Al Gore made a speech on Monday attacking the Bush Administration’s policy on Iraq. Gore suggests that unilateral action on Iraq is damaging the war against Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Most useful Gore soundbite:
“Great nations persevere and then prevail, they do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism.”
Less play for Former President Jimmy Carter, who also came out against the resolution: “It is a radical departure from traditions that have shaped our nation’s policy by Democratic and Republican presidents for more than 50 years.”
The New York Times points out that Al Gore is saying what the Democrats cannot, as he is less restrained by the upcoming elections in November than the current members of Congress. The piece also considers that Gore has made life difficult for himself, undermining 10 years of hawkishness and placing himself in opposition to his former ticket-mate Senator Liberman. Some Democrats are not pleased, and think he is playing into Republican hands by appearing anti-war. Some Democrats are happy that he’s taking the lead, and the NYT quotes a senior Democratic strategist: “Is this going to enable the peace caucus in the House and the Senate?”
CNN highlights Gore’s criticism of Bush’s draft resolution in Congress, which is too broad for Gore’s taste. CNN also takes the opportunity to highlight other Democrat’s opposition to the pending congressional resolution, quoting Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic Whip: “As the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, I have seen nothing that says Saddam Hussein has nuclear capability — to either develop a weapon or to launch it, and certainly not to launch it to the United States.” The piece also mentions that a vote on the resolution should come up in early October.
The AP highlights another Gore jab about delterious effects of unilateral action on international law: “That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States,” he said.
William Safire highlights a significant passage in the speech which no other source seemed to find interesting: “Existing resolutions, passed 11 years ago, are completely sufficient from a legal standpoint, so long as it is clear that Saddam Hussein is in breach of the agreements.” Safire also points out that the “pre-emptive self-defense” doctrine has already been exercised by the Clinton administration, in the 1998 bombings in Iraq. No other source we’ve found has brought this up, and it seems significant.
a technology job is no excuse 