Posted on 09/24/2002 1:50:31 PM PDT by Shermy
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A fierce attack on President Bush ( news - web sites)'s Iraq policy issued by former Vice President Al Gore ( news - web sites) could help galvanize U.S. opposition to a new Gulf war ( news - web sites) while serving as a launching pad for Gore's probable 2004 presidential campaign, analysts said on Tuesday.
In a speech in San Francisco, the defeated 2000 Democratic presidential nominee on Monday laid out a scathing critique of Bush's Iraq policy.
Pollster John Zogby said Gore's message was "very well timed."
"Gore stepped in just as it appeared that pro-war sentiment would go virtually unchallenged in Congress and in the country," Zogby said. "There will be an anti-war movement that grows out of this."
Democrats in the U.S. Congress, acutely aware the mid-term elections that will decide control of both houses of Congress are only six weeks away, have been wary of speaking out against Bush on Iraq. Their main tactic has been to try to change the subject to domestic issues but with scant success.
Bush has been pressing Congress to debate Iraq and endorse his policy within the next couple of weeks before lawmakers leave Washington for the election campaign rather than waiting until mid-November.
"Gore put forward some legitimate and substantive arguments which might make it possible for the country to have a real debate. That makes him stand out among the various potential Democratic presidential candidates," said Steven Wayne, a political scientist at Georgetown University.
Gore, who as a senator supported the 1991 Gulf War, laid out several objections to Bush's determination to remove President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) from power, if necessary by force and with the United States acting alone.
He said a war against Iraq distracted attention from the war against terrorism and the need to stabilize Afghanistan ( news - web sites). It also alienated and frightened U.S. allies, would cost billions of dollars and might leave Iraq so unstable and disorganized it would become even more dangerous to the United States.
'WORSE DANGER'
"The resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory with Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than does Saddam," Gore said.
A number of analysts said on Tuesday the speech marked the beginning of Gore's quest for the presidency in 2004.
"He is asserting his leadership of the Democratic Party and kicking off his 2004 campaign. If the Iraq war does go sour, Gore will become the 'I told you so' guy and will look like a prophet," said American University historian Allan Lichtman.
Polls show the administration has made substantial progress in recent weeks in convincing Americans it was vital to rid the world of Saddam, who Bush says is developing weapons of mass destruction and backing international terrorism.
But only around 52 percent of Democrats support the war, leaving Gore giving a voice to a substantial constituency within his own party, many frustrated with the timidity of their congressional leaders.
"Gore is trying to present himself as the only Democrat with backbone and the guts to take on the president," said Tom DeLuca, a political scientist with Fordham University in New York.
When voters were asked if they would still support a war with Iraq if it involved substantial U.S. casualties and resulted in U.S. troops remaining as an occupying power for a substantial period of time, support fell well below 50 percent, according to Zogby.
Still, around 60 percent of Americans now seem to support the idea of toppling Saddam, even though they would prefer to see Bush secure United Nations ( news - web sites) backing and go into combat with some allies alongside him, polls show.
And all the war talk seems to have helped Bush and the Republicans in the buildup to the mid-term elections.
"The Bush administration has succeeded in shifting the debate from domestic issues where they are weak to Iraq and Republicans have benefited," said Democratic consultant and pollster Jennifer Laszlo.
"For instance, yesterday's news that the Nasdaq stock index hit a six-year low was pretty much buried by the president's latest comments on Iraq," she said.
Pollster Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center said Gore was taking a substantial political risk with the speech even if events proved him right.
He recalled that opponents to the Vietnam War did not fare well with voters even though that conflict turned into a disastrous defeat for the United States. At the height of the conflict, President Richard Nixon trounced dovish Democrat George McGovern in the 1972 presidential election.
"Gore is playing risky pool," Kohut said.
The toughest one would be explaining how the speech was coherent, in whatever view. Was he saying Yes? No? Later? Picky on his foe's father?
Excellent analysis. What else is there to say about this story? Maybe that Algore will say, in a year or two, that he supported the downfall of Saddam all along. He is a sad, sad man.
The only other point I would make is based on a call to Rush Limbaugh's show today. What if this does start increased debate about Iraq? What does that do? It takes the Democrats' domestic issues off of the "kitchen table" for the election - even more than they are now. And the Dems can't win on Iraq, especially not before November. The only way they get any political advantage out of it is if the war turned out to be a Vietnam-like quagmire (like Afghanistan was </ sarcasm>) and that can't happen until the war actually starts.
So this either takes the Dems away from their game plan, or this speech gets forgotten about. We win either way.
The caller I think was saying this was Gore's way of neutralizing potential presidential contenders. Let them fight over who can be more anti-war. Again, we win.
Precisely, now Al and Tipper will be sitting at home cheering for every American body bag. These opportunistic lowlifes are beneath contempt.
How th' heck does he figure that!?
Lemme see--Fundy Muslims are trying to kill us for our support of Israel, having bases in Saudi Arabia, the sanctions against Iraq and Gulf war I.
Iraq supports them and is building weapons of mass destruction--being a previous aggressor against his neighbors, US interests, and throwing UN inspectors out, the onus is on Saddam to prove he doesn't have these weapons. It ain't a US innocent-until-proven-guilty court, it's the realpolitik world of nations at the brink of war.
The way I figger it, Algore is in a no-win situation:
Either, a) We attack, discover and thwart Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and suffer another terrorist attack on our soil galvanizing the US against Algore and the do-nothing crowd.
OR:
b) We do nothing, Saddam uses his weapons against US forces or Israel, they/we nuke him and we are on the brink of armageddon. The US suffers another terrorist attack on our soil galvanizing the US against Algore and the do-nothing crowd.
No matter what happens, Algore loses. What is he thinking?
How is doing nothing in the face of a threat to the nation ever a good thing?
-Al Gore, in Feb. 12, 2002 speech to Council on Foreign Relations.
Full Transcript of Feb 12, 2002 speech
On May 23,2000 vice president and presidential candidate Al Gore made the following remarks about Iraq:
"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone. We have sought coalitions of opponents to challenge his power from within or without. I have met with the Iraqi resistance, and I have invited them to meet with me again next month – when I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam. We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising criticism, while improving the oil-to-food program to help the Iraqi people directly. We have used force when necessary. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver. "
And here's another interesting tidbit for ya....
"Gore's Gulf War Vote Hinged on Key TV Slot" by Senator Alan Simpson
I! Think! Someone! Put! Exclamations! At! The! End! Of! Every! Word!
That is what it seemed like to me. He over emphasises each word.
Al Gore vs. Saddam: Algore talks tough, but little to no Action since 1993 (2000)
"I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the pain and agony Saddam Hussein has inflicted on the people of Iraq. It is precisely because of this conviction that I support a policy not only designed to contain the threat posed by Saddam's brutal regime, but also to help Iraqis one day secure a government worthy of them," wrote Mr. Gore. The vice president's sentiments are noble indeed, but his rhetoric is unsettlingly familiar....Gore says U.S. still trying to oust Saddam Hussein
"It's been maybe 10 years now that I haven't seen a smile from my parents or any emotion due to lost relatives in the country," Jason Kado, 19, told Gore at a forum with undecided Michigan voters.Kado, who said his uncle - part of Iraq's Caldian Christian minority - was killed by the Iraqi military and that his cousins died of malnutrition, asked Gore what he would do as president to end Saddam's dictatorship and the international sanctions tied to his reign.
"Saddam Hussein is the reason for this suffering," Gore said in a sympathetic tone. "We have tried to remove him. We are now engaged in some efforts that we're not talking about publicly but, no doubt, you've seen (them) reported in the newspapers."
He went on to reiterate his support for continuing sanctions against Iraq, with their exemption for food and medical supplies. "If I am entrusted with the presidency, I will move Heaven and earth to bring an end to the suffering; it has gone on too long."
But, Gore added, "We can't go in there without troops" and impose a change in government.
Kado told a reporter after the forum that Gore's answer was half-satisfying. "I wanted to hear that Iraq would be the next democracy ... that the United States would use its power," he said. "But he at least made an attempt to please me." ....
I have begun a Ping list to keep track of the Radical Left. If you are interested in joining or have found a relevant story drop me a line.
LOL! Every dirty job that comes along... Al can take it, and McCauliff will let him stay in the spotlight, or he can turn it down and the media will quit calling.
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.