From Sept. 2002, Gore on how a vote for the IWR was a vote for preemptive war

[AlGore-08.com]

From Gore's first major speech against the invasion of Iraq, given several weeks before the Congress voted on the IWR.

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=84

Speech Transcript: Iraq and the War On Terrorism

Monday, 23 September 2002

(snip)

(G. W. Bush) has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine - - of preemption. 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. The Bush Administration may now be realizing that national and international cohesion are strategic assets. But it is a lesson long delayed and clearly not uniformly and consistently accepted by senior members of the cabinet.

(more... )

[sandnsea]

1. They approved a different resolution

So these particular remarks aren't informative as to the resolution passed.

This is what Gore recommended in that speech, which is ultimately what Congress did.

"The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time."

He also called for commitments from Bush regarding the aftermath of war, which is commendable but wouldn't have mattered as Bush would have broken any promises anyway.

There are very very very few individuals who were consistently and completely against the war, in complete words and actions. Clark, Gore, Dean, the usual suspects, are not among them.

[AlGore-08.com]

3. Gore was against the version that was passed as well - - from Nov. 02

http://web.archive.org/web/20030217082353/www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/11/21/MN58265.DTL

Gore bashes Bush's record
Possible prelude to candidacy

Thursday, November 21, 2002

(snip)

For the first time, Gore -- who was one of the few Democratic senators to vote in support of the Gulf War in 1991 -- said he would have voted against authorizing the White House to use force against Saddam Hussein had he been a member of Congress last month.

(more... )

[sandnsea]

5. And supported removing Hussein from power

right in the article you posted. Why would one support that if they were telling the truth about there being no WMD in Iraq?

[AlGore-08.com]

7. One can oppose a head of state but not support a war to remove that head of state

As Gore did. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator - - check out the Amnesty International report on conditions in Saddam Hussein's Iraq from 2002:

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open

Scores of people, including possible prisoners of conscience and armed forces officers suspected of planning to overthrow the government, were executed. Scores of suspected anti-government opponents, including people suspected of having contacts with opposition groups in exile, were arrested. The fate and whereabouts of most of those arrested, including those detained in previous years, remained unknown. Several people were given lengthy prison terms after grossly unfair trials before special courts. Torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners and detainees were systematic. The two Kurdish political parties controlling Iraqi Kurdistan detained prisoners of conscience, and armed political groups were reportedly responsible for abductions and killings.

(snip)

The death penalty continued to be applied extensively. In November the Revolutionary Command Council, the highest executive body in the country, issued a decree to provide the death penalty for the offences of prostitution, homosexuality, incest and rape. The decree also stated that those convicted of providing accommodation for the purposes of prostitution would be executed by the sword. Women and men were reportedly beheaded in the last two years for alleged prostitution and procuring prostitutes, usually without formal trial and sometimes for political reasons.

Scores of people, including possible prisoners of conscience, were executed. The victims included army officers suspected of plotting to overthrow the government or of having contacts with opposition groups abroad, and suspected political opponents, particularly Shi'a Muslims suspected of anti-government activities.

(snip)

Political prisoners and detainees were subjected to systematic torture. The bodies of many of those executed had evident signs of torture. Common methods of physical torture included electric shocks or cigarette burns to various parts of the body, pulling out of fingernails, rape, long periods of suspension by the limbs from either a rotating fan in the ceiling or from a horizontal pole, beating with cables, hosepipe or metal rods, and falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet). In addition, detainees were threatened with rape and subjected to mock execution. They were placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured and were deliberately deprived of sleep.

(more... )

[sandnsea]

8. Here's my point

Democrats were saying a variety of things about Saddam Hussein and WMD in 2002. I don't know that any of them stated unequivocally that the intelligence was bullshit, Saddam had no WMD and was consequently no threat. Yet many people on DU think that they knew that, and don't acknowledge any disconnect in worshipping people who didn't claim to know that at all. So what we really have is the majority of the country, and world, believing Saddam had WMD at the time of the vote. Part of the reason is what Clinton administration people said at the time. So that vote isn't any sort of marker for me. What matters is what people said, and whether they moved us towards war or away from war. In some measure, Gore moved us away from war. But he was not as clearly against war as say Feingold or Obama were. At the same time, he didn't push the WMD fears the way some others did and what's more important, he consistently spoke against Bush as we moved closer to the actual invasion date. Others didn't do that either.

It's important to look at the whole of a person's comments on Iraq, foreign policy, etc. There's too much at stake in the future to cherry pick from a speech, or let one person's words be manipulated against another. I think there's a terrible war-mongering faction in the Democratic Party and we're going to miss that debate by getting all tied up on cherry-picked quotes and votes.

[AlGore-08.com]

11. Both Obama and Feingold supported regime change in Iraq, how is that different from Gore?

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

In October, 2002, Barack Obama included this in his oft quoted "What I am opposed to is a dumb war" speech:

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

And here's Russ Feingold from September, 2002, in a speech where he's opposing the invasion of Iraq:

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/speeches/02/09/2002927444.html

The threat that we know is real - Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD - is unquestionably a very serious issue. But is the mission on the table disarmament? Or is it regime change? Has anyone heard a credible plan for securing WMD sites as part of a military operation in Iraq? Has anyone heard any credible plan for what steps the U.S. intends to take to ensure that WMD do not remain a problem in Iraq, beyond the facile "get rid of Saddam Hussein" rallying cry?

Saddam is a vile man with a reckless and brutal history. I have no problem agreeing that the U.S. should support regime change. I agree with those who assert that Americans, Iraqis, and the people of the Middle East would be better off if he were no longer in power. But he is not the personification of a destabilizing WMD program. Once Hussein's control is absent, we have either a group of independent, self-interested actors with access to WMD, or an unknown quantity of a new regime. We may face a period of some chaos, wherein a violent power struggle ensues as actors maneuver to succeed Saddam.

If I apply the same standards to Obama and Feingold that you're applying to Gore, then neither Feingold nor Obama were 100% against the war either. Both men did support regime change in Iraq after all.

The important point is that Gore, Obama and Feingold all opposed the war from the moment it was suggested. They were able to see that invading Iraq would be a mistake. Others in and out of office supported the invasion of Iraq and were unable to see that it would be a mistake. That is the only point that matters.

[RestoreGore]

12. And what exactly is your point?

Mr. Gore was opposed to this preemptive war and was right to be as many of us were. What is the point of posting this now? Because you care about the lives lost from it, or more subtle 08 speculation and campaigning to come from using it?

[AlGore-08.com]

15. My original point was that there were a number of other posts that day about views of the IWR in 02

Specifically, a number of people were posting the idea that nobody could have known or believed that a vote for the IWR was a vote for preemptive war. Not that individual Amendments or specific versions of the bill were perceived as supporting preemptive war and others were perceived as excluding the possibility of preemptive war - - but that it was literally impossible to imagine back in 2002 that Bush could use the IWR to launch a preemptive war.

That is not true, and it was worth refuting, and worth refuting in its own thread IMNSHO.

My additional posts were in response to yours. You have posted that Feingold and Obama did something qualitatively different than Gore did in 2002, something that made Gore "less" against the war than Obama or Feingold. Your previous post seemed to indicate that the qualitative difference was that Gore was for regime change in Iraq while Obama and Feingold were not; or that Gore believed there were WMD in Iraq and Obama and Feingold did not. Neither is the case, so I am still not sure what the qualitative difference between Gore and the two others could be.

I find it disappointing when folks question motives of posters rather than engage them in debate. It's harmful to the democratic process in general and DU in particular - - somebody reading this thread is either going to decide your questioning of my motives is off base and ignore any future points you make, no matter how accurate they are. Or they're going to agree (without a shred of evidence) that I must be some troll and ignore the rest of my posts, no matter how accurate they are.

I think my screen name does explain who I support for the 2008 Presidential primary, so I'm not going to apologize for engaging in debate about his positions. I thought that was pretty much the whole point of DU. ;)

[RestoreGore]

16. I think you're confused

I never said anything in this thread or any other thread about Obama, Feingold, or anyone else in relation to the IWR here. And you won't find me apologizing for any question I ask here in relation to Mr. Gore since it is obvious from your "name" and previous posts that you are only here for political reasons and nothing more, and I would rather "debate" with people who support the man and are not just here to use issues for a political agenda.

[Selatius]

4. People were too trusting of Bush in those days.

In those days, I can honestly say I was agnostic at best about IWR.

[sandnsea]

6. I was against, but held out hope

that calmer heads would prevail through the UN process. By the time Powell & the UN thing rolled around, I was convinced they'd say anything to go to war. When they invaded and didn't secure ONE site, not one, I knew we were totally lied to because there's no way they wouldn't have sent special ops in ahead of time if they had any clear intelligence on WMD locations.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I saw a 2002 recording of an interview with Obama who said much the same

Both men said that it was preemption and we never have done this and it's not our policy to do so. Both also predicted a civil war and insurgency. Both said it would be a disaster.
Both knew.

[JNelson6563]

9. Yep, both were right

Two wise men. :toast:

[Catchawave]

10. Obviously Bush abused this authority

Can't Congress overturn it before he starts blasting away at other countries?

[RestoreGore]

13. You would think they could....

And all those against it should be speaking out now vocally for them all to be impeached.

[Morgana LaFey]

14. Yes, just another reason the vote itself was akin, IMO, to a war crime

And the most of them did it for purely self-serving opportunistic political reasons.