There was some confusion and misinformation on a diary that ran on this topic the other day. The record is clear as to exactly what Al Gore's position was as to the question of invading Iraq. On September 23, 2002, almost six months prior to the invasion, Gore made a speech in San Francisco that once again demonstrated his vision and experience. It also demonstrated his courage. At the time, this was not a popular position, and the media let him know about it. But his warnings and concerns read as though he wrote the speech last week (knowing what has happened) and dated it 2002.
There is no question about his position against invading Iraq:
I'm speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country, which I sincerely believe would be better for our country than the policy that is now being pursued by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century
I recommend that everyone read the complete speech. I have exerpted a few portions to provide a flavor of that text.
First he argued against going into Iraq because of our unfinished business in Afganistan:
To begin with - to put first things first - I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than was predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism.
Next he questioned the political timing of the Iraq invasion:
Now, the timing of this sudden burst of urgency to immediately take up this new cause as America's new top priority, displacing our former top priority, the war against Osama Bin Laden, was explained innocently by the White House chief of staff in his now well-known statement that "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
Gore argued for multilateral support before proceeding:
It is impossible to succeed against terrorism unless we have secured the continuing, sustained cooperation of many nations. And here's one of my central points; our ability to secure that kind of multilateral cooperation in the war against terrorism can be severely damaged in the way we go about undertaking unilateral action against Iraq...in the immediate aftermath of September 11, more than a year ago, we had an enormous reservoir of goodwill and sympathy and shared resolve all over the world. 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're going to do.
Gore also questioned the broad precedent concerning preemption:
Now we have seen the assertion of a brand new doctrine called "preemption," based on the idea that in the era of proliferating weapons of mass destruction, and against the background of a sophisticated terrorist threat, the United States cannot wait for proof of a fully established mortal threat, but should rather act at any point to cut that short...To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq is the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last. 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 - none of them very popular in the United States, of course - but the implication is that wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations, the doctrine will apply.
And, oh yeah, what are our plans AFTER Hussein is removed?
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 quickly 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...But if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan, in its current depleted state, with no central authority - well, they have a central authority, but their central authority, because the administration's insistence that the international community not be allowed to assemble a peace keeping force large enough to pacify the countryside, that new government in Afghanistan controls a few precincts in one city and the warlords or drug lords control the whole rest of the countryside...What if the Al Qaeda members infiltrated across the borders of Iraq the way they are in Afghanistan?
Gore's take on the bottomline of an Iraqi attack:
I just think that if we end the war in Iraq the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could very well be worse off than we are today. When you ask the administration about this, what's their intention in the aftermath of a war, Secretary Rumsfeld was asked recently about what our responsibility would be for re-stabilizing Iraq in the aftermath of an invasion, and his answer was, "That's for the Iraqis to come together and decide"...you look back over the last 85 to 100 years, there is lots and lots of evidence about why it's almost as important to win the peace following a war as it is to win the war itself.
Let's be proud to Americans:
I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our core principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for. We should have as our top priority preserving what America represents and stands for in the world and winning the war against terrorism first.
In the '80's Gore began taking a position on the Internet, which most of us did not understand, but he was right. In the '80's and'90's, he took a position on global warming and climate protection that many of us did not understand, but he was right. In 2002 he took a stand on Iraq that many of us (and several of our current presidential candidates) did not understand, but again he was right. Al Gore has demonstrated vision and courage to take a stand for an unpopular view that he believes is right, time and again. Imagine the world today, if Al Gore had become president in 2000. Imagine the world ten years from now if we "Make It Right America" and draft and elect Al Gore in 2008. Al Gore is EXACTLY what this country needs.
Sign the petition at draftgore.com
Join a local Draft Gore group near you and get active at algore.org
Al Gore Forum at Al Gore Support Center