FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE

Wednesday

Al Gore said what?

I almost hate to make this post, because I have grown weary of the never-ending debate about the lead-up to the war in Iraq. My fatigue can mainly be attributed to self-contradicting statements made by two-faced politicians.

But this self-contradictory rhetoric has become exceedingly vicious. Thus, when a politician who engages in such vicious commentary, it bears repeating their previous statements to the contrary.

Once again, I give you Al Gore. Recently, he has made very mean-spirited remarks concerning President Bush and the war in Iraq.


“He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!”


“How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace! How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison!”


“[Bush] has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every town and city to a greater danger of attacks by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness and bungling at stirring up hornets' nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us.”


Now, contrast those statements with these:


“Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible, and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly.”

“Throughout this period, Saddam's atrocities continued. In March, Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children, and none of us can ever forget the pictures of their bodies, of parents trying to shield their infants, even in death, that were in our news media and around the world.”

“Saddam's attacks created, in addition to the wave of deaths, a flight of about half a million Kurdish refugees. The effect of these events on the public and on Congress was electrifying. The outrage and disgust sparked action and ignited an intensification of efforts in the Congress to pull the plug on US support for Saddam Hussein. I, myself, went to the Senate floor twice demanding tough action, but these efforts were resisted to the bitter end.”

Iraq continued to cooperate with terrorists, that it was meddling in Lebanon, that it was working hard at chemical and biological weapons and new missiles.


“In April, a nuclear proliferation expert from the Department of Energy reported intelligence indicators that Iraq had begun a crash program to build an atomic bomb. In June, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that Iraq was running a major European network to procure military goods that were not supposed to be sold to Iraq. In August, the FBI rated the Atlanta branch of the Italian Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, or BNL, and seized evidence of over $4 billion in illegal loans to Iraq, as well as the use of about $2 billion of those funds to buy nuclear and other military technologies.

“And most significant of all, in the same month, the CIA reported to Secretary of State Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network of front companies.

Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation, with a record of terrorism continuing, was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological?

Well, evidently not, because in the midst of this flood of highly alarming information…President Bush signed a document known as NSD 26, which established the policy toward Iraq under his administration.

NSD 26 mandated the pursuit of improved economic and political ties with Iraq on the assumption that Iraqi behavior could be modified by means of new favors to be granted. Well, perhaps so, if this were a state not under the complete control of a single man whose ruthlessness had already been totally apparent. And the text of NSD 26 blindly ignores the evidence already at the administration's disposal of Iraqi behavior in the past regarding human rights, terrorism, use of chemical weapons, the pursuit of advanced weapons of mass destruction. Instead, it makes an heroic assumption of good behavior in the future on the basis of an interesting theory, namely that Iraq would suddenly and completely change its ways out of a fear of economic and political sanctions.

To the contrary, Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter what he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.

Well, in my view, the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you would expect with all of the evidence that it had available to it at the time. Saddam Hussein's nature and intentions were perfectly visible.



Confused? I don’t blame you. Al Gore said all of this during a press conference in 1992. He was talking about the first President Bush’s response to Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

Read it closely. He was criticizing President George H. W. Bush for NOT BEING TOUGH with Saddam Hussein. He blasted the first Bush administration for trying to play nice with Iraq while Saddam supported terrorism, attempted to procure biological and chemical weapons, and sought to possess nuclear weapons.

In this same speech, Gore stated:


“In the months preceding this meeting, Iraqi oil exports to the US had increased dramatically and on favorable terms. That point raised the question of a quid pro quo sought by the Iraqi officials: cheap oil in return for, quote, ‘freer export licensing procedures for high tech.’”

We’ve all heard the leftist ranting that the current President Bush went to war in Iraq for oil. Well, in 1992, Gore was saying that President H.W. Bush REFUSED to remove Saddam from power because he wanted Iraq’s oil.

If you go to war, it’s because of oil. If you DON’T go to war, it’s because of oil. It’s really a no-win situation.

So, this was Gore in 1992. He made the case that Saddam could not be trusted in power. Well, he and Clinton occupied the White House for 8 years. What did they do about the problem?

They made it a United States policy to remove Saddam from power.

Did they carry that policy out? No. The current President Bush did. And, he did it with the authorization of 373 members of the United States Congress, 17 U.N. resolutions, and the stated policy of the previous Presidential administration.

Al Gore himself has made the case. He passionately made that case in 1992. But, the political wind has shifted. And, Gore moves right along with it.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment



<< Home