Reply #89: Why do you keep saying Gore supported force? -- flat-out not true

[AtomicKitten]

You seem to have very little regard for the truth, and I can guess why.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070007

Excerpt:

In fact, Gore laid out his reasons for opposing President Bush's Iraq policy in a September 23, 2002, speech at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club. In that speech, Gore explained how his opposition to Bush's push for military action against Iraq was consistent with his support of the 1991 war against Iraq. He stated that although "in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War," and Saddam's "Iraq does ... pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region," "I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon 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."

Gore noted that "in 1991, Iraq had crossed an international border, invaded a neighboring sovereign nation and annexed its territory. Now by contrast in 2002, there has been no such invasion." Gore stated that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 had made it "easier" to assemble "a broad international coalition" that supported and "paid all of the significant costs of the war." In contrast, Gore noted, "many of our allies in Europe and Asia are ... openly opposed to what President Bush is doing ." He asserted that if the United States acted against Iraq without the support of a broad coalition, it would "severely damage[]" America's ability to "secure[] the continuing, sustained cooperation of many nations" in the war against terrorism.

Gore further stated: "President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 in order 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."

Gore also argued that "we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it." He also criticized Bush for "fail ... to lay out an assessment of how ... the course of a war will run" and "what would follow ... in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place," and for "assert that we will take preemptive action even if the threat we perceive is not imminent." Gore argued that "f other nations assert that same right , "then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear."

***************************************************************************************************

Gore's opposition to Iraq should set a standard
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=7510&pst=447880

Al Gore recently reiterated his original opposition to the invasion. It's not that hard to see the logic in his original opposition. And it makes us have to wonder where were the minds of all of the Congress members who voted for the war? Were they in the clouds out of touch with reality, did they really believe an administration that had already proven its lack of integrity, or were they purposefully giving Bush his blank check for self-destruction? Either way, this invasion was a mistake and Gore's reaffirmation of this should set a standard for the politicians we elect and re-elect.

Excerpt from transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html

KING: Were you opposed to Iraq?

GORE: Yes, I was.

KING: From the get-go.

GORE: Yes.

KING: Because?

GORE: Well, the evidence available showed very clearly that we had been attacked on September 11, 2001 by Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist organization. I think it was a mistake though to pull so many of our troops off of that hunt and divert to an invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us and even though we didn't like the dictator that was there, there are a lot of dictators out there right now that we don't like. And I felt that unlike the first Persian Gulf War, which I supported because Saddam Hussein had invaded his neighbor and was threatening the security interests of the U.S. and our allies and we had support from all our allies, the United Nations resolution, the whole world was behind us. This was different and here's the most troubling aspect of it, Larry. The evidence that was coming out of the CIA and the expert community was saying one thing and it was the stuff they didn't want to hear they were deep-sixing it and stuff that didn't make sense they were ballyhooing. And it's the same thing that's happening with global warming. That's the point. They are doing exactly the same thing on this issue.

KING: Why deliberately? Are they deliberating saying "Ha, ha, ha, we want to go to war so we'll diffuse this?" What's the point?

GORE: I think that they went to -- I think it was like a perfect storm. I think there were a lot of things going on in the administration. I think that Vice President Cheney was genuinely focused on trying to get a foothold in the region where the biggest oil reserves are and he had written about and spoken about that for years before taking office. Karl Rove said on the eve of the war that it was going to be a great political issue and I think that actually played into it. And then I think that there were some in the administration ideologically driven who had this idea that they were going to plant democracy in country with a majority of the population under 19 years old with no tradition of democracy. And it's a, you know, great thing if you could do it but there was a lack of realism about whether it was actually feasible, particularly with trying to do it on the cheap with far fewer forces than the heads of the military were telling them at the time was necessary.