|
Gore warns war helps terror { September 24 2002 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56356-2002Sep23.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56356-2002Sep23.html
Gore Gives Warning On Iraq
War Could Hurt Effort Against Terror, He Says
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 24, 2002; Page A01
Former vice president Al Gore sharply challenged President Bush on Iraq yesterday, warning that the administration's apparent determination to launch military action to dislodge Saddam Hussein will "severely damage" the overall war on terrorism and "weaken" U.S. leadership in the world.
In one of the most forceful critiques to date by any leading Democrat, Gore challenged the administration's new doctrine of preemption, gave voice to critics who question the political timing of the administration's push for quick action in Congress and the United Nations. Gore also said Bush has set his sights on getting rid of Hussein because the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorists has bogged down.
Gore said Bush's concentration on Iraq has squandered the worldwide support engendered by the attacks of last Sept. 11 and turned the United States into a focus of "anger and apprehension" around the world.
"By shifting from his early focus after September 11 on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the president has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, goodwill and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility," he said.
Gore's speech, the text of which was made available in Washington, came as work continued in Congress and at the U.N. on resolutions that would authorize Bush to use force to remove Hussein from power in Iraq. White House officials were negotiating with Democrats and Republicans over the language of the resolution, which Gore called far too broad. Debate could begin next week.
Bush, on a campaign trip to New Jersey, renewed his call for quick action at the United Nations on a tough resolution aimed at disarming Hussein, saying this case will show whether the U.N. is still relevant. But former president Jimmy Carter said he is "deeply concerned" about administration policy, calling it "a radical departure" from 50 years of tradition by Republican and Democratic presidents. Carter said the shift represented "a great danger to our country."
Gore's remarks, delivered before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, put him at odds with many of the other possible 2004 Democratic presidential candidates, who have been generally to strongly supportive of Bush on Iraq. Until yesterday, only Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean have offered notable dissent, although Kerry has left open the possibility of voting for the resolution in Congress.
Gore was silent on Iraq as the debate over Bush's policy heated up at the United Nations and in Congress, although he has been hawkish on the subject of Hussein. In 1991, Gore was among the few Democrats in the Senate to vote for a resolution authorizing President George H.W. Bush to go to war against Iraq. In a speech in February, he contended that the war on terrorism would not be completed without a "final reckoning" with Hussein.
Yesterday, he made clear that he believes Bush is rushing too rapidly to confront Hussein and argued that, without broad international support, Bush's policy could have disastrous consequences for the United States and the world.
"I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century," Gore said, according to the text.
Gore chided the administration for its failure to stay the course in Afghanistan and stay in the hunt for the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. "I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted," he said. "Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another."
Hussein, Gore's text stated, "does pose a serious threat" to stability in the Persian Gulf, and he acknowledged that there is no international law that prevents the United States from acting, even unilaterally, if there is a choice "between law and survival." But he added, "Such a choice is not presented."
Gore spokesman Jano Cabrera said Gore would support unilateral action if there were an imminent threat against the United States by Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, but said the former vice president believes an "imminent threat has not been pointed out by this administration."
Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke brushed aside Gore's critique as politically motivated. "The whole speech was a contradiction within a contradiction and really highlights the fact that this is a guy who can't recognize leadership," Dyke said. "To me, he sounded more like a political hack than a presidential candidate."
Gore questioned whether the administration has either a plan or the stamina to stay in Iraq long enough after a war to assure stability, and warned that it could come to resemble the situation today in Afghanistan, with far greater consequences. "If we end the war in Iraq the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today," said Gore, who has indicated he will decide by the end of the year if he will seek the presidency again.
Gore drew a sharp contrast between the current president and his father on Iraq. Gore said that war in 1991 was justified by the fact that Iraq had invaded Kuwait, that Bush's father worked "patiently and skillfully" to build a broad coalition and did not come to Congress for support until the midterm elections had been concluded and the U.N. had passed a tough resolution.
Gore said that in this case it is the United States contemplating invading another nation, and that American taxpayers will have to shoulder the entire cost of the war. He also suggested that Bush and Republicans are using the war for political gain.
Among other possible Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John Edwards (N.C.) and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) have offered strong support for Bush on Iraq, with all saying the United States should be prepared to act alone if the international community balks. Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) initially resisted an early vote on the Iraq resolution but later said he would welcome a vote before the election. Kerry has raised questions about the administration's policy, arguing that Bush should be more willing to exhaust peaceful means of disarming Iraq before resorting to war.
At the United Nations, officials intend to begin discussions today with Britain on a revised draft resolution that would tighten the rules for conducting inspections, according to council diplomats. Their hope is to secure passage before the U.N. chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, travels to Vienna early next week for meetings with Iraqi officials to work out the final arrangement for the resumption of inspections.
Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations contributed to this report.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
|
|
