Anyone have article about Gore calling for immediate withdrawal or is that

[blm]

internet rumor?

There have been so many distracting posts lately I'm only trusting LBN.

[IndyOp]

1. He said it on THIS WEEK with Stephanopoulis - link:

ABC News video of Gore on THIS WEEK
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2037865

[Mass]

3. But this is not what he said. Read better. He refuses a deadline

and says that they could be withdrawn before the end of the year or after, depending on the situation.

I know that Gore wants the troops out the sooner they can, but he is not calling for immediate withdrawal here.

[IndyOp]

12. I should 'read' the video better? I understand that Gore said more than

one word, but his first word was "Immediately" - and blm asked about what Gore said - so I directed him to the video so blm could see for himself.

[KoKo]

15. I heard it and that's what he said. He wishes it could be soon but

says it's not a good idea to set a defined date.

[Mass]

17. I posted the transcript. Sorry, this is not immediate withdrawal.

[blm]

8. I must be missing it - I don't hear immediate withdrawal. No deadline

and such sounded like Biden.

What does could be sooner mean if there is no plan attached to it?

[IndyOp]

14. I took your OP as asking for the source from which others were reaching a

conclusion. The source was the THIS WEEK interview so I gave you the link to the video.

When I watched it, my initial reaction to 'immediately' was a quick rise in pulse, which then dropped when he went on. My overall impression was that he meant 'as soon as possible' - similar in meaning to Boxer & Kerry's current proposals.

"I would pursue the twin objectives of getting our troops home as soon as possible, without making the moral mistake of making an already bad situation worse."

As soon as possible. He said that - certainly more clear about needing to exit than many others.

On Edit: He did not say 'immediately' as I had thought.

[Mass]

16. Here is the transcript - tell me where the word "Immediate"is

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Gore_Maybe_troops_should_pullout_from_0604.html

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the broader issue? It's no secret you were against the war early and strongly. What would you do now? Right now?

MR. GORE: Well, I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that will make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war and/or anarchy.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: John Kerry says there should be a complete pull-out by the end of this year. Do you agree with that?

MR. GORE: Well, not necessarily. Maybe it could come sooner than that.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Sooner?

MR. GORE: Well, maybe. Maybe sometime after that. I think that we need to pursue these twin objectives.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Without a deadline, though?

MR. GORE: Probably without a deadline. I think the setting of the deadline is intended to -- sometimes it's described as a way to set in motion forces that will make -- improve our options and improve the situation on the ground. It's possible that setting a deadline could set in place, in motion, forces that would make it even worse. I think that we should analyze that very carefully. My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach. But again, you have to weigh that question in the context of how the political decisions are made between the Congress and the Executive Branch. Sometimes the Congress itself has blunt instruments and limited options to play a role in matters like this. But --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Like cutting off funding?

MR. GORE: Well, I don't think anybody will be talking about that ever. But in terms of meeting these twin objectives, getting our troops home as quickly as possible without making the moral mistake of worsening an already bad situation, that's delicate, it's difficult.

[blm]

19. I know - and thanks very much for that. It sounded much more vague to me

as if he DIDN'T want to agree with the quicker withdrawal plan, but didn't feel comfortable saying so.

That's classic political hedging.

[LoKnLoD]

2. Well I just read this one on RS

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Gore_Maybe_troops_should_pullout_from_0604.html

On a Sunday morning talk show, former Vice President Al Gore suggested that U.S. troops should pull out from Iraq sooner than the end of the year.

"John Kerry says there should be a complete pull-out by the end of this year, do you agree with that?" asked ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

"Well, not necessarily," Gore responded. "Maybe it could come sooner than that."

[Mass]

4. Read the end of the article, because he does not call for immediate

withdrawal.

[beachmom]

5. Nah -- that definitely doesn't count

Maybe sooner, maybe later . . . . that is pretty damned vague.

Then he goes on to reiterate Joe Biden's position.

Plus, our main allies are in the Congress with actual votes. The two people I look to are Jack Murtha and John Kerry. I wish Gore had supported Kerry's amendment. I'm pretty disappointed with this to be frank.

[blm]

6. Where is he calling for immediate withdrawal?

Did he put up a plan - what am I missing?

[Clovis Sangrail]

10. media distortion

right after he said "Maybe it could come sooner than that" he said (paraphrasing) "Maybe it could come *later than that"

I watched this morning and it was pretty obvious he *wasn't saying we should pull out of Iraq in less than a year.

He was plainly opposed to the war but had concerns about leaving an even worse situation by pulling out too soon.
(like we're going to avoid leaving Iraq worse off than when we arrived) :eyes:

[blm]

11. Thanks for the clarification.

I should have known, because if he did do it he would have presented a withdrawal plan.

[IndyOp]

18. Thank you! I was looking for a transcript!

:hi:

[karynnj]

35. It's not logical either

Kerry is specifying a maximum date - "BY Dec 31, 2006." Not the earliest possible date. Leaving tommorrow would satisfy before December 31, 2006.

[Mass]

7. Internet rumor. People took one sentence of what Gore said out of

context and decided he was calling for immediate withdrawal.

We know that Gore wants the troops out sooner rather than later, but if you read completely what he said in this ABC interview, he did not call for immediate withdrawal.

[blm]

9. Should have known - the rumors are going fast and furious last 2 days and

I'm thinking half of them are deliberate to get Dems arguing with each other.

[ProSense]

13. I still hope

Gore goes here and supports the call for withdrawal.

[wisteria]

28. Gore should go there and do what is right. After all, he is against

this war and he needs to now take a stand on withdraw- not take the safe position.

[NCarolinawoman]

20. As I understood it when I watched it, he said he doesn't want a timeline

because that would play into the hands of the insurgents. But he would like the troops home as soon as possible. (I took that to be "START re-deploying this year"). That is what the official Democratic line is, I believe.

By the way, it takes at least ONE WHOLE YEAR to bring the troops home because they have to bring home all "the stuff": ammunition, tanks, humvees, helicoptors, etc., that you don't want to get into the hands of all the tribes and insurgents; which of course, would only make the bloodbath worse once we leave.

I will read the transcript to see if I understood this right.

[IndyOp]

21. What is your source for "it will take one year"? (nt)

[NCarolinawoman]

25. IndyOP, it was Wes Clark.

He was blogging many months ago on his website, and he knew most of his supporters were disappointed in his not saying we should have a time-line. He was asked some very specific questions and one of these was "what exactly happens when you withdraw?" That quote about "the stuff" was his. Also, another reason you don't announce a timeline is because the troops would be put in the position of "shooting their way out". Actually, you can REALLY HAVE a timeline, but it's not suppose to be good to announce it.

That is how I understood it. I apologize for not mentioning my source. I, myself, am a far cry from a military expert.

[IndyOp]

30. Okay - thanks. My first thought when this was mentioned, however,

was that if things continue to go the way they are - we may wind up with another scene like the one with the helicopter lifting off from the roof of a building in Saigon.

We *must* begin to leave now - right now -- draw down the troops to reduce the amount of fire we are drawing and the amount of damage we are doing. We may have to try to remove only the 'worst' of what is stockpiled there -- the worst weapons that should never, never, never have been shipped there in the first place.

I just don't think we have a year. Either the insurgents will reach a stage in which they begin wholesale slaughter of US troops and/or the US will have to engage in daily bombing campaigns that kill 1,000's and 1,000's of Iraqis per day.

There comes a point when having to leave 'bad stuff' behind isn't the worst thing that can happen.

[NCarolinawoman]

34. The last I heard Wes Clark speak of this was a couple of days ago.

He talked about the troops "losing traction", and the massacre of the civilians being an ominous indicator. For all I know, Clark may already be aware of some kind of draw-down already starting, but he's never going to say it.

Of course it will be Bush who will ultimately decide when we leave. Unless we get tons of leverege from the '06 election.

[karynnj]

36. It took less time than that to get it all there

[blm]

29. That's pretty standard - even Murtha said 6 months is OPTIMISTIC

considering the logistics. You can shoot for 6 months but it will still most likely take closer to a year to get the last group out.

That's why both Kerry and Clark have always stressed that first we have to declare NO PERMANENT BASES as a first step of faith with the Iraqi people, so the pullout could even begin at any rate.

[wisteria]

22. GORE ISN'T FOR IMMEDIATE WITHDRAW!

He thinks we have to stay for as long as it takes to help the Iraqi's get on their feet. Gee, with that position, he sounds just the all the other conservative Dem's and close to the opinion of Lieberman minus the support for going in.

[AtomicKitten]

23. Nope, that's not what he said at all.

nor does he sound anywhere in the ballpark of conservative. Make an effort to be honest.

Jeez, why do you feel the need to walk all over Gore to promote Kerry?

[wisteria]

24. I read what he said, and I stand by my honest comments!

His position is no different that the majority of the Dem's who use the excuse that we have to stay to see this through and if we leave too soon the new Iraqi government will fall.
Face it, Gore isn't all he has recently been made out to be.

[Mass]

26. I dont think there are a lot of Dems who stand where Lieberman stands.

and certainly not Gore. For the rest, I agree with you. This is not "immediate withdrawal".

[AtomicKitten]

27. * whatever *

Your comments are propaganda, pure and simple. Lipstick on a pig.

But by all means knock yourself out with your dog and pony act trying to pretend otherwise.

On edit: If you actually read his comments, he proposes leaving SOONER than Kerry.

[welshTerrier2]

31. sooner than Kerry? nooooooooo ...

i just watched the video of what Gore said about withdrawal ... i was extremely disappointed ...

and lest you think i'm a Kerry supporter, i'm not ... i've been none too pleased with his latest offerings, or non-offerings, either ... i won't discuss them here ...

i'm posting this to correct your statement about "Gore saying we should leave sooner than Kerry" ... that's not quite what he said ...

i'm paraphrasing here but he said it MIGHT be sooner and it MIGHT be later than Kerry's call for a 12/31/06 withdrawal ... not just sooner!! sooner or later ...

the reason i'm so disappointed in what Gore said was that he made it conditional ... he called it a two objective plan or words to that effect ... objective one was to get our troops out as soon as possible ... no problem there !!!

but objective two, on which objective one was conditional, was that we could not worsen the civil war by our leaving ... well, i don't want to worsen the civil war either ... but what does this mean? Gore said he did not support the idea of any deadline ... this is yet another "we can leave IF" neverending, open-ended prescription for eternal war ... the civil war is going to get worse when we leave; it's also going to get worse if we don't leave ...

the question should not be whether leaving will make the civil war worse ... Gore is wrong to set this condition ... the question should be whether there's any likelihood, with bush, the neo-cons, and PNAC running the show, that any progress we might ever make in Iraq is worth the blood and treasure it will take to make it ... i, for one, believe bush wants to prolong our occupancy and has no interest in "succeeding" as most of us would define success ... i think his goal is continued troop presence to protect the development of the oil fields in Iraq for commercial gain ...

[AtomicKitten]

32. that's not only my perception

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Gore_Maybe_troops_should_pullout_from_0604.html

[welshTerrier2]

33. here's some of the relevant transcript

here's a link to the Gore interview: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2037865

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: John Kerry says there should be a complete pull-out by the end of this year. Do you agree with that?

MR. GORE: Well, not necessarily. Maybe it could come sooner than that.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Sooner?

MR. GORE: Well, maybe. Maybe sometime after that. I think that we need to pursue these twin objectives.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Without a deadline, though?

MR. GORE: Probably without a deadline.

[karynnj]

37. Not true - you can't be sooner than Kerry's interval

Kerry has said "before Dec 31, 2006" if the government gets it's act together. Tomorrow is before Dec 31, 2006 - so that satisfies Kerry's statement.

[AtomicKitten]

38. like I said, Gore said sooner, but you can rationalize it any way you like

On a Sunday morning talk show, former Vice President Al Gore suggested that U.S. troops should pull out from Iraq sooner than the end of the year.

"John Kerry says there should be a complete pull-out by the end of this year, do you agree with that?" asked ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

"Well, not necessarily," Gore responded. "Maybe it could come sooner than that."

[ourbluenation]

39. you beat me to it ..."maybe it could come sooner than that"

was what I heard too...

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

43. But all in all they're pretty much facing the same direction,

calling for pretty close to the same thing, and are on the same side.

It's not that big a difference really.

Who cares who is sooner than who? It's not a race, the one with the better plan gets to be president or something. I have more respect for both men than that. They both say what they mean.

[karynnj]

44. It's not rationalization - it's simple logic

When you were a teen, if your parents said "Be home by 10:00" - Could you get home by 9:00?

[Guaranteed]

40. No, he certainly didn't call for immediate withdrawal- but that was one

helluvan interview.

[Jai4WKC08]

42. I've always liked Al Gore

But my respect for him has gone up even more, to hear him articulate how important it is that we do what we can to keep the civil war from growing worse.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the broader issue? It's no secret you were against the war early and strongly. What would you do now? Right now?

GORE: Well, I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that will make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war and/or anarchy.

STEPHANOPOULOS: John Kerry says there should be a complete pull-out by the end of this year. Do you agree with that?

GORE: Well, not necessarily. Maybe it could come sooner than that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sooner?

GORE: Well, maybe. Maybe sometime after that. I think that we need to pursue these twin objectives.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Without a deadline, though?

GORE: Probably without a deadline.

I don't know whether Gore will run in '08 or not, but he seems to wants to keep that door open. He has to know how it would improve his popularity, and be real easy since he's not in office, to tell the liberal base what so many want to hear.

But he takes this shit too seriously for that. So he tells the truth as he sees it. That's good. Sign of a statesman, not just another politician.