Al Gore Speech 5/26/2004
Part 6
This is part 6 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 ]
President Bush said in his speech Monday
night that the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war
on terror." It's not the central front in the war on terror,
but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office
for terrorists. [Dick Cheney said, "This war may last the
rest of our lives.] The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's
utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place
and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the
United States. Just yesterday, the International Institute of
Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict " has arguable
focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers
while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition."
The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now
has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the
world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks.
The assertion, as I have mentioned before, that the world is more
dangerous because of our efforts is demonstrably false. According
to CNN, acts of terror are at their lowest ebb in 30 years. Overall,
since 2001, terrorism has decreased 45%. Is Al Gore simply lying,
or simply misinformed. We may not be able to make a direct cause
and effect connection between Iraq and the drop in terror, but the
notion that we are less safe is flat our wrong. If you have just
over half the events to get hurt in as before, you are inevitably
safer.
Also, according to intelligence estimates, there were 20,000 members
of Al Quaeda around 2001. How is 18,000 an increase from 20,000.
Is Gore lying or just misinformed (or bad at math).
The war plan was incompetent in its rejection
of the advice from military professionals and the analysis of
the intelligence was incompetent in its conclusion that our soldiers
would be welcomed with garlands of flowers and cheering crowds.
Thus we would not need to respect the so-called Powell doctrine
of overwhelming force.
So I suppose since Patton was in disagreement with Bradley, then
FDR "was incompetent in its rejection of the advice from military
professionals". Gore might think that this is a brilliant point,
but I can't believe he thinks that "military professionals"
are monolithic in their thinking. Under this rubric, every "military
professional" would have to be in agreement before action could
be taken. General Wesley Clark is a good example of somebody who
might legitimately disagree with the President, but since he ran
for President himself, it is not too far-fetched to think his disagreement
might be less about military necessity than political interests.
Should the President's options be narrowed to only those that satisfy
every conceivable objector, no matter what the reason?
[
Gore's Original Speech ]
[ Part 1 ][ Part
2 ][ Part 3 ][
Part 4 ][ Part
5 ][ Part 6 ][ Wrap
Up ]
Tim McNabb
|
