Yesterday, I demonstrated Al Gore's incorrigible phoniness. This is a man who pledged upon his sister's death from lung cancer to "pour his heart and soul" into taking on the tobacco industry, but then campaigned on his affection for tobacco and took campaign contributions from the industry. And this is a man whose lifestyle represents the antithesis of what would be required to make a dent in dealing with the global warning problem which has become the centerpiece of his attempt to return to the limelight.
Hoping perhaps to redeem Gore, Cenk Uygur links to a speech the former Vice President gave before the war in Iraq. Uygur calls Gore's remarks "prescient." It turns out, however, that Gore's core predictions and analysis were wrong in nearly every particular.
First, though, let's give Gore some credit. He was correct in noting that "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf." He was also correct that "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." Gore may have incorrect in stating that "we know [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemicals throughout his country," but that's what our intelligence agencies had been saying for years (including during Gore's time as VP), so his mistake here was understandable.
Why, then, did Gore think we should not take military action to remove the threat he acknowledged Saddam posed? His speech asserts four main reasons, all of which turned out to be misguided.
Gore was concerned that our troops would be subject to attacks with the biological and/or chemical weapons he was sure Saddam possessed. That, of course, did not happen.
Gore was also concerned that proceeding in the face of opposition from many of our allies would "severely damage" our "ability to secure [their] cooperation" in the war on terror. It's true that France and some other European countries were far from pleased with our invasion of Iraq (France, of course, had economic relationships with Saddam's government). But there's no evidence of any diminution of cooperation in fighting terrorism. As far as I can tell, we continue to exchange information with nations like France. Indeed, such exchanges appear to have been instrumental in preventing our homeland from being successfully attacked in the nearly five years since Gore gave his speech. Our relations with Germany have improved with the election of Angela Merkel, and our relations with France have thawed as the anti-American foreign minister de Villepin lost influence. If Sarkozy wins the French election in May (he's ahead in the polls) France will have a generally pro-American leader.
Third, Gore was concerned that we would abandon Iraq after we toppled Saddam. Indeed, he criticized the first president Bush for his "hasty departure from the battlefield" after the 1991 war with Iraq. There is plenty to criticize about the current administration's post-invasion actions in Iraq, but Gore got it exactly wrong in suggesting that we would abandon Iraq. Ironically, Gore has been leading the charge for such an abandonment -- the policy he wisely warned against in his 2002 speech.
Finally, Gore was concerned about the Bush administration's use of the doctrine of preemption as a basis for attacking Iraq. Gore postulated that the use of this doctrine in Iraq logically would suggest "a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc." But there has been no such string of engagements. It now appears that Iraq was a one-off engagement to enforce U.N. resolutions, remedy what Gore called our premature abandonment of the battlefield in 1991, and deal with the threat Gore agreed Iraq posed.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 4)
1. sir, you're repeating yourself. It's getting boring.
michael white at 1:13PM on Mar 18th 2007
2. What is the point of this rambling. Gore was right that we should not have been involved in Iraq. He bought the lies of the administration - not the intelligence community or the weapons inspectors who have now come foreward with their communications stating the lack of evidence. Where is the 'proof' that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld repeatedly said they had? As for detering WMD, it was accomplished. Iraq had none. As for UN mandates, they had been enforced before the war ever started. You buy into the fictions that were used to start the war, then you call Gore a phoney? This is nonsense.
Tom in Phoenix at 1:59PM on Mar 18th 2007
3. You bet Al Gore is phony. If we all take the natural steps to address
this "man made" Global Warming, we should suspend building all new Coal
electric plants,build nuclear plants for electricity, and put
windmills off the coasts. We should not even consider rebuilding New Orleans
in its present location, because it will be 17 feet below sea level
by the end of this century. Why spend billions or even trillions on
a place that will be washed away with even a small hurricane?
If you confront Al Gore with those logical actions, he will run for
cover! If us suggest nuclear power to replace greenhouse generating plants,
all the liberals run for cover. Ask Teddy Kennedy and Barbara Boxer about
Electric Windwills off the coast of their states and watch the reaction.
Larry Zini at 1:37PM on Mar 18th 2007
4. It is without a doubt that there is something bad happening with this planet. For or against Al Gore is not the issiue here at all. The issieu is that if we humans don't start doing something about all the waist we have been putting on this planet for years it will sooner or later come to work against us all.
Why are some people so self centered and ignorent?
Why is it that some people make the dummest comments when it comes to global warming.Are they blind?
If it is because of a religious reason then consider this. If it is your god that has controle over this earth well then he sure is in deep trouble and if that is because you blam all the sinners out there concider yourself as one to and start by changing your way of life, your out look on others.
Whjatever you may think it is this planet and all that is opn it is in deep trouble.
Al at 2:31PM on Mar 18th 2007
5. Really now, most if not all the Dem's forget what they stated way back BEFORE Iraq concerning WMD's and various other reasons for going into Iraq. Al Gore isn't different. They convince themselves that it was all a Republican plot and that all the intelligence gathered before the invasion was strictly done by Republicans, not Democrat's. Al Gore and every one these Dem's yelling about the warming of the planet have more than enough money to "off set" their usage of the planet's resources, but what about the middle and lower "CLASS" citizens? I know I can not afford "off-set's" so where can I cut my usage? The Dem's are set to lose the war on terror just so they can place the blame on President Bush. They want more American's to suffer, not just in Iraq, but here in the USA because in the long run, they feel that they will win all the power they've lost over the last dozen or so years. And that is they end goal of their game. To have all the power and money in their hands so they can dictate who gets waht and how much.
Cash Smith at 2:43PM on Mar 18th 2007
6. 1. Bush makes up reasons after the fact for the Iraq conflict.
2. Gore makes up reasons to not go into Iraq.
["Gore was concerned that our troops would be subject to attacks with the biological and/or chemical weapons he was sure Saddam possessed. That, of course, did not happen."]
But some locals have gotten hold of an awful lot of chlorine gas to dick around with.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 3:31PM on Mar 18th 2007
7. "Bush makes up reasons after the fact for the Iraq conflict."
Care to substantiate that? All of the supposedly "made up reasons after the fact" I've seen were actually mentioned by speeches Bush made in the lead up to the war. Do you have an example of one that wasn't?
Robert at 5:56PM on Mar 18th 2007
8. Al needs to go back to junior high and learn how to spell (or type, for that matter).
I can't believe how many uneducated derelicts respond or participate in these blogs.
Jared at 10:42AM on Mar 19th 2007
9. What really frightens me is that people with the reading comprehension skills dispayed in comment #3 and the spelling and coherence skills displayed in comment #4 ... actually vote.
Sure explains the last congressional election.
philmon at 7:46PM on Mar 18th 2007
10. OK here is a list of reasons that were mentioned by Bush and his cronies before the war:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679
But this is what Bush said last September: "Imagine — imagine an enemy that can't stand what we believe in getting a hold of oil resources and taking a bunch of oil off the market in order to have an economic punishment. In other words, they say, you go ahead and do this, and if you don't, we'll punish you economically."
We all know that the war was about control of oil, but Bush only mentioned that after the fact.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 7:24PM on Mar 18th 2007
11. One of the biggest lies being told today is that Bush "lied" to get us into war. You idiots really believe that, then you are either MUCH more stupid than you realize or a real liar yourself. Apparently a lot of people just can't remember Bush's speech to the country and before Congress on Sept. 20, 2001 during which he said the war on terror was NOT just against Al Qaeda and was NOT just against international terrorists -but those regimes that financed, supported, harbored, trained etc. terrorists as well. Because they can't function without that kind of support from rogue regimes. And that statement was received with GREAT APPLAUSE by the entire nation, not just those in Congress. Of course in light of 9-11, we all understood THEN why he included such regimes. We had already paid a deadly price for NOT doing something about such regimes. Today many want to pretend 9-11 was just a meaningless aberration that can never happen again -so let's return to the comfort of the delusion we are quite safe even though it already killed 3,000 in a matter of HOURS. Let's pretend Bush created the war on terror because he is an evil man and "Hitler" -not because he is a President who took his oath to protect this nation SERIOUSLY for God's sake -which happens to be the first and most important Constitutionally given duty to all Presidents.
So today you think when Bush included such regimes it actually meant the second largest financier of terrorism in the world was exempt for some reason?
In case you dolts just can't remember, I suggest you go back and read the transcript of Bush's speech before Congress requesting authorization to use force in Iraq. He actually gave more than 12 reasons, the Congressional authorization lists them all as well. You won't find "I want to use force against Iraq because it has stockpiles of WMD" among them -nowhere -but lots of other reasons, each legitimate. And incredibly at that time, the anti-American left was squealing that he gave SO MANY reasons for it that it actually meant he had none at all! Now they claim it was always and only about stockpiles of WMD -it was never on the basis that Saddam simply had WMD. Quite a few countries have WMD that we wish didn't -that Iraq did too was NOT the reason. Bush's BIGGEST justification for it was that because of Saddam's decades history of supporting, financing and training terrorists that it was a real possibility that he would share WMD or the technology with terrorists. Legitmate concern then, legitimate today as well. And it was legitimate then because waiting until AFTER he had done so would be TOO LATE and we would be very unlikely to be able to prevent their use against us once in the hands of third party terrorists.
Bush had to make decisions in light of the worst terrorist attack in history taking place on OUR soil. Yet you all seem to think you now wish he had pretended it was no big deal! Your biggest criticism is that he had to make these decisions without the benefit of hindsight that the left uses to whine and engage in the nonstop attempt to undermine the President - and today insist he purposely "lied" to get us into war. The man had to make decisions based only on what he knew then -not was is known today. No lies were needed, none were told. Repeating the intelligence every government consumer of our intelligence also received, that every nation and even the UN believed to be true -is NOT a lie. Yet the left continues to insist that Bush "lied" just to get us into war. (But apparently too damn stupid to plant WMD to head off that criticism!) And the left will continue doing this even if it means it results in tremendous damage to this country that future generations and future Presidents will have to contend with. Since when is that an American value? And they will do it even if it means millions of Iraqis are condemned to a real hell on earth by pulling out before they can provide for their own security. These are the very same people who criticized our soldiers- who were fighting for their LIVES - for not protecting a museum! All those on the left have done is prove to me they cannot ever be trusted to provide for the national security and protection of this country, that their drive for raw power outweighs any possible concern for what is in the nation's best interests -and will work overtime to make sure those who would and do provide for our security -pay a huge penalty for it. The President is "Hitler" and our soldiers "mercenaries", "stupid and uneducated" -no insult too great from those who would never fight for their own freedom and absolutely NEVER fight to free others. Just suck the lifeblood from those who would.
What is in the nation's best interests just isn't in the best interests of those on the left - which is why they blatantly and openly urge and support our defeat in Iraq. They have proven they are much more willing to see the nation's best interests sacrificed entirely -if it means they can gain power -for power's sake.
Anyone who thinks the world would be better off if Saddam were still in power should be forced to live under such a regime first -and before so casually condemning millions of others to do so.
Kate at 7:48PM on Mar 18th 2007
12. Of all the reasons noted in the Foreign Policy piece linked to above, the only one Bush can be criticised for is stating that Iraq was an "imminent threat." Oh wait, he never said it. He said that it was too risky to allow Iraq or anybody else to become an imminent threat.
SR at 8:07PM on Mar 18th 2007
13. Politicizing science has always resulted in increasing human suffering -EVERY TIME. And this one has been politicized big time. The politically invested are actually demanding a halt to any research that challenges this theory on any front -even though such research is how theories are eventually proven to be correct or not -theories are tested by trying to prove them wrong. So the politically invested are demanding we NOT do scientific research properly. They are the new "flat earth" thinkers engaging in the very same behavior the original "flat earth" people did -people we ridicule today. The modern "flat earthers" will be ridiculed by future generations as well. We make no progress by demanding certain scientific issues are off limits to challenge -it only guarantees a halt to progress and increased knowledge.
People like Gore are politically invested in an unproven theory that is actually under attack by legitimate scientists on several fronts -from whether humans are the cause of the rise in CO2, to whether CO2 rises as a result of temperature increases and is not the cause of it as the original theory says -even whether a rise in temperature would really result in "catastrophe". Legitimate scientists and those who are not politically invested in the theory -have the HUMILITY to admit that we don't know all possible variables involved in climate and that what we don't know may be among the most important variables.
Considering we haven't a clue why the earth entered OR left any previous ice age, clearly what we don't yet know is EXTREMELY important -not irrelevant here. Scientists can't accurately predict the weather more than THREE DAYS OUT -so don't ask me to pretend that we know everything we need to know when we certainly do NOT -and then pretend predictions based on faulty computer modeling about what it will be like hundreds of years from now is "dead on" accurate. Considering these "dire" predictions based on computer modeling have been repeatedly changed just in a matter of a few short years -always to less dire predictions, never more dire predictions -is proof positive no one has it right yet.
And by the way -these "the sky is falling" people should actually go READ the theory -it doesn't predict more extremes in the weather. It predicts LESS extremes and fluctuations in the weather -so those who claim it will result in more frequent and severe hurricanes, responsible for tidal waves (stupid), responsible for BELOW average temperatures (its called GLOBAL warming, not "some areas get colder"), severe blizzards, etc. -are making it up, hoping to whip up fear. That fear isn't based on anything scientific though.
Kate at 8:20PM on Mar 18th 2007
14. Hey, Hubble - I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that there might be multiple reasons for doing something.
Are you saying that it would be good if the likes of Osama Bin Laden had control of Iraqi oil fields?
Bush offered a bunch of reasons for the war in his State of the Union Address in Jan, 2003. Which of them were lies?
You might want to look up the definition of the word lie first, as it is key. A key requirement for something to be called a lie is that the person telling it must know that it is not true.
Here's a good Wall Street Journal piece that puts things into perspective.
philmon at 8:31PM on Mar 18th 2007
15. Guess the links got missed:
Here's the state of the union link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
Here's the WSJ link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
philmon at 8:34PM on Mar 18th 2007