Gore on Iraq

[Dave Long]

Whatever you think of the man, I think it's worth reading this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ext092302.html

--Dave

[AIM]

I just briefly went over the article but I agree with Gore that we need to stay the fuck out of Iraq.

Look at these couple points:

1) We are going to lose a lot of men over there. It's not going to be easy. Iraq alone has 15,000 Republican guards men in the major cities. I believe the Iraq army totals out at 100,000 + thousand men... I could be wrong, but his army isn't necessarily small.

2) We believe that he has chemical and biological weapons in mass quanity at his disposal. This could wipe out a good number of our troops if he decides to pursue this type of warfare.

3) China and Russia...

If we attack Iraq, what do you think China's attitude will be? I will bet anyone here that there going after Tawain. China's mentality will be that if America can attack other countries that they deem to be a threat, then we can attack Tawain because they have disobeyed our ruler and we deem Tawain a threat. What will America's response be? I guess we will attack China as well.

And how about Russia.. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Iraq owes the Russian's about 8 billion dollars. And let's see... Russia is in major debt and turmoil.. What will there attitude be? I can allmost guarantee you that they will be selling there stock pile of weapons to 3rd world countries because there broke!!! Are we going to pay Russia 8 billion when we invade and occupy Iraq? HELL NO!!!

4) Our occuptation in Iraq will last 10 years at the minimum. Can we afford this? Hell no!! We're in a recession and in major debt. Do you really want your tax dollars to go to Iraq so we can build it up, but yet we may never personally visit the area.

These are just a couple of reason's why we need to stay the hell out of Iraq. Yes, Sadam is an evil man but he has not showed the capability to threaten this great nation . He has some biological and chemical weapons and in my opinion that's all he has. Bush is on this personal crusade and it sickens me. Thank god I'm past the draft age.

Get the body bags ready.....

:(

[Jason McCullough]

Iraq might turn out ok, it might not; it's entirely possible his army will up and surrender to us. China doesn't have a physical method of invading Tiawan, either; amphibious landings are hard.

[asspennies]

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/13/Wo...or_noteb.shtml
Feb. 12, 2002:
Al Gore, re-entering America's foreign policy debate, said Tuesday night that the time had come to oust President Saddam Hussein in a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself."

Sep. 23, 2002:
Former vice president Al Gore challenged President Bush on Iraq, warning that the administration's determination to launch military action to dislodge President Saddam Hussein will "seriously damage" efforts to win the war on terrorism and "weaken our ability to lead the world."

Sounds to me like he's only saying what he thinks is politically right for him from moment to moment. He lacks any conviction whatsoever.

That's what I think of the man.

[Chris Floyd]

I was a little struck by the number of times Gore said, essentially, "Some people have criticized the Bush Administration for [X]. *I'm* not doing so, but notice that people have been saying those things." Glad to see Gore taking a stand and telling us what he really believes.

I think the fallacy in Gore's line of thinking here is that Iraq is some sort of voluntary distraction in the war on terrorism. I don't think Bush would deny that by taking on Iraq we are compromising our focus in the fight to disassemble Al Qaeda and track down Bin Laden. We only wish it was so easy to choose the order in which we address these things or, moreover, to choose the order in which future threats become realized threats. Bush's policy, by my reading, is that something should have been done about Hussein a long time ago. Sept 11 has reminded us of the pressing realities of our national security. That's put Iraq back on the radar when it shouldn't have been off in the first place. So now, even in the midst of another war, we have to do what's necessary in Iraq. Gore wants to imply that Bush is pulling Iraq out of his ass. It's more like he's found it lying under a blanket in the White House storage space, to the embarrassment of himself, past administrations, and the United Nations.

[Dave Long]

Did you read his speech? Gore clearly states that there is a need for regime change in Iraq. He doesn't agree with the way Bush is going about it.

But don't let that get in the way of your interpretation...

--Dave

[asspennies]

So I guess a "final reckoning" against a "virulent threat" is more weak-kneed diplomacy and an endless and inneffectual inspection team, acording to Al Gore.

Somehow, I doubt that's what he meant at the time. But forgive me for interpreting...

[Jason McCullough]

I think the fallacy in Gore's line of thinking here is that Iraq is some sort of voluntary distraction in the war on terrorism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ore-text_x.htm

'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.'

Does anyone bother to read source materials? Ever?

[Anonymous]

I'm all for prudence, but I'd like to know what Gore's time limit is for assembling this coalition. Is it infinite? Because if it isn't, and if he can't build a coalition for a cause that he clearly believes is both vital and just, then unilateral action would appear to be his only remaining choice.

[Sharpe]

To: Mr. Asspennies

Regarding Mr. Gore's alleged inconsistency, please review the following:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071500

Here is a more full quote of Mr. Gore's 2/12/02 speech (the one paraphrased and partially quoted in your earlier post).

"[F]inishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in 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."

Then if you look at the transcripts of Gore's recent speech posted above, it sure looks consistent to me.

I think the attacks on Gore, just like the "what did he know" attacks on the younger Bush, are examples of the overly-partisan hatred that is a serious problem in current American politics. The conservatives are screaming about Gore's current speech, alleging inconsistency, etc, without addressing the merits. Gore brings up several very serious issues with plans to attack Iraq unilaterally, right now, including two that I mentioned in another thread: why *right now*? and what happens after Saddam?

Frankly, I think that as a nation we need to have a serious discussion of what will happen after Saddam, before we go in. It doesn't take a huge amount of study to learn that the region is so fraught with ethnic differences, religious tensions, historical hatreds, race, clan, family and language divisions, plus the HUGE issue of entangling minorities in neighboring Iran, Turkey, Syria & Jordan, to realize that a period of chaos post Saddam could be MORE dangerous than Saddam.

Additionally, I think we are already on a slope to future trouble in Afghanistan. The country is still deeply divided into essentially medieval fiefdoms ruled by warlords and druglords, with a small area under the control of Mr. Karzai, who is supported by Americans (and protected by Amercian bodyguards). Despite the pictures of jubilant Afghani citizens after the invasion, the country is still essentially in shambles, and food and medical aid are having a hard time getting to the villages, let alone the work of reconstruction beginning. In the long term, building a stable, democratic Afghanistan with a successful market economy would be one of the best statements of why the American model is great. However, I don't see the Bush administration taking any serious and large scale steps to starting (or even planning) the kind of decades-long reconstruction Afghanistan is going to need.

Afghanistan has less than 10 million citizens IIRC. Iraq has well over twice that, along with far more heavy weapons, caches of hidden weapons, etc. Plus Iraq has serious issues with very tense and jealous neighbors. Rebuilding Iraq is going to be twice or more the job of rebuilding Afghanistan. If we are not even willing to start on Afghanistan, what are we going to do about Iraq?

Because in my opinion, the *worst* thing we could do is invade Iraq and then bail out, and also bail out of Afghanistan, and let the region just descend into inevitable chaos. If you want to see a scenario where Al Qaeda or its fellow travelers gets their hands on germs or poison gas, along with fanatical backing and regional anarchy, then go ahead and invade Iraq with no plan as to what comes after.

Daniel Ban (aka Sharpe)

Tom Clancy quote deleted to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of Mr. Chick.

[Dave Long]

Does anyone bother to read source materials? Ever?

Posting the same thing again from a different source won't change his mind. If he read it, he'd be forced to at least think about it. Much easier to take the media's clipped out blurbs and use those to support his opinion.

--Dave

[voltaic]

Didn't Gore invent Iraq?

[asspennies]

But he's not arguing for eventual toppling of the Iraqi regime. Read the speech. He's arguing not to touch Iraq at all - only that 'other options remain open' - for various reasons.

One - it will distract against our war against "Al Qaeda" - even though there has never been anything of the sort said that would indicate the war effort is directed solely against Al Qaeda - they were just our first target. Bush said as much in his address to congress. He also said that the war would not be easy, it would not be short, and it would not involve a pure "victory" moment. He got a standing Ovation. How quickly people forget.

Two - it will hurt the "goodwill" we received "after the Sept 11 attacks." I don't know about you, but if the way we get goodwill is by the killing of 3000 people, I don't want it.

He argues quite vehemently that "now is not the time" for fighting Iraq without any real justification - only that 'things are still happening in Afghanistan,' to paraphrase. Then he goes on to outright SAY that Bush has "abandoned" Afghanistan without any evidence or proof - or any regard to the thousands of troops still there. Things are going to be happening there for YEARS - and waiting for years while this Saddam is stockpiling weapons and perhaps getting a hold of nukes is pretty bad policy, IMO.

Makes me wonder what would have happened would Gore have been president during Sept 11th. Can you say "fire some tomohawks at a few empty terrorist camps?"

[Jason McCullough]

Jesus fucking christ. I can see you've studied at the Jonah Goldberg school of mendaciousness.

Al Gore, yesterday:

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.

My ass he's arguing not to touch them at all. That people seriously think the Al Gore who actually went to Vietnam (unlike a certain GOP candidate who went AWOL for a few months from his position in the National Guard), who supported Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq I, Panama, Grenada, and opposes the lifting of sanctions on Cuba, is some sort of hippie peacenik, drives me up the wall.

Oh, and Bush has abandoned Afghanistan, flat out. Our troops don't leave the capital, except on missions to find members of Al Qeuda. Bush is holding up $80 milliion he promised the president to build a new road on his visit to NY, leaving his underlings to only give him $20 million (and here's the kicker) it has to come out of aid money already allocated to stuff like food. There was an assassination attempt on the president a short while ago.

[Brad Grenz]

So, we should only go after Iraq with an international force, but the security of Afghanistan is our sole responcibility? This is part of that thing where the world resents the US for acting as the world's police force while at the same time refusing to lend a hand. If Europeans are all so worried about Afghanistan outside of Kabul, then why don't they commit the troops for the peacekeeping effort? Oh, yeah. Because it would turn into a complete clusterfuck trying to reign in all the warlords. That, coincidentally, is the same reason the US doesn't do it themselves.

I'm, frankly, disappointed by how eagerly Gore has bought into the international rhetoric. It's awful easy to say uninformed, yet popular, things once you're out of office and out of the loop. The Democratic leaders in Congress don't go around shooting their mouths off about this stuff with contrarian statements, presumably because they know better.

[Jason McCullough]

Multilateralism isn't unpopular. Only 37% in polls support the U.S. invading Iraq without any allies.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and Bush has abandoned Afghanistan, flat out.

Ah... quite the mendacious statement considering the recent infusion of US and allied com and noncom troops in the AO. You obviously have narry a clue about LIC, or how things work in this particular theater of operation.

Raphael

[Sharpe]

So, we should only go after Iraq with an international force, but the security of Afghanistan is our sole responcibility? This is part of that thing where the world resents the US for acting as the world's police force while at the same time refusing to lend a hand. If Europeans are all so worried about Afghanistan outside of Kabul, then why don't they commit the troops for the peacekeeping effort? Oh, yeah. Because it would turn into a complete clusterfuck trying to reign in all the warlords. That, coincidentally, is the same reason the US doesn't do it themselves.

Here's the problem: if the warlords don't get reigned in, the same kind of chaotic power vacuum that produced the Taliban will recur. And if that kind of vacuum occurs in post-Saddam Iraq, then the vacuum will be filled by minority splinter states, with dangerous consequences for neighboring countries. As to making the rebuilding effort multilateral, sure we should definitely try to do that. But since we lead the coalition into Afghanistan and will lead once again in Iraq, it will be on us lead the coalition to rebuild things. My specific beef with Bush on Afghanistan is that I don't see them having a clear *plan* to rebuild - I don't see them organizing a big coalition to share the costs, setting up long term plans, etc.

Look, I'm no fan of the endless demogogery and parliamentary maneuvering of the UN. But I am concerned about taking on these heavy responsibilites by ourselves for 2 reasons:

1)Acting unilaterally, to put it bluntly, makes us look arrogant and stubborn - maybe we figure all our allies are milquetoast weenies who can't carry their water but if we act like that's what we think, then don't be surprised when they think we are self centered arrogant bastards. In an increasingly globalized economy, international goodwill is not something you just cheaply throw away.

2)Bearing all the cost by ourselves, economically, militarily, and politically is very foolish when the entire world will be benefitted by the removal of the danger. It makes sense to share the burden. Look, I don't want to go hat in hand begging to the UN but it seems to me that if we have a strong enough case to justify our immediate action then we should be able to convince some major and regional allies to help us.

And lastly, in terms of the current frenzy about Iraq, I remain concerned that there are motives of short term political gain motivating the Bush team. There are clearly issues in this country that Bush has potential problems with (especially the economy) and the Iraq debate, in its full raging talk-radio frenzy, sure feels like a distraction to me.

Daniel Ban (aka Sharpe)

[Bub, Andrew]

Oh, and Bush has abandoned Afghanistan, flat out.

Ah... quite the mendacious statement considering the recent infusion of US and allied com and noncom troops in the AO. You obviously have narry a clue about LIC, or how things work in this particular theater of operation.
Raphael

Raphael, I wish you'd register, it would help people who don't know you see that you're actually a credible poster in a thread like this. Rather than some fly-by-night guest. Also, SF Commando... where'd you get that? San Francisco Commando? :)

[Reeko]

Al Gore who actually went to Vietnam

Yeah, as a photographer/journalist. His duty was probably as dangerous as W taking off in jet fighters.

[Matthew Gallant]

Every American in Vietnam was in danger, 24 hours a day. Journalist or not. Ask Daniel Pearl how safe journalism in an unstable foreign country is.

[Chris Floyd]

Does anyone bother to read source materials? Ever?

Posting the same thing again from a different source won't change his mind. If he read it, he'd be forced to at least think about it. Much easier to take the media's clipped out blurbs and use those to support his opinion.

Excuse me? I read the speech (until Dave's source ended abruptly; haven't read the usatoday transcript) and responded with my thoughts about it. I'm a little surprised that some of the more respectable posters on this forum couldn't even give me the benefit of the doubt that I've read the thing. I post about what I see as weaknesses in Gore's argument, and you guys post about my incompetence? Thanks. I myself am thankful Dave posted the speech, as I had only heard clips on NPR, and I'm interested to hear other viewpoints on this debate. I somehow thought Dave was interested in the same thing.

To respond to Jason's accusation, I apologize for saying "Iraq" when what I meant was "the question of an immediate attack on Iraq is some sort of voluntary distraction in the war on terrorism." The key difference between Bush and Gore here is that Gore thinks we should spend time (as someone else points out, he doesn't state how long) building up an international coalition to deal with the situation. Bush, as evidenced by his speech at the United Nations which I'm assuming you've al read carefully, would like to have an international coalition, but believes that the threat is grave enough that America must be willing to act in the circumstance that that coalition does not come together.

The centerpiece of Gore's speech, as I read it, was that America has more important things to do now -- like continue to dismantle Al Qaeda and support Afghanistan -- than to attack Iraq. If he didn't believe that a military campaign in Iraq would remove the focus from those other goals, why did he spend so much time talking about "focus" at the beginning of his speech? I can tell that Gore sees Hussein as a threat -- as any intelligent politician should. I'm not accusing Gore of dismissing Saddam or anything like that. The difference, obviously, is one of urgency and priority. The point of my first post was to say that all the issues Gore very astutely brings up are, I believe, in all practicality, of equal priority, including removing Saddam *immediately*. I think this is where Bush stands as well.

So, do I get the benefit of the doubt for being a thoughtful contributor to this conversation, or are you going to assume that I've just been reading "media blurbs" or Jonah Goldberg columns instead of the speech in discussion?

[Dave Long]

Substitute "asspennies" for "his" in the above quoted paragraph and then relax.

--Dave

[Chris Floyd]

Okay, so I suspected that might have been your intention, Dave, but then pay close attention to the fact that Jason's post was a response to *mine*, not asspennies'.

[Jason McCullough]

Does anyone bother to read source materials? Ever?

Posting the same thing again from a different source won't change his mind. If he read it, he'd be forced to at least think about it. Much easier to take the media's clipped out blurbs and use those to support his opinion.

To respond to Jason's accusation, I apologize for saying "Iraq" when what I meant was "the question of an immediate attack on Iraq is some sort of voluntary distraction in the war on terrorism." The key difference between Bush and Gore here is that Gore thinks we should spend time (as someone else points out, he doesn't state how long) building up an international coalition to deal with the situation. Bush, as evidenced by his speech at the United Nations which I'm assuming you've al read carefully, would like to have an international coalition, but believes that the threat is grave enough that America must be willing to act in the circumstance that that coalition does not come together.

The centerpiece of Gore's speech, as I read it, was that America has more important things to do now -- like continue to dismantle Al Qaeda and support Afghanistan -- than to attack Iraq. If he didn't believe that a military campaign in Iraq would remove the focus from those other goals, why did he spend so much time talking about "focus" at the beginning of his speech? I can tell that Gore sees Hussein as a threat -- as any intelligent politician should. I'm not accusing Gore of dismissing Saddam or anything like that. The difference, obviously, is one of urgency and priority. The point of my first post was to say that all the issues Gore very astutely brings up are, I believe, in all practicality, of equal priority, including removing Saddam *immediately*. I think this is where Bush stands as well.

So, do I get the benefit of the doubt for being a thoughtful contributor to this conversation, or are you going to assume that I've just been reading "media blurbs" or Jonah Goldberg columns instead of the speech in discussion?

This is the first thoughtful post you've put in this thread, Chris. And interestingly, Gore doesn't actually rule out unilateral action anywhere in the speech; he just doesn't like Bush's approach.

Like Gore, I don't buy the immediate argument. If he's on the verge of getting a nuke together, why has Bush been sitting on his ass for months about this? Why can't he share some of his evidence (which is apparently contradictary enough that Rumsfield doesn't think he's imminently going to get it.)

Ah... quite the mendacious statement considering the recent infusion of US and allied com and noncom troops in the AO. You obviously have narry a clue about LIC, or how things work in this particular theater of operation.
Raphael

I may not know your buzzwords, but a) U.S. troops only leave the capital on Al Queda hunting missions and b) we're withholding virtually all funds.

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mh...ditorial093002

[Anonymous]

I may not know your buzzwords, but a) U.S. troops only leave the capital on Al Queda hunting missions and b) we're withholding virtually all funds.

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mh...ditorial093002

Again, you, like the author from the New Republic, understand little about the conduct of this war. The paramaters of Low Intensity Conflict aka LIC, cannot be highlighted on a newsreel or politicized in a half-baked opine peice. However, your lack of knowledge (as with the New Republic's article) concerning what exactly US and allied troops are accomplishing in the region, especially considering the host of FID and UW ops, is understandable. You're not in the Stans nor at the command center, so you wouldn't know.

What Civil Affairs, PsyOps, Seabees, and other noncom units are tasked to do in this theater will bear fruition as soon as rags like The New Republic decide to report it. Last I heard, three schools, two hospitals, a mosque, were rebuilt last month with US assistance. What about our money pouring into training and equiping the new Afghan army? How about the humantarian assistance aka food and medical supplies being distributed throughout the region? The list goes on.

Raphael, I wish you'd register, it would help people who don't know you see that you're actually a credible poster in a thread like this. Rather than some fly-by-night guest.

Andrew, you could always check my IP. ;-)

Raphael

[Anonymous]

1. I'm glad someone in the Democratic party finally took it upon themselves to do their civic duty and put themselves in the path of the unaccountable locomotive of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration. Right or wrong, both Gore and Daschle are upholding the highest ideals of our democracy by insisting that there be some kind of conscionable democratic accord before we embark on an invasion.

2. I've got a lot of respect for anyone who made it through qualifying and Robin Sage, but Raphael, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where our leaders were accountable to Congress?

[voltaic]

I sure could use a peanut-butter and jelly sandwhich right now.

[Anonymous]

1. I'm glad someone in the Democratic party finally took it upon themselves to do their civic duty and put themselves in the path of the unaccountable locomotive of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration. Right or wrong, both Gore and Daschle are upholding the highest ideals of our democracy by insisting that there be some kind of conscionable democratic accord before we embark on an invasion.

I agree with you to an extent. Free speech is what makes the United States a decent country. However, I do feel Daschle and Gore are talking out of both sides of their mouths. A couple of years ago, they were gung ho about doing the deed. Now, all of a sudden, it's the complete opposite. It just seems like PURE politics to me.

FWIW, most people are missing the actual point to this whole debate, which is, Saddam has been violating UN resolutions for many years, while continuously firing AAA at the UN-backed aircraft in the NO FLY ZONE. Whether or not he has WMD should be of secondary concern. If the UN is to be taken seriously, they must act in accordance with the resolutions they dictate. Otherwise, they are a paper tiger, and leaders like Saddam, will rarely be held accountable for the infractions they incur.

Unfortunately, the UN has a long and tarnished history of negating conflict. Just look at the recent examples: Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia, Khasmir, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. No matter the reasons, as an organization, the UN hasn't helped stop the bloodshed in any of these conflicts. Which begs the question on whether the US should sit on the sidelines while the UN continues to allow Iraq to dictate the tempo of this whole fiasco.

2. I've got a lot of respect for anyone who made it through qualifying and Robin Sage, but Raphael, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where our leaders were accountable to Congress?

I appreciate the respect, Daniel. In a perfect world, yes. The Supreme Court should be held accountable to Congress, Congress to the President, the President to the Supreme Court, and vice versa, etc. The US government was designed with checks and balances in mind. However, considering more than half of congress already supports action at some level against Iraq, as they always have, I think accountability on this matter is working. FWIW, I do believe the President is currently posturing, and in so doing, creating a stronger National and International consensus. This is what Gore and Daschle are doing, but purely for political reasons, IMHO. They all have the right, and it's nothing new. What's interesting here, is the President's administration wanting to tackle the Saddam problem well before 11 SEP. This is documented. Unfortuantely, this possible action against Saddam has suddently transformed into a hot political debate because of the upcoming election. All other factors have taken a back seat. Herein lies the weakness of a democracy (or federal republic)... but this comment should be reserved for another thread.

On a lighter note, you still playing GR? :wink:

Raphael

[Anonymous]

Just got Island Thunder, bad boy. Who needs Iraq?