AL GORE, THEN AND NOW
Al Gore, in February 12, 2002:
"I also support the President's stated goals in the next phases of the war against terrorism as he laid them out in the State of the Union. What I want to talk about tonight are the fundamental, strategic questions before us as a nation. What are the next steps in the war against terrorism? And beyond immediate next steps, what is the longer-range plan of action? And finally, what should be done to deal with root causes of this threat?"Since the State of the Union, there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an "Axis of Evil." As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name.
"One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a President of the United States. Jimmy Carter's espousal of human rights as an integral part of American foreign policy was in truth the crucial first step towards the democratic transformation of Latin America. And Ronald Reagan's blast against "the evil empire" was a pivotal moment reminding everyone that there was more at issue in the struggle between east and west than a contest for power.
---
"Our most important immediate task is to continue to tear up the Al Qaeda network, and since it is present in many countries, it will be an operation, which requires new forms of sustained cooperation with other governments.
"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.
"There is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.”
---
"When all is said and done, I hope that when the people of our country next return the White House for a time to the Democratic Party, our leadership then will be big enough to salute the present administration for what it will have done that is wise and good. And to build upon it forthrightly.”
Al Gore, December 9, 2003:
"Now, one other thing, I've spent a long time thinking about national security and national defense. And I've heard a lot of folks who, in my opinion, made a judgment about the Iraq war that was just plain wrong, saying that Howard Dean's decision to oppose the Iraq war calls his judgment on foreign policy into question. Excuse me. He was the only major candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war. And he had the insight and the courage to say and do the right thing. And that's important."Because those judgments, that basic common sense is what you want in a president. Our country has been weakened in our ability to fight the war against terror because of the catastrophic mistake that the Bush administration made in taking us into war in Iraq."
Gore in 2003 praises Dean for not listening to the very advice Gore dished out in 2002. Gore in 2003 believes that the very war he endorsed in 2002 is a catastrophic mistake. So what changed between February 2002 and December 2003? Did Saddam Hussein change? No. Did President Bush suddently sprout horns and a tail? No. Did the threat of terrorism end in Afghanistan? No--but if if did, where is the credit due President Bush? Al Gore, today, offered none of the credit that in the 2002 speech he said would be due.
The only thing that changed (other than the fact that Saddam is in fact gone now) is the Democrat party itself, which went from a mostly supportive role as loyal opposition to barking moonbat brigade of conspiracy mongers. Its presidential frontrunner now traffics in the sort of wacky rumors that got Rep. Cynthia McKinney tossed out of her confy seat in the House. And Al Gore must be the most craven politician alive today to endorse Dean for opposing the war that he, Gore, endorsed less then two years ago.
I think that when Dean falls next year, he takes Gore with him. Hillary! must be grinning like a Cheshire cat.
MORE: Doug Payton adds a nice piece on Gore's sense of loyalty. I must say that though I'm no fan of Lieberman, Gore really did shaft him yesterday. But why is Lieberman so shocked that Gore has gone lefty? Gore ran in 2000 as a left-wing populist. Gore wrote a book that has become a lefty-greenie bible--Earth in the Balance--back in the 80s. Gore is a lefty--his DLC years were a calculated pose to increase his stature in the party. Now that the party is lurching back to the left with Dean, Gore is just coming back out of the closet. He's always been a Naderite in drag.
Gore's endorsement of Dean, and Dean's rise to the top, show two nearly indisputable truths: Neither Gore nor the Democrats as a party have any core values or principles. Gore can be a corn-fed Southern moderate one day if it makes him popular with the DLC in-crowd, then a green tree-hugger the next if it makes him popular with the Dean fedayeen (their own word for themselves, btw). Likewise, the Dems move right when the DLCite Clinton takes command, then lurch hard left when the Deaniacs are apparently ascendant--before a single vote has been cast in any primary. And in the process, Gore and the party literally flipped from patriotic loyal opposition to mouth-breathing conspiracy mongers of the worst sort. Gore and the Dems have no principles other than the pursuit of power, and are therefore undeserving of the power he and his party seeks.