Sunday, August 06, 2006
Al Gore - Soothsayer
As even a stopped watch is right twice a day so is it inevitable that, sooner or later, the angry left will win one and that’ll be used to show that they are the new world order. In that vein, Dan Balz has yet another analysis of the potential significance of a Joe Lieberman loss in Tuesday’s Connecticut primary. Conn. Race Could Be Democratic Watershed
“A victory by businessman Ned Lamont on Tuesday would confirm the growing strength of the grass-roots and Internet activists who first emerged in Howard Dean's presidential campaign.”
He follows that with this eyebrow-raiser:
“An upset by Lamont…could excite interest in a comeback by former vice president Al Gore, who warned in 2002 that the war could be a grave strategic error.”
Well, that wasn’t the way I remembered it so I went back to the former VP’s speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco in September 2002:
“Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. 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.”
“In fact, even though a new United Nations resolution might be helpful in the effort to forge an international consensus, I think it's abundantly clear that the existing U.N. resolutions, passed 11 years ago, are completely sufficient from a legal standpoint, so long as it is clear that Saddam Hussein is in breach of the agreements made at the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War.”
“Now, here's another of the main points I want to make: If we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth-rate military of Iraq, and then quickly abandon that nation, as President Bush has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after defeating a fifth-rate military power there, then the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.
We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country. As yet, we have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of these weapons with terrorist groups.” Al Gore 9/23/2002 speech
In other words, Mr. Gore was warning AGAINST a “cut and run” strategy in Iraq because he apparently thought that was the Administration’s plan. He knew Saddam had WMDs and understandably didn’t want terrorists to have access to them in the aftermath of a war where no governmental authority arose. He also considered Saddam out of compliance with a multitude of UN resolutions; he just wanted any enforcement to reflect an international consensus.
All of which were legitimate concerns at the time but don’t rise to the level of a prescient forecast of “grave strategic errors.”
I disagree with Joe Lieberman on most issues but think he’s right on the most important issue of the day. If he loses Tuesday, many Connecticut Democrats will no doubt feel the same kind of giddiness their political ancestors felt in 1972 with the nomination of the anti-war candidate George McGovern….as will many Republicans.
George Kagan also has a good piece on Senator Lieberman’s fall from grace among Democrats. The Last Honest Man
“A victory by businessman Ned Lamont on Tuesday would confirm the growing strength of the grass-roots and Internet activists who first emerged in Howard Dean's presidential campaign.”
He follows that with this eyebrow-raiser:
“An upset by Lamont…could excite interest in a comeback by former vice president Al Gore, who warned in 2002 that the war could be a grave strategic error.”
Well, that wasn’t the way I remembered it so I went back to the former VP’s speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco in September 2002:
“Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. 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.”
“In fact, even though a new United Nations resolution might be helpful in the effort to forge an international consensus, I think it's abundantly clear that the existing U.N. resolutions, passed 11 years ago, are completely sufficient from a legal standpoint, so long as it is clear that Saddam Hussein is in breach of the agreements made at the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War.”
“Now, here's another of the main points I want to make: If we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth-rate military of Iraq, and then quickly abandon that nation, as President Bush has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after defeating a fifth-rate military power there, then the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.
We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country. As yet, we have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of these weapons with terrorist groups.” Al Gore 9/23/2002 speech
In other words, Mr. Gore was warning AGAINST a “cut and run” strategy in Iraq because he apparently thought that was the Administration’s plan. He knew Saddam had WMDs and understandably didn’t want terrorists to have access to them in the aftermath of a war where no governmental authority arose. He also considered Saddam out of compliance with a multitude of UN resolutions; he just wanted any enforcement to reflect an international consensus.
All of which were legitimate concerns at the time but don’t rise to the level of a prescient forecast of “grave strategic errors.”
I disagree with Joe Lieberman on most issues but think he’s right on the most important issue of the day. If he loses Tuesday, many Connecticut Democrats will no doubt feel the same kind of giddiness their political ancestors felt in 1972 with the nomination of the anti-war candidate George McGovern….as will many Republicans.
George Kagan also has a good piece on Senator Lieberman’s fall from grace among Democrats. The Last Honest Man
