care about details only
the "overall impression".

[lojasmo]

94. And so begins primaries 2007.

I would like to see the entire text, as reported by the organisation that originally reported the speech....not commondreams, and not a lot of snips from a clarkie with an axe to grind.

[Bridget Burke]

97. Why don't you tell us more positive things about Clark?

Someone who has never held political office has very little background to report.

Cheekbones to die for & steel gray hair aren't enough.

[Tom Rinaldo]

104. If you become serious about learning about Clark, let me know

A man who held formal Head of State status in Europe I do not believe can simply be dismissed as having very little background to report. I could care less if he were bald and pot bellied, maybe you feel differently. I can point you to numerous other threads where his background has been discussed at great length.

[Bridget Burke]

107. With supporters like the ones who 've been posting anti-Gore threads....

I have no desire to know more about their boy.

What political races has he won?

[FrenchieCat]

109. At least you are honest about it in this post....

Although in your previous post you asked that I post more positive things about Wes Clark....

But in truth, you are not really interested in any of what I have to say about much of anything...it appears, unless I have no questions for Al Gore and his supporters?

Well I beg your pardon for having offended other's sensibilities! Didn't realize that this forum was not meant for such things!

[FrenchieCat]

108. Because that is not who this thread was about.....

Some will argue with you and say there are more than enough Clark threads that appear here.

If you don't know more than Cheekbones and Gray hair, then you haven't paying attention. :shrug:

[McLuhan]

122. You failed to mention

that he doesn't blink much,eh. :>)

[ComerPerro]

103. I'd say that this line here says it all:

"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right," he said.

And, did Bush get it right?

Fuck no. He didn't even try diplomatic options. He just sent troops in without any kind of plan whatsoever. And he did so using abosolute lies and forged documents

[newsguyatl]

119. a wes clark supporter

questioning whether someone ELSE flip flopped on iraq?!?!

:rofl:

thanks for the chuckle

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

125. A new definition of bait and switch, LOL

Bait a Clark supporter with ridicule and then switch to a friendly voice of reason. If you really wanted a chill, you could have acted that way in the first place.

But this is just a message board. I assume you are doing productive things with most of your time, same as I am. Later...

[LittleClarkie]

127. All politicians flip flop

And if I never hear those two words again, I'll be happy. I don't like them even when they're NOT being applied to Kerry this time. Why use those particular two words? Have we been conditioned by the RW smear machine to use their vernacular?

Btw, I support Kerry, Clark, Gore, Dean and anyone else moving us in the right direction. I do NOT support these primary era games. The next election is two far away, and the whole thing is more divisive than we can afford right now.

I hope, btw, you weren't insinuating the "Republican in Dem's clothing" meme. I've got a link to cure that if so.

Also, there is nothing wrong with asking questions. If they're answered well, all the better. If Gore ends up being the nominee, we'll need those answers. Ditto with questions re: Clark et al. We probably won't have the ABB contingent next time (which hardly ever works, btw. Ask Dole) so we'll need to actually support the next nominee instead of opposing his opponent.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clarkie1]

187. Clark's Iraq policy has been consistent since day one. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

169. As long as you claim to be anti-war, that's all that matters here

I mean, you can dredge up a certain "anti-war" candidate's speeches from 2002 and read the exact same things, and yet, disregard all those statements in favor of a volte face 6 months later. Hypocrisy is amazing...

[drummo]

172. Newsflash: Gore never described himself as anti-war

He doesn't operate with such empty buzzwords.

But he opposed the resolution that started the invasion of Iraq.
And that's what matters because congress couldn't have prevented the war by just making statements. But they could have prevented it by rejeting Bush's resolution.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

186. Who said this:

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

...

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

[Clarkie1]

188. General Wesley K. Clark

It's one of my favorite quotes.

"should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

:sarcasm:

"sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally (that would be *)"

"more tough questions (about necon policy) remain to be answered"

The way Clark subtly turns "RESOLve" (which * always harps upon) into someone "irrationally RESOLute" is brillant and a lesson in the art of subtle, almost subliminal persuasion. He was writing to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of * supporters, and that is something he does very, very well.

Definition of resolute:
Firm in purpose or belief; characterized by firmness and determination; "stood resolute against the enemy"; "faced with a resolute opposition"; "a resolute and unshakeable faith"

*'s "proud resolve" becomes an irrational blind faith!

Clark 08!

[LandOLincoln]

190. It's one of my favorites too, Clarkie1.

In fact, I regard that entire article as a masterpiece of subtle snark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

189. OK, got one for you. Who said this?

"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people."

Yup, General Wesley K.Clark. Those are the very next two paragraphs after the one you quoted. Clark reeled them in with his opener. His readers at the time that Op-Ed piece was published were in the "Mission Accomplished" ain't we hot shit mind set. Clark also said this in that same piece:

"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West."

Looks to me like "the humiliation of Iraq" horse is winning the race after Clark's concerns in the above paragraphs I cited were ignored. Funny that the same highly truncated version of Clark's Op-Ed piece is the only part ever cited.

So, are you another Primary War veteran yearning for the conflicts of the good old days? Used to be that critics said Liberals were fixated on the 60's. It appears to me like some are fixated on January of 2004.

Breaking News: The 2004 Elections are over. John Kerry got the Democratic nomination and unfortunately he lost (sort of). No one is actually running for President right now. Not Wesley Clark, not Al Gore, not John Kerry, not even Hillary Clinton. All of those people understand that there is that little matter of the 2006 mid term elections to deal with first. They are not taking pot shots at each other. There are more important matters at hand.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

193. Answer.

Breaking News: The 2004 Elections are over. John Kerry got the Democratic nomination and unfortunately he lost (sort of). No one is actually running for President right now. Not Wesley Clark, not Al Gore, not John Kerry, not even Hillary Clinton. All of those people understand that there is that little matter of the 2006 mid term elections to deal with first. They are not taking pot shots at each other. There are more important matters at hand.

Look at the OP. :think:


The only folks re-fighting 2004 are the Clarkies. As a matter of fact, they've been fighting 2008 since Election Day +1. Give it a rest. I have no idea who I'm supoporting in 2008. I can't see the future. The fact that so many "do" is mildly disturbing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

194. I differ with you but will leave it for others to form their own opinions.

Everyone can read for themselves and I am glad not to pursue this further. In case you somehow failed to notice the subject of all the 08 posts at DU lately has a one syllable name and it does not begin with C. But I would love a dime for every time I read a post on DU attacking "Clarkies" for being divisive. The irony seems to escape those posters, but at least I could get rich enough that way to launch an independent media outlet. We sure could use some.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

195. Gore gets a few props over the last couple of days and...

...a whole faction gets in a tizzy.



"And that's the way it is." - Walt Cronkite







Note: 3 years away. Open your mind(s).

[Tom Rinaldo]

196. "Open your minds" . How respectful. Can we stop already now? n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

197. One last thing.

So, are you another Primary War veteran yearning for the conflicts of the good old days? Used to be that critics said Liberals were fixated on the 60's. It appears to me like some are fixated on January of 2004.

I'm not pushing anybody. How 'bout you?

[Tom Rinaldo]

198. Maybe that depends on your definition of "pushing".

You can do a search of my posts if you want but I'll make part of it easy for you. I have started a total of 10 DU threads since January 1st. Only three of those were after April. None since April have mentioned Wesley Clark. Of the threads I have started since April one was an attack on Bush, one was a defense of Dean, and one was an attack on most of the Republican Party.

Prior to April, three of my threads had absolutely nothing to do with Wesley Clark. So that leaves four threads unaccounted for. One could be characterized as a defense of Clark supporters against attacks being made against them, and another thread, while not mentioning Clark or Clark supporters directly did deal with a controversy about proper and improper use of the internet for organizing on behalf of a political candidate, this flowing from direct attacks being made on DU at Clark supporters. That one was a poll.

So let's see, we are down to the last two threads I started this year and still none that promoted Wesley Clark. OK, I did start one thread posting the transcript of a speech that Clark made that was big news at the time, I guess you might call that "pushing" though others might see it as providing information. And the only other thread I started was a call for direct open discussion regarding a concern some raised on DU about the speech Clark made that I posted. Here is what I said with that thread:

"Does Clark Signaling his 2008 Intentions Now Hurt the Dems for 2006?"

"That seems to be a thread of concern that runs through a lot of the Clark related posts today. Can we discuss this one calmly? I think so. The concern seems to be that by Clark telling his supporters that he has an interest in running in 2008 (there was no formal announcement or commitment to run made) that the aftermath will weaken ongoing activities to reform and rebuild the Democratic Party. Further there is some concern that a focus on winning Democratic victories nationally and/or locally in 2006 will likewise suffer as a result of what Clark did last night. This seems like a good theme for discussion. I have my own opinions on it, but I will keep them out of the header post."

My first direct comment on that thread, by the way, was post number 21.

That's a whole lot of pushing of Wesley Clark this year, isn't it? Oh but what about the posts I make on other people's threads you might ask? Fine, we can go there, but I did think it worthy of first noting which threads I saw fit to personally launch on DU and why. OK, you have obviously noticed that I do have a tendency to defend Wesley Clark against what I feel are unfair attacks made against him. This is true. But defending is a reactive stance, it does not occur without specific perceived provocation which does not rank very high on the "pushing" scale since simple "pushing" can be and is initiated any old time. And I can go weeks on DU without mentioning Clark in any capacity. I also defend other Democrats against attack by the way, most notably Howard Dean but there have been others. I did a little defending of Gore earlier today as a matter of fact.

But mostly what I do when I mention Wesley Clark is discuss real issues with people in some depth. I have had numerous long discussions on DU about the Iraq war, in the CURRENT tense, with a number of people. WelchTerrier2 and I have been engaged in a thoughtful discussion about just that today and yesterday. I far prefer that to the tit for tat exchange we have mostly been wasting time on. If you think detailed discussion of real issues and the positions Democrats should take regarding them is "pushing" a candidate, you are welcome to that opinion. I am not shy about saying that Wesley Clark impresses me or why, but the emphasis is always on the why.

Even so I challenge you to find any posts by me that attack any other center left Democrats. I finally commented on one of the Gore threads that have been popping up like mushrooms this week (without one third the hue and cry that greeted any remotely similar concentration of Clark threads here in the past I might add) that I believe Gore's choice of giving the Vice Presidential nod to Joe Lieberman was a mistake. If you want to call that an attack or an attempt to undercut a rival, be my guest. But I also said clearly several times over the last three days that Al Gore would rank high on my personal list of Democrats who I could strongly support in 2008. If you feel that my still personally ranking Gore below Wesley Clark is evidence of my "closed mind" you are free to have that opinion also.

On edit let me give you another example of what I do that you might call "pushing" but I would not. I spent a lot of time on several threads that got started in the first few weeks after Clark began doing commentary for FOX. I debated the merrits of a Democrat in good standing functioning in that role, and I did so through detailed and thorough discussion of the issues I thought that raised. I think it was a very positive thing for the Democratic Party that Clark took on that role and I explained, in the actual context of specific appearances, why I thought so. I did not talk about how that made Clark a simply wonderful potential Presidential candidate, I talked about strategic considerations all Democrats should be weighing about how to best become the majority Party in America again. In other words, in my opinion, there was a substantitive conversation evoked that transcended either admiration or disdain for Wesley Clark. I thought Clark made a risky but brilliant move, others thought he was either setting himself up to be taken down or outright selling out, and the discussion that followed was real and of importance. It was never rah rah "He is a God" like a post praising another Democrat literally said earlier today.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

199. "Nobody" would have sufficed.

TMI.

[Tom Rinaldo]

200. Perhaps. If I had more reason to think it would I might have said that.

[Moderator]

201. Locking

This thread has gone seriously off topic and has outlived it's usefullness.