I don't know if Gore flatly stated he would go to war. He did say (in 2002) that "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country". But he also suggested at that time, however, that if it were not handled correctly a war in Iraq could leave us worse off, which obviously came true. But GWB believed that as well, so it isn't really a difference in their views.
Gore said, ". . . no international law can prevent the US from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented [as of 9/2002] in Iraq." So, while Gore didn't support going to war at that time, he clearly indicated he believed that time could come and he further stated that existing UN resolutions were sufficient grounds for such a war.
That last comment is important. Because if those grounds existed in 9/2002, why didn't they exist a year earlier or two years earlier. What had changed? 9/11? Everyone agrees that Iraq didn't participate in 9/11. So, that can't be it. The essence of it is that Gore believed Saddam had WMDs, and that they posed a threat to US interests. And one has to wonder whether he questioned Clinton's failure to act in defense of the UN resolutions on all those previous occasions.
A president can't just tolerate that crap because every time you do it builds the confidence of your enemies. Had the Clinton/Gore administration done its job in the 90s, Saddam would have been history by the time Bush took office. As would bin Laden. |
