Fisking Al Gore

Fisking Al Gore: I’m actually happy that Al Gore has now come out so strongly against hitting Iraq. This will help the Republican Party paint the Democrats as Vietnam era peaceniks who aren’t serious about defending America (which is largely true by the way except for Zell Miller and a few other Southern Democrats). But let’s just look at a few of Gore’s comments today…

“If you are going after Jesse James you ought to organize the posse first,” Gore said in a speech to the Commonwealth Club of California.”

That sounds good but what do you do if the posse says, “Go ahead and let the James Gang burn down your house. That’s not our problem.” Presumably Al Gore thinks you should sheepishly step aside and let Jesse Hussein and company do what they want. That’s a big part of the reason why Gore isn’t fit to be sheriff.

“He added, ‘We should focus first and foremost on our top priority — winning the war against terrorism.”

Again, this shows not only the difference between Bush and Gore, but the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on this issue. The Republicans understand that the ‘war on terrorism’ can’t be won without destroying the global terror network of which Iraq is a part. There IS NO war against terrorism without taking out Hussein. But Gore doesn’t really care about winning the war, what he wants to do is strategically retreat, call it “peace for our time”, and then spin the blame away for the millions of American deaths that would lead to.

“Gore said such an attack would cost American taxpayers “hundreds of billions of dollars,”

How much would it cost us if LA, NYC, DC, and Chicago were all blown to Hell by nukes? Because that would be the end result of letting the global terror network continue to flourish. Furthermore, can you imagine someone suggesting on Dec 23, 1942, “FDR, we better stop fighting WW2 because it’s going to cost too much. It’s more important that we save money that save millions of American lives…” If Al Gore were alive back then, would he have been the man to say that?

“Gore said such an attack…(may) leave Iraq dangerously unstable”

Is that supposed to be a bad thing considering the alternative is leaving a a maniacal dictator who may soon have nuclear weapons in charge? Keep in mind that this is a man who has used chemical weapons on Iran and on his own people, who has gone to war with the United States, who has tried to assassinate an American President, and who has ties with terrorists. Is that the type of “stability” Al Gore wants?!? Apparently so…

“Gore said such an attack….. would destroy the international goodwill the United States has sought to build since the Sept. 11 attacks”

“International goodwill” and 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. Personally, I’d be more concerned about protecting American lives than getting “international goodwill” from the likes of France, Germany, and Syria. Moments of silence are nice, but not so nice that they’re worth letting Americans die for them.

One more thing, this whole little speech by Gore shows that he’s willing the play political games with American lives. Say what you want about the timing of Bush’s announcements about going to the UN and Congress, he’s been talking about hitting Iraq for more than half a year. In fact, you can trace the roots of this attack all the way back to his big Sept 20, 2001 speech after 9/11.

On the other hand, Gore is only coming out against hitting Iraq so he can score points with the hard core anti-America, anti-military wing of the Democratic party during the 2004 primaries. You see the rest of the Democratic candidates for President are at least pretending to be for an attack on Iraq. So not only does Gore stand out from the pack, he scores points with the hard-core lefties who’ll contribute money and time to his campaign and will turn out on election day. To get those voters, Gore is flip-flopping from his previous position on Iraq.

When Gore was running for President, he had this to say back on May 23, 2000,

“…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.”

I guess that “never waver” thing only counted if he was elected President? Wavering is apparently A-OK since he lost.

Also, back in February of 2002, Gore “embraced Mr. Bush’s description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “axis of evil”

In that speech he also said, “The United States must deal with the threat of Iraq “on our terms,” he said. That means U.S. strategy must protect the security and interest of allies like Saudi Arabia. Gore said that once a strategy for Iraq is developed, “we must be prepared to go the limit.”

I guess that Al “let’s surrender to terrorism” Gore’s limit wasn’t all that high huh? How amazing is it that when all was said and done, a few hundred votes in Florida may have been the difference between winning the ‘war on terrorism’ and seeing millions and Americans die because of Al Gore’s inaction? America came “this close” to an Al Gore presidency that we may never have recovered from folks. I can’t even begin to tell you how lucky America is that the right guy won in 2000.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend