Al Gore's Jeddah Speech and Conservative Cluelessness
The other day Al Gore gave a speech to a largely Arab audience at the Jeddah Economic Forum in Saudi Arabia. At one point in the speech, Gore observed that, following 9/11, Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable." He assured the audience that most Americans do not support such treatment.
Conservatives seized upon Gore's remarks and went into a spasm of hyperbolic and misplaced rage. Michelle Malkin hammered out a quick post entitled "Al Gore Slanders America" in which she linked to a bunch of other right-wing bloggers who said pretty much the same thing. Scott of Powerline accused Gore of "defame[ing] his country before a foreign audience for fun and profit." Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters asked : "We held mass roundups of Arabs? When? Where?" And my personal favorite was a post at RealClearPolitics which framed the issue this way: "Now ask yourself: between the asinine comments of Gore and Coulter, who's done more harm to the cause of the United States?" RCP's answer: clearly Al Gore (For those of you who've been under a rock for the last week, Ann Coulter--while speaking at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)--commented "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences'").
In the face of cluelessness of this magnitude, it's always hard to know where to begin. But I guess a good place to start is by pointing out that everything Al Gore said in his speech was true. I'm sure this will come as a surprise to well-informed people like Captain Ed, but following 9/11, people of Arab descent were indeed rounded up for minor visa violations and held in limbo for months, most of them eventually deported. This was well documented. Here's an excerpt from an NBC News article from May 2002 entitled "Caught in the Dragnet":
Far from fanning the flames of anti-Americanism, Gore was actually doing damage control. He was trying to de-fuse a source of strong anti-American sentiment by making it clear to his audience that the actions at issue were not condoned by most Americans. It's hard to understate just how important it is to make it clear to the Muslim world that American policy almost never represents the views of all Americans. The Osama bin Ladens of the world--who depend on strong anti-American sentiment for their political support--do their best to blur the distinction between American policy and the views of everyday Americans; it's much easier to get people to hate a monolithic, undifferentiated mass. When we allow the Muslim world to see our diversity of viewpoints and our internal political dissent, it humanizes us; it breaks down stereotypes and misconceptions. And that is exactly what we have to do if we are going to win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. The Michelle Malkins of the world seem to think we would be better off if we always presented a unified front to the rest of the world, if we never admitted error, and simply refused to address any legitimate grievances people might have with any U.S. policy. That is exactly the wrong approach to take.
Conservatives (at least the ones worked into a frenzy over this speech) seem to think that any criticism of U.S. policy directed at a foreign audience amounts to "slandering America." How childish. First, in the age of the internet and global telecommunications, it's ridiculous to think that political dissent directed at a purely domestic audience goes unnoticed by the rest of the world. So, on a practical level, why would Gore's speech be any more damaging to American interests simply because it was made on foreign soil to a largely foreign audience?
More importantly, though, how in the world does Gore's speech harm American interests? Are people really more likely to hate America because Al Gore mentioned something they already knew and then apologized for it? Hardly. If his speech has any effect at all, it will be to reduce anti-American sentiment.
Compare that to Ann Coulter's crude slurring of every Muslim in the world at an event attended by the top leaders of our ruling party, a remark which apparently prompted a "boisterous ovation" from the Republican crowd. It's hard to imagine a single remark with more potential to engender hatred of America.
Conservatives need to understand that it's going to take more than just tough talk and military muscle to win the fight against Islamic extremism. It's also going to take occasional humility and a willingness to at least address legitimate greivances. We have to sell America to the world, and that means making it clear that Americans do not all speak with one voice and acknowledging that American policy, while guided by good faith, is not beyond error. Al Gore understands this. Many conservatives do not.
Conservatives seized upon Gore's remarks and went into a spasm of hyperbolic and misplaced rage. Michelle Malkin hammered out a quick post entitled "Al Gore Slanders America" in which she linked to a bunch of other right-wing bloggers who said pretty much the same thing. Scott of Powerline accused Gore of "defame[ing] his country before a foreign audience for fun and profit." Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters asked : "We held mass roundups of Arabs? When? Where?" And my personal favorite was a post at RealClearPolitics which framed the issue this way: "Now ask yourself: between the asinine comments of Gore and Coulter, who's done more harm to the cause of the United States?" RCP's answer: clearly Al Gore (For those of you who've been under a rock for the last week, Ann Coulter--while speaking at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)--commented "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences'").
In the face of cluelessness of this magnitude, it's always hard to know where to begin. But I guess a good place to start is by pointing out that everything Al Gore said in his speech was true. I'm sure this will come as a surprise to well-informed people like Captain Ed, but following 9/11, people of Arab descent were indeed rounded up for minor visa violations and held in limbo for months, most of them eventually deported. This was well documented. Here's an excerpt from an NBC News article from May 2002 entitled "Caught in the Dragnet":
Across the nation, the Sept. 11 sparkedSecond, every one of these knee-jerk Gore-bashing posts seems to assume that Al Gore was informing his audience of something they didn't already know, and thereby needlessly stirring up anti-American sentiment. Quite the opposite is true. Gore was simply addressing a widely-held greivance. Stories of such treatment have been chronicled in the Arab media for years. Not surprisingly, those who were mistreated and/or deported told their stories to friends, to family, and to various Arab and Muslim media outlets. Nothing Al Gore said was news to anyone in the Muslim world.
detentions of scores of Arab and Muslim
immigrants on technical violations of visa
regulations. These immigrants, many of
whom do not speak English and have little
family in the country, are left in jail for
months on end, some without legal
representation or even the knowledge that
they can demand it. . . .
Exact numbers of detainees since Sept. 11
are nearly impossible to come by. Figures
released by the INS show that 537
individuals were detained between Sept. 11
and Nov. 27. Of those, only 5 percent were
from countries outside of the Middle East,
South Asia and North Africa.
But legal aid organizations estimate that
thousands have been detained since Sept. 11.
Far from fanning the flames of anti-Americanism, Gore was actually doing damage control. He was trying to de-fuse a source of strong anti-American sentiment by making it clear to his audience that the actions at issue were not condoned by most Americans. It's hard to understate just how important it is to make it clear to the Muslim world that American policy almost never represents the views of all Americans. The Osama bin Ladens of the world--who depend on strong anti-American sentiment for their political support--do their best to blur the distinction between American policy and the views of everyday Americans; it's much easier to get people to hate a monolithic, undifferentiated mass. When we allow the Muslim world to see our diversity of viewpoints and our internal political dissent, it humanizes us; it breaks down stereotypes and misconceptions. And that is exactly what we have to do if we are going to win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. The Michelle Malkins of the world seem to think we would be better off if we always presented a unified front to the rest of the world, if we never admitted error, and simply refused to address any legitimate grievances people might have with any U.S. policy. That is exactly the wrong approach to take.
Conservatives (at least the ones worked into a frenzy over this speech) seem to think that any criticism of U.S. policy directed at a foreign audience amounts to "slandering America." How childish. First, in the age of the internet and global telecommunications, it's ridiculous to think that political dissent directed at a purely domestic audience goes unnoticed by the rest of the world. So, on a practical level, why would Gore's speech be any more damaging to American interests simply because it was made on foreign soil to a largely foreign audience?
More importantly, though, how in the world does Gore's speech harm American interests? Are people really more likely to hate America because Al Gore mentioned something they already knew and then apologized for it? Hardly. If his speech has any effect at all, it will be to reduce anti-American sentiment.
Compare that to Ann Coulter's crude slurring of every Muslim in the world at an event attended by the top leaders of our ruling party, a remark which apparently prompted a "boisterous ovation" from the Republican crowd. It's hard to imagine a single remark with more potential to engender hatred of America.
Conservatives need to understand that it's going to take more than just tough talk and military muscle to win the fight against Islamic extremism. It's also going to take occasional humility and a willingness to at least address legitimate greivances. We have to sell America to the world, and that means making it clear that Americans do not all speak with one voice and acknowledging that American policy, while guided by good faith, is not beyond error. Al Gore understands this. Many conservatives do not.
posted by A.L. at 9:02 AM
16 Comments:
The conservatives have gone even past the reductive you're-either-for-us-or-against-us logic of Bush fils. They have reached a point where even speaking truths that support points of view they disagree with is tantamount to treason... Their witch hunts only seem to intensify by the day.
Well, and quite stirringly, said.
It's really a tragedy that Gore is unlikely to run for President in 2008. The experience of 2000 seems to have really transformed him from a politician into a statesman. He's been the one Democrat to consistently be willing to act as the voice of opposition, and he's done so not with really quite astonishing oratorical and intellectual skill. I've either watched or read most of the major speeches he's given in the past five years, and every time I've come away wishing dearly that he was the President of the United States.
You may or may not be educated but you lack intellect, with your comments. You mentioned that Osama bin Laden looking for support but failed to mention that the bin Laden family sponsored Al bin Gore’s trip. Maybe Tipper should sensor her husband too but I guess the Liberal parties have forgotten history as well. Al Gore was not voted in office in 2000, he has no legitimate business involving himself in US foreign policy. Face it, accept it, believe it, bend over and take it!!! We didn’t want it. America including Democrats, did not vote for Gore or Kerry! Why is it you people only accept the democratic system when it works in your favor? Talk about childish!!!! Bin Gore’s actions this week, with the exception of all those crybabies out there, makes Americans thankful we didn’t vote him as president. You probably spent some time this week commenting on Dick Chaney’s misadventures, so your motivation to write these comments have nothing to do with logic. America is aware and tired of the liberal antics. The U.S. would be far better off with bin Gore moving and staying in another part of the world! One other comment, “United we stand, Divided we fall”. If America fails it is because of your type of beliefs and actions.
Have a nice weekend anyway!!!
Wow, Randell, that was one crazy rant. Just to set the record straight, though, Bin Laden's relatives in Saudi Arabia long ago denounced him and have no contact with him at all. And more to the point, they have much closer ties to the Bush family than to Gore, so your accusation is beyond stupid. Cheers.
Dear Anonymous bin Libby,
First of all I don't think I made an accusation in the way you refute. I simply stated the facts. Yes, the bin Laden family is very large and connected. Some bins Ladens have even denounced Osama to save face. The Bush family is very large and connected as well. Make no mistake in the fact that you do not see the Bush family committing treasonous acts in Muslim countries. All this while our country is at war with terrorism and the countries and cultures that support the killing of innocent American lives. I am an American and I have no problem detaining anyone who in the least bit of suspicion of committing or helping terrorists in this country. If you don’t believe so then maybe you as well should move on. Are you a U.S. citizen? If so you are a disgrace! Give it up you’re the kooky one that will not admit these tirades are all still about losing the elections.
Back to the accusations and since I am of superior intelligence, I must spell it out for you. Re-read what I wrote and maybe you will see. I accuse Al Gore and people like you of not being good for this country. Al’s treason motivation = bin Laden money, sore loser and you = lack of intelligence, loser. Nice blogging with you Johnny Walker, my 3 year old is smarter than you. By the way, don’t you have some protest rally to attend? If so say hello to Cindy.
PS- I hope you are not really a graduate of columbia law. That is farcical at best.
Randell, I'm no match for your keen intellect and razor sharp wit. Frankly, who is? You've pummeled me into submission with the crushing weight of your logic and the poetic brilliance of your prose. You had me at "farcical."
Time for someone to post a real critigue of your post, instead of that crazy crap from "randell." First, Gore was wrong on the facts - Arab's were not "indiscriminately" rounded up. Those who had committed immigration/visa violations were detained. This is not "indiscriminate" action, this is a logical, measured reaction, what any administration would do following 9/11-type attacks. Sure, violations might have, ocassionally been of a "technical" nature, but so what. This is why we have such laws and requirements. Foreign nationals don't have a right to visit the US, they must comply with our immigration procedures. If you don't comply with the procedures than you are liable to be detained. What the administration did here is sort of analogous to the highly heralded Giuliani policing practice of arresting and detaining the subway turnstile jumpers back in 1990s NYC. The idea being that you stop people for the small crimes, and often they are wanted in connection of greater crimes. Same rationale behind the complained-of detentions. Of course, a number of ACLU-type liberals had problems with the Giuliani policy as well. Why shouldn't the administration have detained the visa violators? Seems like good sense to me.
Secondly, Gore's choice of venue for this speech was rather disturbing. Saudi Arabia, we all know, is the heart of fundamentalist Islam in the world today. The Saudi's are the ones who have exported the ideology that has led to everything from 9/11 to the cartoon jihad. By making this speech in that country, Gore went a few steps past the old rule of "politics stops at the waters edge."
Thirdly, Gore's message as explained above was wrong. But worse than that, his message was not at all likely to "reduce anti-American sentiment." He is just reinforcing the well-known theory that the best and perhpas only way to defeat the US once it has committed military force, is not on the battlefield, but through moving public opinion. The US only loses in its effort to erradicate fundamentalist and repressive autocratic forces in the muslim world if the public will no longer support the military effor in Iraq, and decides that the military must be withdrawn. That is all the more likely to happen when Gore and other pols create administration/GOP straw men to knock down and batter with false arguments like the one he advanced in Saudi Arabia about indiscriminately rounding up Arabs.
Shame on Gore.
First, Gore was wrong on the facts - Arab's were not "indiscriminately" rounded up. Those who had committed immigration/visa violations were detained. This is not "indiscriminate" action, this is a logical, measured reaction, what any administration would do following 9/11-type attacks.
Gore meant 'indiscrimately' in the sense of having nothing to do with terrorism. Arabs and Muslims were rounded up because of their national-origin, not because of any hint that they were involved in anything terrorist related. People of other backgrounds were not treated in the same way. It would be one thing if immigration rules were more strictly enforced across the board, but they weren't.
You can argue that that sort of selective enforcement was warranted after 9/11, but you can't argue that those subjected to that double-stardard don't have a legitimate greivance, particularly when they are held for long periods of time in detention (and often deported) for hyper-technical violations that are routinely ignored for everyone else.
Secondly, Gore's choice of venue for this speech was rather disturbing. Saudi Arabia, we all know, is the heart of fundamentalist Islam in the world today. The Saudi's are the ones who have exported the ideology that has led to everything from 9/11 to the cartoon jihad. By making this speech in that country, Gore went a few steps past the old rule of "politics stops at the waters edge."
I don't get this criticism. In the modern era--with the internet and television beaming everything around the world instantly--the idea that politics should stop at the water's edge strikes me as stupid. Maybe that made sense in the era where people in other countries only heard what we told them when we visited their countries. In that era, maybe it really was possible to keep dissent internal and present a unified front to the rest of the world. But clearly we no longer live in that era. This blog can be read by anyone in the world at any moment. Does that mean I should keep my criticism of our government to myself? Of course not. So what possible difference does it make where a speech takes place?
Second, the fact that Saudi Arabia is the heart of fundamentalist Islam makes it more important that we engage its people directly, not less. The comment everyone is seizing upon was not the central thrust of Gore's speech; it was just a comment, one meant to address a commonly held greivance. Acknowledging such greivances is important if we want to have any hope of improving America's image among Saudis. That doesn't mean we should apologize when greivances are illegitimate or baseless, but I hardly think that's the case here.
Finally, it's worth emphazing that Gore is a private citizen. He's not currently serving as an official representative of the United States (as Hillary Clinton would be if she gave such a speech). So much of the rationale behind the waters edge idea (if it makes sense at all) doesn't apply to Gore.
Al Gore is a traitor and should be tried for high treason and low living.
"Secondly, Gore's choice of venue for this speech was rather disturbing....By making this speech in that country, Gore went a few steps past the old rule of "politics stops at the waters edge." "
Gore was an invited speaker at an annual economic forum. Speakers in previous years have included former presidents George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton. Former Republican Presidential Candidate Steve Forbes was also a speaker at this years forum. To criticize Gore for speaking at the forum is bizare and illogical.
You know, when Michael Moore unearthed all the connections between the bin Laden family and the Bush family -- and there are lots -- it was probably the weakest part of Farenheit 9/11, because it's kind of guilt by association. But it did raise valid questions about Bush and Cheney and whether their ties to the Saudis and their oil might not color their views. As far as I know, with all of the extensive relations of the Bushes and the construction industry bin Ladens, at no point did Moore say that Bush was a traitor. Yet here is Al Gore giving one speech, a minor part of which consists of conceding to his already suspicious audience that some excesses were committed. He also criticized some of the actions and attitudes of the Arab world, by the way. And for this, the hysteria begins. "Traitor," they all scream, little knowing that all they expose is their own unfitness to govern the American people.
Al Gore-bachev digusts me but, not nearly as much as the liberal's fawning adoration of him. I'm ashamed to call you fellow Americans.
Excellently said, Anonymous Liberal.
The typical conservative intolerance of criticism is self-evident when we see them screaming "Traitor" and "Anti-Americanism."
Why? A great deal of them have a rose-colored, self-congratulatory view of the US. They refuse to acknowledge our country's legal and sociopolitical shortcomings. They haven't a clue of America's human rights violations, let alone the mile-long list of American war crimes in the Middle East (dating from the 1970s). Blind hyper-patriots like these, of course, can't be taken seriously. It was wonderful of Gore to admit these shortcomings as flaws to be addressed and corrected. Acknowledging these will most likely help improve the Middle Easterners' perceptions of America. (Hate crimes against American brown folk shot up 400% after 9-11, as well. That, if anything, is enough to engender hatred toward our country.)
I'm glad Gore did the protective thing by addressing these problems.
Is there a hyper-patriotic "conservative cluelessness" of America's list of human rights violations and war crimes in the Middle East? Absolutely.
Does Al Gore "hate America?" Hell no.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
Hmmm, no mention of consulting with the U.N.
A few more...
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for." -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -Patty "Osama Mama" Murray, October 9, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
Speaking about the WMD's, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration, It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." -Senator Hillary Clinton, April 20, 2004 on Larry King Live
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home