TownHall.com

Over 60 conservative columnists at your fingertips

Michael Kelly

September 25, 2002

Gore-ing Iraq

Distasteful as it may be, some notice should be paid to the speech that the formerly important Al Gore delivered Monday at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

This speech, an attack on the Bush policy on Iraq, was Gore's big effort to distinguish himself from the Democratic pack in advance of another possible presidential run. It served: It distinguished Gore, now and forever, as someone who cannot be considered a responsible aspirant to power. Politics are allowed in politics, but there are limits, and there is a pale, and Gore has now shown himself to be ignorant of those limits, and he has now placed himself beyond that pale.

Gore's speech was one no minimally decent politician could have delivered. It was entirely dishonest, cheap, low. It was utterly hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts--bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in smarmy tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible. But I understate.

Gore uttered his first big lie in the second paragraph of the main body of the speech when he informed the audience that his main concern was with ``those who attacked us on Sept. 11, and who have thus far gotten away with it.'' (BEG ITAL)Who have thus far gotten away with it. The government of Gore's country has led a coalition of nations in war against al Qaeda, ``those who attacked us on Sept. 11''; has destroyed al Qaeda's central organization and much of its physical assets; has destroyed the Taliban which had made Afghanistan a state home for al Qaeda; has bombed the forces of al Qaeda from one end of Afghanistan to the other; has killed at least hundreds of terrorists and their allies; has imprisoned hundreds more, and is hunting down the rest around the world. All this while Gore, apparently, slept.

Well, perhaps Gore was just talking loosely. No. He made clear in the next sentence this was a considered indictment: ``The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized.'' If there is a more reprehensible piece of bloody shirt-waving in American political history than this attempt by a man on the sidelines to position himself as the hero of 3,000 unavenged dead, I am not aware of it.

And, again, this sentence is a lie. In truth, the men who ``implemented'' the ``cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans'' are not at large. They are dead; they died in the act of murder, on Sept. 11. Gore can look this up. In truth, the ``vast majority'' of the men who ``sponsored'' and ``planned'' the crime are dead also, or in prison, or on the run. The inmates at Guantanamo Bay, and the hunted survivors of Tora Bora, and the terrorist cell members arrested nearly every week, and the thousands of incarcerated or fugitive Taliban, might disagree as to whether they have been located, apprehended, punished or neutralized.

Although Gore knows that Bush has been publicly attempting to move the nation toward war with Iraq since at least January, he pretended to believe the president was only now--``in this high political season''--pushing for war in order to gain electoral ground for his party and to divert attention from his administration's failure against al Qaeda by attacking ``some other enemy whose location might be easier to identify.'' I see--Bush is risking his presidency on a war with Iraq because it is the easy thing to do.

Although Gore knows that the Democratic leadership insisted (and both practical politics and constitutional imperatives demanded) that Bush seek the congressional support he is now requesting, he pretended this too was something the president was doing simply for political gain. Although Gore knows that Bush is also seeking, as Democrats also demanded, United Nations approval, he pretended this represented a failure of leadership as well because ``thus far, we have not been successful in getting it.'' True enough--because the Security Council hasn't voted. Thus far. Cute.

Probably the purest example of the Gore style--equal parts mendacity, viciousness and smarm--occurred when Gore expressed his concern (his deep, heartfelt concern) over ``the doubts many have expressed about the role that politics might be playing in the calculations of some in the administration.'' And then added: ``I have not raised those doubts, but many have.''

What a moment! What a speech! What a man! What a disgrace.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

Answers

I wonder if the hair dye is soaking in too deep?

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

He's a desperate man. He so wants to be president, and his desperation combined with his stupidity causes him to do counter- productive things, which drives his goal increasingly out of his reach.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

I wasn't quite following the reasoning, but my favorite pundit was spluttering yesterday that Gore had done significant damage to the democratic agenda as well.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

Sen. Lieberman has come out very strongly against Gore's speech.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

Someone **please** give Gore some sort of "think tank" position where he reports to a tiny, obscure office, deep in the basement of some federal building. Give him and internet connection and charge him with writing and sending reports to an account which automatically deletes incoming mail! Do not allow him anymore face-to-face contact with non-family members. Do not allow him to make speeches.

Well, okay, on Hallween, he can come out and remind us how he invented the internet. But just on Halloween.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

"Do not allow him to make speeches."

I heard the Republicans have offered to pay Gore to speak on any subject of his choosing at any time. hehe

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

LOL Brooks!

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

I think we can add Daschle and whatisname, you know, the old shaky guy from West Virginia or is it Virginia? Byrd! Yeah, that's the one! Every time I see them deliberately misconstruing Bush's remarks and emoting like third-rate--no, fifth-rate--actors, I start to froth at the mouth. Bastards. Utterly contemptible. I have to push the mute button now, can't stand it.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002