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 4 of 4)
46. Hooray for you Kate.Well said, GOD bless you!
Archie at 5:46PM on Mar 19th 2007
47. Hubble -now I know for a fact that you are a loony. Climate change is NOT happening at an unprecedented rate -try to read everything available instead of throwing out everything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions. The politically invested can't bear to face up to any challenges to this no matter how legitimate the challenge. I'm not politically invested -but I am intelligent enough to know that the proposed "cure" by the propagandists not only cannot "cure" anything, it is a guaranteed means of destroying economies and increasing human misery.
If you try to broaden your knowledge instead of indulging in overblown drama queen politics the propagandists engage in - you might find it easier to distinguish between the baseless rhetoric from the fear mongers who have no science on their side -and legitimate science which has NOT resolved this issue. Honestly -it sure sounds like you think the movie The Day After Tomorrow was a factual documentary when in fact climatologists around the world were mortified by this piece of Hollywood propaganda schlock. Even the "father" of this theory warned propagandists not to use inflammatory, overblown rhetoric because it isn't backed up by the science. As for Gore's mockumentary -perhaps you were unaware that legitimate scientists have ripped his piece of crap to shreds as the puff piece of propaganda it really is.
Kate at 3:33PM on Mar 20th 2007
48. Gore and Global warming and his experts in science, if you go to Newsweek they talk about the coming Ice age how could be so wrong then but be so sure of themselves now, but Al gore got the answers he buy carbon credit from the company he owns so really he just putting his money into t his other pocket and hiding it behind the much lower corporate income tax bracket, nice move it is like having a government paid retirement account OH wait he has one of those too because he was Bill’s VP. Here is the link http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
vhcon at 3:06AM on Mar 20th 2007
49. The global warming people use anectdotal evidence like a parent uses on their child. When I was a kid, I had to walk to school in three feet of snow up a hill. So there's no snow today.... that doesn't mean it's because of "global warming." The climate goes through cycles- natural ones- and we are in one. The "experts" need only be correct with one hurricane strike for it to be considered proof-positive. But, what happened last year? Guess the world got cooler for a year and the hurricane system was below normal. So Gore could stand in front of pictures of New Orleans all he wants- it, like he, is an aberration.
Dave LeRoy at 7:24AM on Mar 20th 2007
50. Is Sandy Berger (Burglar)ever going to get really punished.
Chaz at 12:23PM on Mar 20th 2007
51. If you believe Gore you haven't watched this British made documentary blowing him and his Hollywood liberals out of the water:
http://youtube.com./watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
Walt Bates at 4:04PM on Mar 20th 2007
52. What a SHILL you are....
I am sick of listening to people like you down Al Gore and everyone else that tries to make the world a better place.
You disgust and bore me with your insipid ignorance.
statusquomustgo at 8:42PM on Mar 20th 2007
53. Until the banks from our winter snows are again so high we can't see the snowplow going past the house and until Greenland is again green and growing agricultural crops, I'm not going to worry about global warming OR cooling.
Dutch Lady at 8:18PM on Mar 22nd 2007
54. Actually Al Gore was right on. Your argument is flawed.
He was saying that if we accept that we can attack any country based on a perceived threat, that justification could be used on countries other than Iraq.
Saying it hasn't yet (even if it has been planned (http://thismodernworld.com/3595)) has no impact on Gore's argument.
Dan at 2:33AM on Mar 21st 2007
55. Mirengoff, you are a coward (no comments allowed on PowerLine?) and and an intellectually lazy moron. Gore was right in the broad strokes of Iraq whereas you were completely wrong and continue to be wrong on Iraq, on Iran, on North Korea.
Gore is also right about global warming whereas you are wrong. Try actual science instead of ad hominem attacks on Gore.
Dan at 6:08PM on Mar 22nd 2007
56. Thank you Kate for your infornative post but I fear it is lost on these people. I doubt if 90% of them ever graduated from school. I too get very frustrated when I hear that constant bleating about WMD. Saddam did have them and in fact used them on the Kurds.
Ken Ormston at 1:11AM on Mar 24th 2007