Gore questions timing of Iraq concern
July 26, 2002 11:16 AM   Subscribe

Gore questions timing of Iraq concern Is it proper to invade Iraq? This would be an unprecedented move for the US military as Iraq has not attacked the US anyone the US has defense treaties with. "Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke called Gore's comments "irresponsible." "This is no time to attack the president or Republicans for their handling of the war for political gain," he said." Hmmm..so he admits the Iraqi attack IS for partisan political gain, eh? I would have never suspected it.
posted by nofundy (27 comments total)

 
Does anyone on God's grey earth really care what Al Gore thinks about anything? I used to like him, way before the last election, but his lukewarm political waffling totally turned me off. He's a constant opportunist, who resists taking any kind of definitive position until he's sure that it's a safe political bet. He's not coming out against war in Iraq; he's nitpicking and mewling: oh the timing's wrong, it's too diplomatically risky, there needs to be more discussion... so that later, depending on what happens, he can retroactively take a stand based on his previous ambiguous pronouncements. So, in effect, Gore is using the impending war for political gain, which is what you're deriding the Bush administration for doing. Being politically aware is one thing; being an unprincipled, shifty chameleon is another.

I take that back. I respect chameleons.

And nofundy, you need to get a blog...
posted by evanizer at 11:48 AM on July 26, 2002


... so that later, depending on what happens, he can retroactively take a stand based on his previous ambiguous pronouncements

It's called politics, Evan, everybody does it -- especially possible presidential candidates
posted by matteo at 11:52 AM on July 26, 2002


Reelect Gore in Two Thousand and Four!
posted by bshort at 11:54 AM on July 26, 2002


"This is no time to attack the president or Republicans for their handling of the war for political gain," he said." Hmmm..so he admits the Iraqi attack IS for partisan political gain, eh?

I think you're parsing the sentence incorrectly, nofundy. I think what means is, "this is no time to attack [for political gain]" their handling of the war. Spoken prose can be sloppy.
posted by Tin Man at 11:56 AM on July 26, 2002


Um, and so can my typing. "I think what HE means" is what I meant, I think. I mean...
posted by Tin Man at 11:57 AM on July 26, 2002


I used to like him, way before the last election, but his lukewarm political waffling totally turned me off.

You mean like changing your oft-stated opinion about campaign finance reform when the winds shifted? No, wait. That was Bush.
posted by raysmj at 11:57 AM on July 26, 2002


Well. Seeing that Gore won the election. Maybe some of us would like to hear what the president has to say on this matter.

And you were just getting good at :::yawning::: evanizer.

At least he didn't have a backdrop behind him on which it was printed "Why Iraq? Why Now?" hundreds of times.

At least someone is being political about this. The Bush regime can muster nothing more than totalitarian edict.
posted by crasspastor at 11:58 AM on July 26, 2002


Seeing that Gore won the election. Maybe some of us would like to hear what the president has to say on this matter.

Jesus Christ. Now you started it man
posted by matteo at 12:07 PM on July 26, 2002


I watched the election. Bush won.

Oh, there was this national suggestion poll, where the citizens were asked who they wanted the electors to vote for, but that's not the same thing, is it?
posted by dwivian at 12:09 PM on July 26, 2002


National suggestion poll -- awesome.

If we all admit Gore won will he go away? 'Cause that would be dope.
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:25 PM on July 26, 2002


Whether Gore lost the election or not, is opinion should be welcome. We should only take out SH after considering all angles, positives and negatives to doing so.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:30 PM on July 26, 2002


We should attack Iraq if for no other reason than the fact that the country poses a serious threat to our allies in the region. Remember, you're either with us or against us.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 12:42 PM on July 26, 2002


We should attack Iraq if for no other reason than the fact that the country poses a serious threat to our allies in the region

Ed note: ^ally.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:47 PM on July 26, 2002


Ufez: Hehe ... Good point.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 1:00 PM on July 26, 2002


It is going to be a political war, if not for the fact that by either intent or accident, it's going to be recently concluded or onging at the time of the 2004 Presidential Elections.
posted by nathan_teske at 1:17 PM on July 26, 2002


it's going to be recently concluded or ongoing at the time of the 2004 Presidential Elections.

nathan, since it's very likely about to start, if ever, in a few months (fall 2002, january-february 2003 at the latest), and it shouldn't last much more (if successful) than the first Gulf War, you're talking about a Vietnam kind of fiasco.
If it's not over and done with by next summer, it means Saddam's winning, and then it's BIG big trouble for the Bush family revenge plan
posted by matteo at 1:34 PM on July 26, 2002


Gore does not waffle on: the environment.

Now. What does Bush not waffle on?
Campaign finance? nope...
The environment? ouch...
A balanced budget? not gonna touch that one...
Bombing civilians to kill terrorists? oops...
Corporate ethics? no!

Mispronouncing "nuke-ular"? well, yeah, he's got some consistency there...

Next, on the Bush Fucks America Show: You've seen the War on Drugs, and our recent War on Terrorism... Time for the War on Waffling!
posted by zekinskia at 1:37 PM on July 26, 2002


At least someone is being political about this. The Bush regime can muster nothing more than totalitarian edict.

Yes.
posted by rushmc at 1:51 PM on July 26, 2002


I hate it, but as a liberal Democrat I have to agree with evanizer. Why can't Gore just come out and say this is wrong and stupid? Bleh! Gore's rhetoric always makes me feel like I've been reading disclaimers. If this guy is the Democratic candidate and blows it again, who will the hardcore loyalists at Mediawhores and the like blame it on this time?
posted by norm29 at 1:52 PM on July 26, 2002


If it's not over and done with by next summer, it means Saddam's winning

While I agree that the US will defeat Iraq in a relatively short war, I don't agree with this. By the same logic, you could have said that Hitler was winning in 1943. Barring an internal revolt against Hussein, Gulf War II will be more difficult than the first one because they'll be defending their home and be more desparate. It will almost certainly take longer, and will probably have considerably more American casualties. (And it's going to be the best war ever!)

Side note: I just read Michael Kelly's excellent Martyr's Day: Chronicle of a Small War, about the first Gulf War and its immediate aftermath. His insights into Iraq are interesting.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:20 PM on July 26, 2002


You ran, You lost, Get over it. Time to go find your life's work.
posted by Oxydude at 3:59 PM on July 26, 2002


matteo --- everything I've read about the potential for a conflict in the Gulf indicates that it wouldn't start till early 2003, the campaign's final stages (withdrawal of forces, etc.) would be ongoing just as the New Hampshire primary crops up late January 2004. As we all know, serious campaigning starts well before that, so it's likely that Bush will be on the campaign trail while he's a Warring President (not counting our indefinite war against a conceptual perjorative).
posted by nathan_teske at 5:21 PM on July 26, 2002


New tagline--

Metafilter: Indefinite war against a conceptual perjorative.
posted by rushmc at 7:42 PM on July 26, 2002


Heaven forbid Al Gore exercise his freedom of speech. Of course if Ralphy boy said the same, we'd hear how he was going up against "the man".
posted by owillis at 7:54 PM on July 26, 2002


Time to go find your life's work.

So Gore should quit talking about war and move on to something meaningful? I don't know what it is about Fightin' Al that makes people stack the rules so he can't win. For a year, all we heard was criticism when he stayed out of politics. Now that he's participating again, in speeches to Democrats, he's wrong for doing that too.
posted by rcade at 9:18 PM on July 26, 2002


Al Gore just can't win. He's damned if he does and damned if he does not. I don't really think the people in control of the Democratic party want him to win, either, especially with Terry McAuliffe heading the DNC. He's going to use Gore's loss as a rallying cry for the next election, but is he going to support Gore for a run for office? Don't bet on it. If Bush's approval ratings slip far enough and the economy tanks, and there's a war with Iraq, I think Hillary could be floated as a possible candidate. Even with massive voter fraud, like in the 2000 election, Gore couldn't win. Do you think they're going to try to run someone already considered a 'loser'? He couldn't even win his home state. Americans love a winner (pardon the overused cliche).

You ran, You lost, Get over it. Time to go find your life's work.

And that's the problem for poor Al. What can he do? He has no skills, other than talking to a teleprompter. He's a professional politician without a campaign. He's twiddling his thumbs, trying to raise money, stir up some controversy to get some headlines, and get a job in office. I doubt he'll ever get over it. He wants that power, and is probably devastated that he got so close and saw it snatched away. I'm so glad he lost. So, so very glad. Now if everyone in D.C. would agree to 'lose', pack up their bags, and go home.

"This is no time to attack the president or Republicans for their handling of the war for political gain"

Its cool how Republicans are talking like the war in Iraq is already happening. Spooky.

Gore's criticism of the Bush administration's plans for invading Iraq are not unwarranted (at least in theory), if it were not for the fact that under the Clinton Administration (with Buddy Al watching and lending moral support) that the same punitive policies towards Iraq were followed, if not moreso. There has been no distinction between Democrat and Republican administrations regarding this foreign policy issue. Hell, the Democrats could be worse (read Albright's quote on the Iraqi children dying, even if she said she regretted it later, it is still relevant). So yes, let that last ember of your idealism towards the American political system die out once and for all: Gore has no principles regarding the war, he is just playing his political role as opposition, and were the roles reversed, the same thing would happen, but with the names in different places in the story.
posted by insomnyuk at 1:18 AM on July 27, 2002


Hmm. After reading the article, I think we got suckered by nofundy's spin. The bulk of it is, in fact, WaPo glowing discussion of Gore having a chummy chat with 500 young Democrats. The article ends with the quoted material above, but it's comparatively minor. Notably, the criticism comes from the RNC chairman rather than anyone connected with the White House, a muted and offset attack (they probably don't want to make the mistake of treating him as an equal before the campaign even starts; indeed, the WaPo got a shut-out in trying to get quotes from the WH).

Of course, that's all on top of nofundy's trolling mis-parsing of the quote.

I would definitely prefer that nofundy get a blog. This is ridiculous.
posted by dhartung at 5:42 AM on July 27, 2002


« Older Wars and propaganda in gaming: you've all heard of...  |  Are English Men The Worst Love... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments