Al Gore Speech 5/26/2004
Part 2
This is part 2 of my fisking of Al Gore's
speech from May 26, 2004 at a MoveOn.org rally. Gore's remarks are
in blue.
[
Gore's Original Speech ]
[ Part 1 ][ Part
2 ][ Part 3
][ Part 4 ][ Part
5 ][ Part 6 ][
Wrap Up ]
How did we get from September 12th , 2001,
when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the
words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we had the
good will and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we
all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.
First, let me say to hell with the French. They were never Americans,
and the only way to keep their good will was to roll over and bear
our throat to the terrorists. There are too many European diplomats
getting wealthy from the corrupt U.N. oil for food program to expect
them to step up and help us deal with the global terrorist threat,
at least the part that meant dealing with Hussein.
Second, I think this is a grammatically and rhetorically stupid
paragraph. Just my opinion.
Third, Gore's statement presumes that the world would have been
behind us in a war on terror, a dubious presumption when you consider
the vastly different approaches Europe and America take when danger
looms (appeasement vs. confrontation). Frankly, I don't think most
of Europe gives a flying fig about our national interests. It would
be terribly irresponsible for high-ranking members of government
to halt our efforts at their pleasure.
To begin with, from its earliest days in
power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign
policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World
War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned
in favor of the new strategy of "preemption."
Does Gore mean cold-war era containment, or the "containment"
of Saddam Hussein. Can't tell from his statement. The cold war was
over by the time Bush took office, so I don't imagine that's what
he meant (unless Gore is lying or misinformed). Terrorist "containment"
failed to prevent the big smoking crater in New York. Nor did it
prevent the Cole bombing, the bombing of our Embassies or the first
WTC attack. Bush may arguably be doing the wrong thing, (this is
only a logical reality, I don't think it is the wrong thing) but
it is silly to fault him for not doing the same thing that failed.
And what they meant by preemption was not
the inherent right of any nation to act preemptively against an
imminent threat to its national security, but rather an exotic
new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right
to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take
military action against any nation, even in circumstances where
there was no imminent threat.
Al Quaeda was not an imminent threat right up until that awful
morning. Would it not have been so much better to have had the hijackers
gunned down in a remote Afghan location while undergoing training?
Well, that's preemption, and George Bush has it as right as you
can expect a politician to have it. In a world where you can circle
the globe in 24 hours, imminent is too damn late. You have to drain
the swamps.
[
Gore's Original Speech ]
[ Part 1 ][ Part
2 ][ Part 3
][ Part 4 ][ Part
5 ][ Part 6 ][
Wrap Up ]
Tim McNabb
|
