GO SIMON
Posted on 09/24/2002 9:12:03 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO - Former Vice President Al Gore on Monday delivered the most sweeping condemnation of President Bush's Iraq policy to date by a Democratic Party leader, assailing the White House for pursuing a war that threatens to undermine U.S. foreign policy and the fight against terrorism.
``In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 more than a year ago, we had an enormous reservoir of good will and sympathy and shared resolve all over the world,'' Gore said at the Fairmont Hotel to an audience of the Commonwealth Club of California. ``That has been squandered in a year's time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do but about what we are going to do.''
Gore, in his first public remarks about Iraq, said that the resolution before Congress authorizing military action was far too broad. He also chided the Bush administration for ignoring the international community and international law with its new doctrine of pre-emptive action in the name of national security.
He said this altered approach to American foreign policy -- attacking a nation before it had attacked or directly threatened the United States -- had presented the nation with ``one of the most fateful decisions in our history.''
The doctrine ``goes far beyond the situation in Iraq,'' he said. ``It would affect the basic relationship between the United States and the rest of the world community.'' Gore added that ``President Bush now asserts we will take pre-emptive action even if the threat we perceive is not imminent. Now, if other nations assert that same right, then the rule of law would quickly be replaced by the reign of fear.''
``The doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means if Iraq is the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last,'' Gore said. ``In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran.''
Gore said that he agreed with the president that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein should be ousted, just not yet, and that acting unilaterally would jeopardize international support for the war on terrorism.
``If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first,'' Gore said.
Gore said the Bush administration's threats to act alone against Iraq had ruined the good feelings the United States received from around the world after the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And he accused the Bush administration of abandoning Afghanistan after defeating the Taliban in a war last fall. Gore said Bush had adopted the ``doctrine of wash your hands and walk away.''
``Now the Taliban and Al-Qaida are moving quickly back in,'' Gore said.
Iraq poses even more difficult questions, Gore said, because its weapons of mass destruction could easily fall into the hands of terrorists if the United States withdrew without a long-term plan to rebuild the nation.
``If we go in there and dismantle them, and they deserve to be dismantled, but then we wash our hands of it and walk away and leave it in a situation of chaos -- `No, that's for y'all to decide how to put things back together' -- that hurts us,'' Gore said to laughter and applause.
Gore's remarks were the strongest yet by a potential Democratic presidential candidate. And San Francisco, which Gore noted was the birthplace of the United Nations, provided him with a friendly venue. At one point, supporters interrupted his speech with chants of ``We won, we won, we won.''
``I love this group,'' said Gore, who won California by 1.3 million votes in 2000 but ultimately lost the disputed election to Bush. ``It's awful good to be back in California.''
He has formed an exploratory committee and has said he will announce in December whether he will again seek the presidency.
His speech places him at odds with his former running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., who has supported the Bush administration's position.
Gore also voiced much stronger reservations than leading Senate Democrats, who have been more concerned with the wording of a resolution before Congress to authorize military action.
The proposed White House resolution would give Bush authority to ``use all means that he determines to be appropriate'' to enforce U.N. resolutions, defend the United States against threats from Iraq and ``restore international peace and security in the region.''
Gore questioned the Bush administration's push for congressional action before the November elections.
``Rather than making efforts to dispel concern at home and abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the president is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a `no' vote,'' Gore said.
Gore said the resolution was ``much too broad in the authorities it grants and needs to be narrowed severely.''
Before acting, Gore said, Congress should make it clear whether the United States would merely wage war against Iraq or remain there over the long term to rebuild the nation.
``The congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its great gravity.''
The White House had little to say about the specifics of Gore's speech.
``The president has unified the nation and the nation has rallied behind his call for action,'' said White House spokesman Ken Lisaius. ``The president will continue to lead and unify even if splits begin to emerge within the Democratic Party and its presidential candidates.''
So when did Haiti attack us? I remember a certain president doing a pre-emptive strike to oust the current regime in Haiti.
So when did Yugoslovia attack us? I remember a certain president going into that country and take up arms.
Gee, who was this president's vp at the time?
Where are all those democrat war hawks when you need them?
"I also support the President's stated goals in the next phases of the war against terrorism as he laid them out in the State of the Union. ... Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table."
-Al Gore, in Feb. 12, 2002 speech to Council on Foreign Relations.
On May 23,2000 vice president and presidential candidate Al Gore made the following remarks about Iraq:
"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone. We have sought coalitions of opponents to challenge his power from within or without. I have met with the Iraqi resistance, and I have invited them to meet with me again next month – when I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam. We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising criticism, while improving the oil-to-food program to help the Iraqi people directly. We have used force when necessary. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver. "
Don't ask me how I know.
(steely)
THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ WAS HALTED IN 1991 BY A TREATY--WHICH IRAQ HAS FLAUNTED AT EVERY TURN. THEREFORE, A CONDITION OF BELLICOSITY (I.E., WAR) CONTINUES AGAINST IRAQ.
If the US and Britain and others attack Iraq, it only is a resumption of the hostilities.
There is no LEGAL obstacle to resuming hostilities; there is only the normal strategic considerations of the most advantageous time/place/manner of striking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.