He was nearly completely right about the war -- before it began. He wasn't a Monday morning quarterback. As usual, he was out ahead of everyone else on the issue.
Read this speech of his before the war began and look at how clearly right he was on almost every count.
Here are some excerpts:
"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."
...
"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."
...
"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."
...
"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."
How right does a man have to be before we start listening to him? Or pick him to be our next leader?
The Young Turks
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. Cenk,
You ain't kidding that Gore has been right. It hasn't hurt his credibility that Gore was a college student of Roger Revelle who published the first warnings about climate change and global warming. And it hasn't hurt that Gore was a military journalist during the Vietnam War where he could see firsthand how lies got us into that mess.
And finally it hasn't hurt that Gore had the foresight to direct research funds into advanced communication network projects. So here we sit today to be able to deny the lies of the right-wing in real time.
In comparison, we have Bush who snoozed through school (physics? what's that?), dodged the war, and remains some type of fundie Luddite when it comes to information rights.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 7:47PM on Mar 17th 2007
2. the hot air coming out of washington is what is the major cause of global warming.the weather can not predict weather two days away,yet gore can look years away. like our president in 1941 said"we have nothing to fear but fear its self"the earth will be here long after gore is dead and gone. and new york.and fla will be high and dry.all the insane people are not behind brick walls,some even ran for president and lost.
a averso at 8:14PM on Mar 17th 2007
3. The commenter "a averso" obviously does not understand the difference between "weather" and "climate". But then again, explaining the distinction would be lost to him/her.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 9:15PM on Mar 17th 2007
4. NY TImes article= Gore Full Of Crap!!We are getting charged a tax on our telephone bills for something the Internet Company's were doing for free, THANKS TO THAT FAT LYING MEATHEAD "GORE" and the muddle headed Liberals just go on praising Lies and Deceptions!
When will they stop worshipping at the "Altar of Gore House Of Deceit"!
Beeker D. at 9:23PM on Mar 17th 2007
5. Beeker D, I seriously doubt that the NYT would have a headline called "Gore Full Of Crap!!"
As Krugman often says, a typical title would read "Shape of earth - views differ".
If the article you refer to is this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html
then consider that the "enironmental scientist" quoted, Roger Pielke, Jr., is not actually a scientist. You would think he was a scientist since he has his own page at the U. of Colorado, here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/
But no, I kind of doubt that he is a scientist since he requests that you email him to get his C.V. So we can obviously guess that he is just a little policy weenie who has been hounding Gore (as the Cramps would say, "he ain't nothing but a gore-hound").
Webster Hubble Telescope at 9:52PM on Mar 17th 2007
6. I am going to let all canidates running for President kill each other off, then I will do the sorting of the those left standing for the Presidency.
Marco A. Sandoval at 12:43AM on Mar 18th 2007
7. Hey Al how do you explain global warming to all those passengers that are sitting on Tarmac's because of very intense cold winter storms?
Also tell me why Bill and yourself did nothing to stop the wack people who attack the Trade Centers when the 2 of you were in charge? Remember the "6"
ricomas12 at 12:52AM on Mar 18th 2007
8. A president acts on the information given to him, if the fbi and cia say that they cannot confirm bin laden as the mastermind of terrorist activities (embassy bombings), what could clinton do? When al qaeda was conclusively shown to be involved in the cole explosion, bush was then president -- what did he do?
In regards to global warming -- did anyone get the news that this winter was the warmest on record? What possible motive could scientists (the world over) have for promoting armageddon other than to warn us in time? Why don't we just apply the cheney 1% doctorin of pre-emptive action to avoid the catastrophe of global warming? Are you more than 99% sure that global warming is not a potential threat to your children's civilization or their children's?
drew phillips at 11:06AM on Mar 18th 2007
9. "What possible motive could scientists (the world over) have for promoting armageddon other than to warn us in time?"
Grant money.
Ed at 9:07AM on Mar 18th 2007
10. So you are telling me that grant money is the reason why more than 2000 scientists from 100+ countries and cultures and from every form of government (and working in a multitude of disciplines) conspire to create unscientific and deliberately false data? And the 100+ government agencies -- who pay for these boondoggels -- just sign off on the data and methods because are they in cahoots with the scientists? And just to make it really deceptive, these scientists will go off to work in extreme and inhospitable conditions for years on end without ever any thought to their professional credibility just so they can fool people like us and to keep their paychecks rolling in. Wow, of course, it is so obvious to me now -- grant money -- why didn't I think of that before?
drew phillips at 11:07AM on Mar 18th 2007
11. I answered your question: "What possible motive?" It is fairly clear that financial backers, from a policy perspective, are inclined to support scientists whose findings tend to agree with the chosen policy of the backers. Essentially Al Gore relies on this type of argument to discredit anyone who speaks out against Global Warming(tm).
However, that sword cuts both ways.
Ed at 11:30AM on Mar 18th 2007
12. "finacial backers from a policy perspective" - pray tell, whom would that be? I know, its the backers of the electic car, documentary makers and solar cell companies. Everyone knows they are part of the great left wing conspiracy with the democratic party and those 100+ foreign, socialist, green, coalition, totalitarian, conservative, liberal, communist and labor governments that all want to demolish the American way of life.
drew phillips at 1:47PM on Mar 18th 2007
13. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070123a.html
For one... I would encourage you to do additional follow-up research on the subject however. Many of these pressure groups are using policy preferences to influence the scientific inquiry invovled. Science should not be about trying to create social policy and third world wealth transfer schemes such as Kyoto.
Ed at 12:28PM on Mar 18th 2007
14. Global warming is not a theory, it's an observation. Theory is disputable, observation is simply that. The scientific community--i.e., those who actually study the issue--is in consensus. The cause is what's in question--though there's considerable consensus there too.
Gore comes out looking good on this issue, as a proponent of health and intelligence, while those few conservatives--with little scientific backing--end up looking, well, it's pretty obvious.
michael white at 12:38PM on Mar 18th 2007
15. Ed,
I read youre sources.
Thanks, but I'll stick with experts in the actual field.
best,
mw
michael white at 12:46PM on Mar 18th 2007