Here is an inaccuracy in the Frank article:
"Fourth, there is the general perception that Gore has never waffled on his stance on the war. Even though the truth, as laid bare in ‘The Rhetoric of Al Gore: Not to Be Trusted’ by Joshua Frank, posted on Dissident Voice and elsewhere, is less than flattering, Gore has maintained the illusion of a consistent opposition to the Iraq War from Day 1."
This is nonsense. Somebody posted this article a couple of weeks ago and I called Frank on his dissembling by email. I include the interchange that followed between him and me. Notice in our interchange that he changes the subject and implicitly concedes that Gore opposed the IWR.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ME AND FRANK
My last as well.
We will just have to agree to disagree about invading Afghanistan. I agree that the outcome of Afghanistan is bad, but that is a direct outcome of Bush being president, IMO.
I close with my original point. Al Gore opposed passage of the IWR. You presented a false implication otherwise in the language originally quoted. I will always challenge false statements about Gore.
Regards,
Steve Robinson.
Joshua Frank wrote:
I don't have time to respond to all of this nonsense. Of course I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, I knew (along with MANY others) that it wouldn't do any good. Overthrowing the Taliban wouldn't get anyone anywhere (except perhaps a few oil boys from Texas.. pipeline anyone?), and now Afghanistan is a terrorist haven run by thugs and drug lords. By most accounts it is not that much better than it was prior to our dropping of bombs. On top of that it has served as fertile recruiting ground for bin Laden sympathizers.
As for the Iraq sanctions being a morally complex issue? Bull-shit. Albright herself said that a half a million dead kids was worth it. And for what? Again, by most accounts the sanctions only entrenched and isolated Saddam further. The cost certainly wasn't worth it even if Gore says so (nope, he never has said it was worth it, but didn't renounce it either..Silence is complicity).
No, being antiwar doesn't mean you have to be a pacifist. Being anti-intervention doesn't either. One can morally or ethical oppose war, but see a need to protect oneself giving a particular situation. Protecting geo-political terrain in the MIddle East doesn't count as this in my book. That's why I think any rational being would oppose most wars in general, especially when the US is intervening for suspect reasons, or under the guise of good intentions.
As for Gore being wishy-washy. Certainly he has been wishy-washy on Iraq. He supported the Iraq Liberation Act, but opposed the second round for fear that the Republicans would capitalize. Sure, he was right, but that doesn't mean one should follow his lead on foreign policy if all he is after is a political tit-for-tat.
And, that's my point. We shouldn't be following his lead.
Enough Already,
J
On 2/15/06, Steve Robinson <steverobinson@sunflower.com> wrote:
I take your lack of fact or argument in response as acquiescence for my contention that Gore did in fact oppose the IWR.
As to your more recent response, the UN sanctions and containment of Saddam in the 90s is a morally complex issue with significant geopolitical implications. I feel terribly about the human suffering that containment caused and honestly don't feel well enough informed to argue the matter. I suspect Iraq, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is a situation without the possibility of felicitous resolution.
As to Iran, I honestly don't know Gore's stance.
Of course Gore is not ideologically anti-war. Is that a synonym for pacifist? I respect pacifism as a personal philosophy, but do not support it as a basis for foreign policy. To say he is wishy washy is absurd in my view. He was clearly against Viet Nam and Gulf War II. He was clearly in favor of Gulf War I, Bosnia and Afghanistan. Your assertion of being wishy washy is without merit, IMO.
Afghanistan? Essentially the entire world supported the invasion, because it was a logical and necessary response to 9/11. Did you oppose the invasion of Afghanistan, and if so, on what basis? I cannot imagine a reasonable basis, personally.
Regards, Steve Robinson
Joshua Frank wrote:
Uh-huh, and what about the UN sanctions and the bombing of Iraq through out the 1990s? Or his wishy-washy stance on Iran? Oh, yeah and the Sudan, Afghanistan... Gore isn't antiwar. That's the point. He is wishy washy at best, and going along with international opinion certainly doesn't imply anything worth two-shits. Gore gave several speeches during the lead up to the war, most of which were meant to entice Democrats to question Bush's motives. That's not a bad thing. But it doesn't make Al a patron saint, either.
j
On 2/14/06, Steve Robinson <steverobinson@sunflower.com> wrote:
I am amazed at your assertion that "Gore just wanted Congress to debate the matter a bit more." This is simply false, as demonstrated by a quoted portion of the speech in question below. Actually, Gore opposed the IWR as drafted.
Above and beyond that factual inaccuracy, if you read the speech carefully you will find it replete with opposition to the doctrine of pre-emption, warnings of all the problems we are currently facing in Iraq and general condemnation for our loss of focus on the threat of Al Qaida.
As to your red herring reference to Gore not being "soft" on Saddam, only a fool would be. Saddam was a dictator who had invaded two neighboring countries in the preceding two decades, a true threat to stability in the region. Gore's point was that unilateral pre-emptive invasion was not the appropriate plan of action.
Finally as to your suspicions on Gore's trustworthiness regarding Iraq, he has been consistent with international opinion. He supported the first Gulf War, as did essentially every nation except Iraq. He opposed the second Gulf War, as did most of Europe and the rest of the world.
Regards,
Steve Robinson
"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."
Joshua Frank wrote:
Oh goodness. More Dem ignorance. If you read the whole speech you'll notice that Gore just wanted Congress to debate the matter a bit more. That's great. But I don't think anyone can walk away thinking he was "soft" on Saddam. Hardly. And given his history with Iraq in the 1990s in particular, I don't believe Gore is to be trusted on the matter.
Cheers,
j
On 2/14/06, Steve Robinson <steverobinson@sunflower.com > wrote:
Dear Mr. Frank: Below is what I posted on Democratic Underground in response to your misleading article about Al Gore.
Regards,
Steve Robinson
785-843-7163
---------------------------------
Joshua Frank gives the impression that Gore didn't oppose the invasion of Iraq:
Al Gore was certainly no peacenik during his days as serving under Bill Clinton. He supported NATO's intervention in Bosnia and bombing of the Sudan. Up until George W. Bush's Iraq invasion Gore was even delivering stump speeches highlighting Saddam's potential threat.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter," Gore said on September 23, 2002. "(W)e should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Actually, despite Frank's spin, Gore DID oppose the IWR in the very speech quoted on 9/23/02. One sample:
"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 - - "
http://algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=... In other words he was perhaps the first Dem to make a major speech against the invasion. Quoting that speech to convey the opposite impression brings Frank perilously close to Al Franken's favorite word: LIAR!
END OF EMAIL INTERCHANGE BETWEEN ME AND FRANK
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
