Posted on 09/25/2002 6:30:47 PM PDT by irradiateiraq
Al Gore mouths off unhelpfully on Iraq
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Al Gore has come out against President Bush's plans to fight Iraq. Must be a case of the White House declining to buy his support. That is his pattern, after all.
It ill becomes Gore, the second-ranking official in an administration that did essentially nothing to counter the threats to the United States and its interests from rogue outfits like Iraq and al-Qaeda, to be picky about an administration that is taking action.
Gore's boss, President Clinton, did nothing but throw a few cruise missiles at Iraq when Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, in 1993. He was so determined not to rock the boat that at times the U.S. warplanes attacking threatening Iraqi missile sites attacked with bombs containing only concrete, not explosives. He refused to take custody of Osama bin Laden when the government of Sudan made the offer. It sometimes seemed that about the only thing that could arouse Clinton against terrorists were threatening headlines about his relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Gore was among a minority of Senate Democrats who voted to authorize Bush's father to use force to expel Iraq's army from Kuwait in 1991. Then-Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, deputy leader of the Republicans and one helping to allocate speaking time on the Senate floor in support of the president, said Gore threatened to vote against the resolution if his 20 minutes weren't scheduled during prime TV time.
Now Gore is resorting to the all-purpose excuse of liberals: The president's course doesn't conform to international law. He said the president is abandoning the goal of a world where nations follow laws, to be ``displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States. If other nations assert the same right, then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear.''
It seems to us like the reign of fear is having a pretty good run right now, not just in the United States, and that's a large part of the problem. International law certainly means observance of treaties - which includes cease-fire agreements. Gore's argument is ridiculous in light of Iraq's failure to live up to its obligations. The better characterization of Bush is that of an enforcer of international law. The better characterization of Gore was offered by Jim Dyke, spokesman for the Republican National Committee: ``political hack.''
I don't remember this---I wonder how the Boston Herald knew? I'm not denying it, but I'd sure like to read up on this a bit more.
This editorial is spot on---I am actually glad Gore gave his speech. It's been great fun listening to the media mock him so much the last two days.
WHY is this the first time I've ever heard of this??????
bombs containing only concrete
Why would bombs be filled with concrete when ther is so much sand avalible?
Why, that's, that's TERRIBLE!!! What would have happened if they hit someone???
THE FLY
There was a fly buzzing around a barn one day when he
happened on a pile of fresh cow manure. Due to the fact
that it had been hours since his last meal, he flew down and
began to eat. He ate and ate and ate.
Finally, he decided he had eaten enough and tried to fly
away. He had eaten too much though, and could not get off
the ground. As he looked around wondering what to do now,
he spotted a pitchfork leaning up against the wall.
He climbed to the top of the handle and jumped off, thinking
that once he got airborne, he would be able to take flight.
Unfortunately he was wrong and dropped like a rock,
splatting when he hit the floor. Dead.
The moral to the story is: Never fly off the handle when
you are full of sh!t.
dot
Al Gore mouths off unhelpfully on IraqHow 'bout:
Unhelpfully, Al Gore mouths off on IraqIt's almost fun:
Unhelpfully Al, Gore mouths off on Iraq
Al Gore mouths off on Iraq unhelpfully
Mouths Al unhelpfully Gore off on Iraq
Al Gore unhelpfully mouths on Iraq off
Gore mouths off Al on unhelpfully Iraq
Al unhelpfully on Gore mouths Iraq off
Al Gore mouths unhelpfully off on Iraq
Gore mouths Al off on Iraq unhelpfullyNo wonder they can't bring themselves to certitude. Let me help, you morons,
Off Gore mouths Al unhelpfully on Iraq
Iraq mouths Al Gore unhelpfully Off
On Al Iraq Gore mouths unhelpfully Off
Unhelpfully off Gore all mouths on Iraq
On Iraq unhelpfully Al Gore mouths off
On off Gore unhelpfully mouths Iraq
Off on Iraq mouths Gore unhelpfully
...
Al Gore's Mouth Unhelpful, on Iraq or Anything Else
This may be a bit "overblown" so to speak. Practice bombs are weighted with inert stuff like concrete, with similar density to the replaced explosives. I wouldn't be surprised at all if some "training" missions were allowed over the no-fly zones that Clinton approved of. Not saying that this makes it any better, but at least our boys were getting some practice in!
Protocol 1, Addition to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
The purpose of the concrete bombs was to permit military targets to be destroyed while minimizing risks to civilians, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
Note that civilian casualities resulting from some responsibilities are the sole responsibility of Iraq for using civilians as human shields. The US is not barred from attacking Iraq simply because of its cowardly, inhuman and craven violations of this international law.
Clinton ordered the use of such bombs. They would knock down the radar antennas if you got a direct hit, but unless it landed on someones head it could not hurt anybody. Clinton was concerned that real bombs might hurt some of Saddams soldiers... Couldn't have that could we.
Will this giva anyone in the media have a clue as to why the Militant Muslims feel they can get away with killing us?
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.