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 3 of 4)
31. Kate,
You forget to mention that one of James Hansen's big successes was predicting the effect of the Pinatubo volcano on global climate.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/
I am afraid that your lies do not work in the face of science.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 12:27AM on Mar 19th 2007
32. Look at all the AlGore worshipers! Next thing ya know, the stone will be rolled away from his tomb and he will promise to return and save us all!
Clint at 12:37AM on Mar 19th 2007
33. Tova and the other deep conservative "thinkers" have a strange notion of time**. They seem to think that the Rennaisance occurred yesterday and the temperature changes happened quickly back then. In fact, today global warming is happening very quickly, unprecendented in terms of time-scale.
** Actually not too hard to believe since lots of these fundies seem to think the age of the earth is only 6000 years.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 12:35AM on Mar 19th 2007
34. Clint,
I haven't heard much Gore worship. At least include a quote that you might be referring to. For future reference, Global Warming ≠ Al Gore. Tough concept, I know. I'm sure this seemed hysterically funny in your head, so at least you've got that.
mjtimber at 12:47AM on Mar 19th 2007
35. Tough luck, Clint. It must be strange to see intelligent comments on a Powerline post. The Powerliners have spent several years behind a blog that wouldn't accept any comments. Now that you Powerline fans have to come out in the open along with your gods, I guess you are having problems accepting that many people actually like Gore. From the results of the 2000 popular election, I guess a majority of Americans are actually Gore worshippers!
Webster Hubble Telescope at 1:04AM on Mar 19th 2007
36. Jerry M,
It's shocking that somebody can actually say at this point "there is no real and legitimate critique of the war." There are dozens of detailed critiques, some written by former members of the Bush administration and others by the neo-cons who urged it on! In case you haven't noticed, there are countless outspoken Republicans who are aghast at this war, who believe it was a mistake. You simply cannot cast this as a Democrat ambush. The facts on the ground are frightening--as CNN's Iraq corespondent pointed out, there are actually four wars we're fighting, all of them intractable.
And it's also shocking to me that you conflate the original congressional vote authorizing force with authorization for a full-scale pre-emptive war with such scanty diplomatic support. This was not what most senators had in mind when they voted for the resolution.
Bottom line: this was a war of choice with an uncertain outcome. If it had worked, this would be a difference conversation. Instead, it's been one of the great nightmares of American history, violently undermining U.S. credibility around the world. It's time we held our leaders accountable for bad decisions and bad management.
Granted that would be out of character for this administration and its supporters...
Thor at 3:53AM on Mar 19th 2007
37. We will repeat ourselves for as long as the other side repeats lies like the claim that they knew Saddam had no nukes, and was not attempting to get them. For example, Joe Wilson, whose report upon returning from Niger actually supported claim that Saddam sought yellowcake from there, opposed the war in a Febrary, 2003 op-ed, writing that he believed Saddam would use WMD on our troops. But we keep hearing how he was speaking truth to power when he said, after the war began and the WMD didn't turn up, that he had debunked the claim. If the other side repeats the lie, what choice to we have but to repeat the truth?
Jim O'Sullivan at 10:13AM on Mar 19th 2007
38. So, Al Gore was so massively confused, and so completely misled, that he supported--for awhile--the same policy re Saddam as (*gasp*) Bush, yet somehow now, re man-made climate change, he is back to being infallible?
That's quite a leap. Can't be just politics. Maybe it's magic.
buddy larsen at 7:42PM on Apr 3rd 2007
39. Gore has turned into a world class buffoon and a promoter of junk science. There is global warming, but he would bankrupt the world for a problem that is a natural process of civilization and our diets. He cherry picks his fixes to make money while he pollutes..hypocrite at best...Gm Ro
Grandmaster Ro at 11:02AM on Mar 19th 2007
40. "Wrong in every particular" except that he was right that invading Iraq was a really stupid idea, a view shared by noted far-left America-haters like Brent Scowcroft and William Odom.
Blue Texan at 3:53PM on Mar 19th 2007
41. Where would we be if it weren't for ignorant, self-important reactionaries? Yes, Al Gore IS wrong, but not by your argument. The ONLY real solution to the very real problem of global warming is POPULATION CONTROL! Get used to it.
David Laing at 5:37PM on Mar 19th 2007
42. Al Gore is still a better candidate than the rest of the Dem's, despite his pandering to the left wing and global warming iconoclasts. He is the only candidate besides Gov. Richardson with the proper credentials to be president. I may vote for Rudy anyway. Wonder who's on the DC Madam's Rolodex? 5-1 Patrick Kennedy exposed his oxycontin problem to use as an excuse! Windmills, not Windbags to stop global warming. Gm Ro
Grandmaster Ro at 11:13AM on Mar 19th 2007
43. Webster Hubble TS is playing political games in my view. Every person in a responsible position with any duties that pertained to the national defense had pretty much the same conclusion as the Bush/Cheney administration did prior to the war with Iraq. Period. Cannot be denied and there are plenty of soundbites in the media to prove this statement. The ony issue is what a previous poster noted. It is that the Democrats are so jaded that they would rather, and will with no sense of guilt, watch us lose a war, to regain political power. This stinks to high heaven. Global warming is another issue altogether. It is quite funny to see the rich and famous build their mansions in the last remaining wilderness areas and then also see the PC environmentalists try and horn in as well, all prior to the big debates on how to limit use and access to these very areas. WHo really believes that a sustainable economy is worth a damn for the little guy who is most likely to be discarded and replaced? An old boys network in the Nat.Audoban Society, Earth Firsters and other environmental groups had surfaced and folks like Al Gore with the resourses he has and at his disposal, can buy their way out of having to comply like us little folks will seemingly have to do. When I get the feeling that I am being screwed by all the do gooders out there who are bound and determined to rescue me from myself, I have but one answer in the face of their deluge of criticism, Fuck off, I'll be dead before this crap ever happens. How do you like those apples? How anyone expects that my sacrifice will have any direct effect on or change a couple of hundred year old burgeoning environmental crisis from occuring is ludicrous. Even the scientists believe it may already be way too late to stop the looming crisises. I do think the poster who sugessted that a rethink needs to happen on the reconstructio of New Orleans in the location it sits in today. It is rather hard to see us spend billions trying to protect the soup bowl it exists in from being reflooded in the next big storm to come its way. If the entire coast recedes due to rising ocean levels it will only add to this issue and make the rebuilding notion less teneble in my opinion.
Gere Minnick at 11:25AM on Mar 19th 2007
44. Gore is just like the rest of Hollywood's liberal idiots - They like to tell everyone to "do as I say but not as I do." Gee, last time I checked, didn't Gore grew up as the privileged son of a Senator? I'm sure he's been flying in private planes, living in huge energy-wasting mansions, and polluting the enviroment since birth.
Gore and Hollywood are the epitome of self-serving, egotistical opportunists who like to think of themselves as "above" the rest of us lowly non-celebrity Americans. I give about as much credence to their views of foreign policy as I do to my 3-year-old's.
I guess it doesn't matter to them that the Islamic fundamentalists started their war against American interests at least as far back as 1992 when they tried to bomb a hotel in Yemen. Despite the fact that Congress looked at same intelligence about Saddam that Bush and his advisors did and voted for the war (before they voted against it), because the war is not popular, they are all singing a different tune. Saddam needed to go and although the post-war planning was disastrous, the last thing we need to do is cut and run.
Al - Go ahead and keep singing your global warming tune to your Hollywood buddies. The rest of us could care less what you have to say!
Mary at 11:38AM on Mar 19th 2007
45. Al Gore might be wrong about
many things but there is not
a thing wrong with cleaning
the air we breath.
There is nothing wrong in
using our limited resources
more wisely and giving our
nation a brighter future at
the same time.
There are at least four ways
for the US to use its fossil
fuel more wisely and also
make a lot more energy at the
same time. If we were to pass
a law allowing someone to use
the fuel being burned into
the atmosphere at the oil
refineries accross this nation
in what are called flares. It
would equal the power of a
nuclear reactor at every site
these gases were harnessed but
to do this a law would need to
be passed to make the ones who
have been burning this without
harnessing it, to give the same
amount to those who would build
the plants to use. If 400,000
tons of gases were burned on
average for the last five years,
this is what they would have to
supply. A tax also for wasting
this could be a five percent
penalty, added to this to help
give the ones building these
steam electric plants, incentive
to put them up. Resident domain
laws could be used to access the
land near these to build the
steam plants on.
Another form of energy could be
to harness the energy of our
nations trains as they criss
cross the nation. Every day in
a mountain pass in Washington
State 40 trains go over it. If
generators were placed on the
rail cars or a car with many
generators on it were placed
on the train, every time the
train descended a mountain or
hill or as it stopped this
energy could be harnessed. It
would also add safety to the
trains as they would be able
to stop in a shorter distance
which could help prevent a
train accident. An over rail
power system like those over
electric buses or trolleys
could be used to harness this
new energy and also give the
trains a power source, keeping
the diesel electric engines
now in use as a safety when
there is a shortage of power
on the grid for whatever
reason.
Another waste of our nations
energy is not harnessing the
power of our nations rivers.
This is a terrible waste of
energy and needs a law to be
passed to allow those with
river front property to help
harness it. A small barge
about 15' X 30' could make
a lot of energy with a 25 KW
generator were driven by a
paddle wheel. A paddle with
newer designe to give it
more efficiency. I will
show how to do this in a
latter article.
To harness the power of
our nations inlets by again
placing paddle wheel driven
generators on them. The tide
is different in Norht Pudget
Sound from the coast and it
also differs from the South
Sound. This would allow if
these generators were placed
on the different inlets at
their mouth, power to be
generated all through the
24 hours of the day.
Unlike wind power, which
sometimes works, water is
a reliable source of energy
and also much more powerful
as the effects of air are
minimal to the power of the
hydrodynamics of water. It
is more powerful and a lot
more reliable than the wind.
If as much money were put
into building and using all
the water power out there,
our nation would have much
cheaper electric than we
have now, compared with all
the wind driven ones.
Adding to this man made
inlets along the coast or
on our nations inlets, we
could build dams at the
end of these with a rising
and lowering wall under a
paddle wheel driven
electric generator on a
barge. Several of these
would allow them to make
power all during a 24
hour time period.
Looking at all these, we
find not only would we
have much cheaper electic
energy but cleaner air as
a result. It would also
help our nation to lessen
our dependence on foreign
oil and actually help to
lower the price of oil
as supply and demand get
on the side of the
consumer. We seen as the
winter months were warmer
it lowered the price of
gas at the pump because
of supply and demand. It
will do the same thing as
our nation uses less
diesel to power our trains
and with cheaper electric
power, more homes will use
it to heat them with.
This is not about global
warming but about what our
nation needs to do to give
our people a better future
and give our children hope
for a brighter future.
As a result of doing this
our nations economy would
increase at an alarming
rate and give anyone a good
job that wants one. We
would need a lot of the
illegal aliens to stay and
work because of all the new
jobs, with the understanding
they will not become citizens
but could stay and work.
One last quetion I ask you,
if our forefathers thought
it too costly or hard to
build all the dams, put up
all the telphone poles and
to build this nations
current electric power
system as well as putting
in our nations phone system,
where would we be today?
We can do this and we
need to start soon.
William Ehlert at 2:11PM on Mar 19th 2007