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 2 of 4)
16. Kate - excellent points, well said.
Al - it's waste, not waist. Global warming is happening, but it is a cyclical issue with the earth and dependent on many factors. Man contributes but its minuscule compared to all the other reasons (earth's rotation, etc.). This is not a reason not to try and improve on our fossil fuel use, or other alternative sources. However, mother earth will do what she has done over the eons, and we will not control it.
I only mention the "waste" issue becaue it detracts from your comments. I know I've made similar mistakes and spell check won't catch it.
Mary at 8:35PM on Mar 18th 2007
17. The theory of global warming is based on computer modeling that rules out any significant volcanic eruptions. Anyone believe no volcano in the world is ever going to violently erupt again in at least the next couple of centuries? We got that under control? One volcano erupting changes this theory entirely because it would insert a new variable that is now ignored. It is ignored because such an eruption would result in the lowering of earth's surface temperature. How big that eruption would be is correlated to how significant and how long the temperature stays lowered.
Just think -that is just ONE variable ignored by global warming propagandists. What variables that also play a role we still don't know, they actually insist we don't EVER need to know -they don't want anyone looking. The reason they do is because they are politically invested -and those who have tied their political fortunes to this do NOT want to take the chance that someone may discover a far more important variable that plays a far larger role in climate that makes this theory useless. They have politically glommed on to THIS - the miniscule rise in CO2 they insist is entirely the fault of mankind. Strange that in the past when we had even higher levels -man wasn't even around (and it didn't result in catastrophe either). But hey -we don't need to know why it rose then. The propagandists insist it has nothing to do with today - not when we can put the entire blame on man this time for far less CO2 in the atmosphere. LOL
Kate at 10:22PM on Mar 18th 2007
18. Kate,
Bad points, poorly said.
Everything you stated relates to Afghanistan. Too bad it took you hundreds of words and you never got to that point.
As for your lack of knowledge concerning the difference between "weather" and "climate", leave it to us engineers and scientists to figure out such important considerations as positive feedback. It evidently makes your brain hurt too much.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 9:23PM on Mar 18th 2007
19. Gore is so wrong about global warming being caused by industrial activity, because our past geological history proves him wrong: After the ice age, the earth warmed up considerably,to melt glaciers (at about 20,000 years ago) . Thus, we had global warming before we had any industrial activity whatsoever. During the "dark ages", way before any industrialization, about a thousand years ago, the earth started cooling again, to the extent that it seriously disturbed Man's agricultural activity, and there was a serious scarcity of food, plagues, etc. Then, about year 1200, the earth started warming up again--which led to the Rennaisance, because now, Europeans had successful crops, more food, and hence, more leisure time to devote to the arts and sciences. Where were all the "cars, pollution from factories, gasses, etc., produced by industrialization" ? None. In the 1830s, there was another cooling period, followed by warm and cool periods, and in fact, in the 1970s, temps cooled so much that scientists worried about another ice age! Gore knows this--that the earth has a history of heating and cooling from millions of years ago through today, and as it was not man-made millions and thousands of years ago, so it is not man made today. "Correlation does not imply causation" is a famous scientific dictim. Gore is making millions--from companies producing low energy equipment, and others, and is making millions from his speaking engagements, etc. The very inconvenient truth is, that while he blabs about conserving energy, he escews public airplanes for his own private jet, using thousands of gallons of fuel for just him! Plus, his large mansion consumes more energy in one week than the average house in a year!!! Ask Gore--"how many autos and factories did we have when the ice age ended, 20,000 years ago, through global warming?
The earth is always changing and evolving--you'll find evidence of marine animals on mountains, and glaciel deposits (from the ice age) in hot deserts. The earth has always, and will always have its global warming and cooling periods--not due to man's activities.
Tova Lightning at 11:41PM on Mar 18th 2007
20. Hey Philmon,
The president said (in the '03 address) "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It was a lie, obviously. But remember how he used his spooky voice when he said it?
You're not one of those people who still believes Saddam was involved in 9-11 and WMD's have been found in Iraq, are you?
Is "philmon" your Pokemon name?
lil_turk at 10:21PM on Mar 18th 2007
21. Excellent "non-political" analysis (Comment # 12), there is nothing more to add on the subject.
Bob Rogan at 10:29PM on Mar 18th 2007
22. Did you collect yout $10,000 from Exxon yet?
DA at 10:41PM on Mar 18th 2007
23. Tom in Phoenix and other like thinking Bush hating lefties, what were the Democrats whose video is shown in the below link talking about going back to 1998 and who were they trying to mislead? Could it be that Bill Clinton and Al Gore were misleading them?
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
Jerry M at 11:00PM on Mar 18th 2007
24. Hey lil_turk and other knowledge deficient individuals like you,
Joe Wilson was proven to be a liar when he testified and admitted before the Senate Intelligence Committee that much of what he wrote in his NYT Op-Ed was not factual. The British intelligence agencies that made that assessment still stand by it.
Also,Saddam Hussein may not have been involved in 9/11, and President Bush never said he was, but he sure had a lot of involvement with terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda as reported by ABC in 1998 in the below link:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid78334376/bclid78383014/bctid494852750
Jerry M at 11:18PM on Mar 18th 2007
25. The real and still legitimate critique of the Iraq War is that it was a war of choice, and as such was a huge gamble. It was a gamble based on--as we now can see-- thin evidence and wishful thinking. And the gamble has seriously backfired, as every independent observer agrees.
Those, like Gore, who warned against the gamble, whatever the specifics of their fears, have been proven wise by events.
Likewise, Gore's warnings about unchecked greenhouse gas emissions ask us to consider how much we're willing to bet that the scientific consensus is wrong. Those who are so sure that the science of global warming is fundamentally misguided are betting against an outcome far worse than the fiasco in Iraq. That's the confidence of a gambling addict!
Thor at 11:16PM on Mar 18th 2007
26. Thor,
Seventy seven US Senators, including 29 Democrats, and 293 members of the House of Representatives voted for the use of force to remove Saddam Hussien from power. They apparently thought it was a gamble worth taking. And don't tell us that they were mislead. Their statements before their vote say otherwise going back to the Clinton administration which put in place the policy of regime change in Iraq in the first place. At this point there is no real and legitimate critique of the war. There is an avalanche of lies and misrepresentations by Democrats who are scared to death of their moonbat base which is dragging them further to the left if that is possible. They are aided and abetted by a largely corrupt MSM which is more interested in promoting an agenda than in reporting news in a balanced manner.
Jerry M at 10:29AM on Mar 19th 2007
27. Kate,
I agree that weather in general, and global warming in specific, is a complex issue about which we know very little. But, now obvious in hindsight, so was Iraq. So why does one issue require such a monumental, expensive response and the other should be marginalized, ignored, or requires more time and research? I would hope that you could at least agree that both issues, circa 2002, deserve(d) some attention.
mjtimber at 12:02AM on Mar 19th 2007
28. lil turk -what a BIZARRE thing to write. Evidently you really don't keep up with the facts of the world. The British not only had independently collected intelligence indicating Saddam had tried to purchase uranium from two African countries, but two separate investigations into that intelligence afterwards concluded it was very credible -and so did the Dulfur report on top of that. Those countries were Niger and Congo -an interesting report from Congo recently. Seem lots and lots of uranium is missing and believed to have been sold on the black market by corrupt officials -but let's pretend that didn't happen either. No worries -I'm sure the buyers are an altuistic, mankind-loving group, right? LOL
All those investigations that concluded this intelligence was highly credible is why the UK stands behind that intelligence to this day. Furthermore, our own pathetic attempt to investigate this also found the British intelligence to be credible. What Joe Wilson discovered -in spite of being totally unqualified for the job - BACKED IT UP too! This was the conclusion of the CIA based on what Wilson told them. Wilson lied and told the public the exact opposite -but the Senate Intelligence committee pegged him as a liar in a report signed by every Democrat and Republican on it. Nailed him for at least four major and PROVEN lies he told the public -his first lie was that he had disproven it when in fact what he found backed it up. Wilson was the one trying to deceive and manipulate public opinion by lying here. In addition, Wilson was nailed by several reporters for telling the public at least six lies. So naturally it makes sense the left would hold this proven liar out as some kind of "hero" -I look for FAR better qualities in my heroes though.
Wilson, like the British -discovered that Iraq had approached Niger about purchasing uranium JUST LIKE BUSH SAID the British intelligence showed. No one EVER claimed Iraq succeeded -only that it had attempted to do so -and they did! That isn't a "lie" told by Bush then, is it? The person who contacted Niger officials was Saddam's top nuclear expert -so he wasn't there about their chick peas, was he? None of this had anything WHATSOEVER to do with the forged documents France, trying to protect their $50 billion contract that was only good if Saddam remained in power - deliberately foisted off on the Italians in an effort to discredit ALL the intelligence regarding Saddam's interest in reconstituting his nuke program. For people like you -it sure seems to have been very successful too. It was MEANT for people like you.
As far as Iraq having anything to do with 9-11, I happen to be someone who thinks Iraq did have something to do with it. Not because of anything anyone in the Bush administration ever said and not because there is any courtroom convicting proof of involvement. But for several other very incriminating events that are all public knowledge and only need to be viewed as a whole to add up to something very damning.
1. The CIA concluded several years earlier -before Bush was ever in office - that Iraq very likely sponsored the first attack on the WTC -and the publicly known evidence for that is quite convincing. (For liberals that naturally equals "free pass".) So the claim of the left that Saddam would never sponsor or exploit Al Qaeda in order to attack us by proxy is a proven lie right there -he very likely already did before, he could again.
2. This one I consider extremely signficant. Right before 9-11 Saddam went into hiding (and stayed there until pulled out of that hole) and put Iraq on its highest alert -although there was nothing going on anywhere to justify it. The ONLY other time Saddam went into hiding like that was on the eve of the Gulf War. This is very suggestive that at the very least, Saddam had prior knowledge of the coming attack - and believed he had reason to fear the US would link Iraq to this attack too.
3. In the weeks prior to 9-11, Saddam's state owned newspaper ran a series of very unusual articles predicting how Allah's burning wrath and judgment would soon fall on the US, even predicting the targets -New York, the White House and the Pentagon. Oh sure -I'm so gullible I'll just pretend it was just a totally meaningless coincidence. It also ran a really gushing article just DRIPPING with fawning admiration and praise for........Osama Bin Laden. So much for Saddam "hating" this guy -must be why his state owned newspaper just gushed over him then, right? It usually ran articles about what a great guy Saddam was - none of these articles were its usual fare and its predictions were pretty darn specific.
4. After 9-11, not only was Iraq the ONLY nation in the Middle East NOT to send condolences -it was the only nation in the ENTIRE WORLD that did not. Let me disabuse you of any notion that it would be natural for Iraq NOT to send condolences -every other nation that was hostile or semi-hostile to the US did -even N. Korea, even Iran -the other two nations of the "Axis of Evil". Libya -which had sponsored attacks killing Americans in the past - not only sent condolences but publicly announced the US would be justified to attack any nation that was behind it. Those behind attacks don't send condolences for killing thousands of a nation's citizens in a deliberate attack. Those who aren't involved in something that cost thousands of innocent lives -do. The only nation in the ENTIRE world that ran newspaper articles REJOICING over the attack -was Iraq. Sure the Palestinians did their little "joy dance" in the street -but their newspapers did not print joyful articles praising the attack -their newspapers condemned it. Only Iraq's newspaper ran articles praising the attack and praising those who carried it out -in the entire world.
None of it is hard proof Iraq was behind it -but all taken together, it certainly is damning, incriminating and extremely suggestive that at the VERY least -Iraq had prior knowledge of the attack. No such suggestive evidence that ANY other nation in the entire world had prior knowledge -just the very same nation that was also the only one NOT to send condolences, the ONLY nation whose newspapers celebrated the attack, and the ONLY nation whose leader had gone into hiding right before the attack.
I'm no ditz -looks pretty damn suspcious to me. Hiding definite proof of sponsorship if one wants to hide it - is actually pretty easy. Hiding every possible bit of incriminating evidence is more difficult and its unlikely we will ever have anything more than this.
But TOTALLY unlike the left, I don't give the benefit of the doubt to a man who had already REPEATEDLY proven to the entire world that he deserved absolutely none whatsoever at any time.
Kate at 9:29PM on Mar 19th 2007
29. Tova,
Hmmm, I haven't heard Gore argue that we caused any of those things. Have you? If so, please provide a link. You forgot to mention that the Arctic Ocean was at one point 70F or warmer. Now, is Gore a hypocrite? Of course, we all are. It's like sin, everyone does it. But three points prove that global warming MAY OCCUR due to our emissions. 1) CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas, 2) CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 380 ppm, and 3) the total carbon dioxide created due to burning fossil fuels can account for this rise by more that a factor of 2 (i.e. CO2 at 480 ppm if all CO2 were still in the atmosphere). Even those that disagree with global warming or its effects, such as Richard Lindzen, concede these points. Does this prove that global warming is occurring? No. But I think it disproves your notion that it isn't possible.
mjtimber at 12:05AM on Mar 19th 2007
30. But there has been no such string of engagements.
-------------------------------------
That's because we're bogged donw in Iraq.
Steve J. at 11:59PM on Mar 18th 2007