by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 23, 2002
All Rights Reserved.

esting the water for a possible comeback in 2004, former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore told members of the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that President Bush was leading the nation down a dangerous path. Following "Chicken Little," Gore warned that attacking Iraq could upend the war on terrorism, destabilize the Middle East, antagonize enemies and alienate friends. Slinging both barrels, Gore called President George W. Bush's policies a "go-it-alone, cowboy style," motivated by upcoming elections, not sound foreign policy. "I do not believe we should allow ourselves to be distracted from the urgent task (the war on terror) simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than first predicted," said Gore criticizing Bush for switching directions. Seeking political points, Gore ignores the linkage between rogue regimes hell-bent on developing weapons of mass destruction and global terrorism. Charged with protecting national security, Bush had no choice but to swap deterrence for the doctrine of preemption or "anticipatory self-defense."

      Strutting back on the political stage, Gore asserted his newfound machismo, lashing out at a delicate time when Congress and United Nations debate resolutions on Iraq. "Great nations persevere and then prevail, they do not jump from one unfinished task to another," chided Gore, proving that he's not ready to be commander-in-chief. Under Gore's watch, Bin Laden tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, murdered U.S. peacekeepers in Somalia, destroyed the Khobar Towers in 1996, demolished U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, attacked the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in 2000, and launched the most deadly terrorist attack in world history on Sept. 11, 2001. Other than throwaway Cruise missile attacks, Clinton-Gore had no coherent terrorism policy. With time running out, Gore wants to direct all U.S. resources to a goose chase in Afghanistan, throwing the war on terrorism into reverse and endangering national security.

      Credible intelligence—including testimony of Saddam's former bomb-maker Khidr Abd Al-Abbas Hamzah—indicates that Iraq is only months away from an A-bomb, What's Bush supposed to do? Ignore emerging threats? Turn over national security to the U.N.? With Al Qaeda's dormancy since 9/11, Bush correctly switched gears, went back to the drawing board and retooled his policy. That's a good thing. Confining the war on terror only to Afghanistan, ignores emerging threats and naively assumes that Bin Laden doesn't collude with rogue states. Gore's harsh criticism doesn't mask his political ambitions, proving he's the wrong choice for the Democrats in 2004. While Gore's entitled to his opinion, playing fast and loose emboldens enemies and undermines national security at a critical time. Even liberal colleagues like Sens. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) have restrained political rhetoric while the Congress and U.N. hash out urgent resolutions.

      Criticizing Bush's doctrine of preemption, Gore Blamed Bush for squandering international sympathy since Sept. 11. Here's where Gore goes off the deep end. Since 9/11, Bush isn't commissioned with protecting global sympathy, he's charged with defending national security. U.S. national security can't be held hostage by U.N, propaganda accusing America of one-sided foreign policy. Article 51 of the U.N. charter—giving sovereign nations the right of self-defense—has nothing to do with preventing future terrorism. When Bin Laden declared war on America in 1996 on Gore's watch, his administration sat idly by while terrorists repeatedly attacked U.S. sovereignty. In case Gore hasn't noticed, his country's at war. Multilateralism didn't prevent Sept. 11, nor will it deter future episodes. Blaming international "anxiety" on Bush's foreign policy totally ignores that the U.S. was savagely attacked on 9/11 by a band of global hoodlums. More complacency—and appeasement—now only invites thugs like Bin Laden and Hussein to attack again.

      Gore makes much of Bush's "go-it-alone, cowboy style" foreign policy, not recognizing that Clinton-Gore's push toward a "new world order" failed to heed growing threats from global terrorists. Blindly pandering to "international law" and placating domestic "civil liberties" handcuffed spy agencies from collecting sound intelligence and acting on threats. While there's much blame to be passed around, Gore shouldn't forget eight years of complacency and appeasement leading up to Sept. 11. Bush switched from deterrence to preemption precisely because the military must takeover where spy agencies and covert operations fail. "The very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states," said Gore, blindly ignoring the Bush Doctrine, going after rogue states that aid, abet or practice terrorism. Out of step with today's reality, Gore lacks the common sense—and statesmanship—to refrain from polemics and politics for the sake of the country.

      Bush's doctrine of preemption recognizes gaping holes in today's national security apparatus. Current multilateral approaches haven't prevented terrorist episodes. Only vigilant self-monitoring, scrupulous anticipation and decisive action strengthens national security. Turning the doctrine of preemption on its head, "If other nations exert the same right, then the rule of law would quickly be replaced by the reign of fear," said Gore, ignoring the "terror alerts," intrusive security measures and widespread fear now compromising the American way of life. America—not the international community—is now under siege, living with anxiety since Bin Laden"s deadly attacks on Sept. 11. Bush's policy doesn't threaten peace-loving states, nor does it invite them to attack other nations in anticipatory self-defense. While not perfect, Bush's approach to national security recognizes emerging threats and makes needed adjustments. Gore should grow back his beard and return to the ivory tower—he's obviously living in a different world.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's a consultant and expert in strategic communication. He's author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.