Reply #55: You cherry picking your quotes and drawing the wrong conclusion [View All]

[AlGore-08.com]

I will now school you - - because I hold the Tipper Gore Chair of Al Gore Studies at Vanderbilt University and they don't hand that out for your attendence record.

Here is your quote, which you claim proves Gore supported Bush's (then) proposed preemptive invasion of Iraq:

"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. "

What Gore was discussing in this speech was the (then) proposed doctrine of preemption, not whether we should ever go to war with Iraq. In the speech Gore explained that nations certainly have a right to defend themselves (the quote you posted), but that was different from having the right to preemptively attack possible enemies. The point of Gore's speech was that the doctrine of preemption was unnecessary and dangerous and Congress should not approve it.

Here is a link to the speech transcript on my own site:
http://www.algoredemocrats.com/news/gnn/EpFklEVVZFrTfONOYJ.shtml

Here is what Gore specifically said about whether it was necessary to preemptively invade Iraq, from a little bit later in the speech:

The doctrine of preemption is based on the idea that in the era of proliferating WMD, 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.

The problem with preemption is that in the first instance it is not needed in order to give the United States the means to act in its own defense against terrorism in general or Iraq in particular. But that is a relatively minor issue compared to the longer-term consequences that can be foreseen for this doctrine. To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq if 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, etc., 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. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

If it wasn't so serious, it would be pretty funny that folks are now trying to paint this Gore as supporting the war in Iraq, when this speech was universally reported as showing Gore's opposition to the war.

But the cardinal rule of GOP spin points has always been: that was then, baby. This is now!