I sent my original post to Mr. Frank by email, advising him that it was published on DU. He responded. I have just sent off my rejoinder to his response. I include the whole correspondence, in reverse chronological order, only deleting here my name and phone number.
-----------------------
I am amazed at your assertion that "Gore just wanted Congress to debate the matter a bit more." This is simply false, as demonstrated by a quoted portion of the speech in question below. Actually, Gore opposed the IWR as drafted.
Above and beyond that factual inaccuracy, if you read the speech carefully you will find it replete with opposition to the doctrine of pre-emption, warnings of all the problems we are currently facing in Iraq and general condemnation for our loss of focus on the threat of Al Qaida.
As to your red herring reference to Gore not being "soft" on Saddam, only a fool would be. Saddam was a dictator who had invaded two neighboring countries in the preceding two decades, a true threat to stability in the region. Gore's point was that unilateral pre-emptive invasion was not the appropriate plan of action.
Finally as to your suspicions on Gore's trustworthiness regarding Iraq, he has been consistent with international opinion. He supported the first Gulf War, as did essentially every nation except Iraq. He opposed the second Gulf War, as did most of Europe and the rest of the world.
Regards,
XXXX XXXXXXXX
"WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD DO I
believe, therefore, that the resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants, and needs to be narrowed. 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. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration's thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change.
Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq. The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its gravity."
Joshua Frank wrote:
Oh goodness. More Dem ignorance. If you read the whole speech you'll notice that Gore just wanted Congress to debate the matter a bit more. That's great. But I don't think anyone can walk away thinking he was "soft" on Saddam. Hardly. And given his history with Iraq in the 1990s in particular, I don't believe Gore is to be trusted on the matter.
Cheers,
j
On 2/14/06, Admiral Loinpresser wrote:
Dear Mr. Frank: Below is what I posted on Democratic Underground in response to your misleading article about Al Gore.
Regards,
XXXXX XXXXXXXX
XXX-XXX-XXXX
---------------------------------
Joshua Frank gives the impression that Gore didn't oppose the invasion of Iraq:
Al Gore was certainly no peacenik during his days as serving under Bill Clinton. He supported NATO's intervention in Bosnia and bombing of the Sudan. Up until George W. Bush's Iraq invasion Gore was even delivering stump speeches highlighting Saddam's potential threat.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter," Gore said on September 23, 2002. "(W)e should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Actually, despite Frank's spin, Gore DID oppose the IWR in the very speech quoted on 9/23/02. One sample:
"By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network - - "
http://algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=...In other words he was perhaps the first Dem to make a major speech against the invasion. Quoting that speech to convey the opposite impression brings Frank perilously close to Al Franken's favorite word: LIAR!
--
www.BrickBurner.org
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
