Open Letter to Chris Matthews: You're mistaken. One Dem HAD guts in 2002 - - Al Gore

[AlGore-08.com]

Dear Mr. Matthews:

I saw your appearance on NBC this morning, where you stated that the American people were upset that there was no real debate prior to the war in Iraq, and that no Democrat had shown any guts on Iraq back in 2002.

I feel very strongly that I must correct you on the second point. One major Democrat has opposed the war from the moment it was suggested, regardless of the political cost. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore gave a major speech at the Commonwealth Club, where he urged Congress to vote against the IWR:

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=84

At the time that Gore gave this speech, he was the front runner for the 2004 Democratic nomination, and public opinion polls showed that 67 percent of the American public supported the invasion of Iraq. Gore's opposition to the IWR required a great deal of political guts.

Additionally, there were 126 Democrats in the House who voted against the invasion, and 22 Democrats who voted against it in the Senate. (There were only 6 Republicans in the House who voted against it, and 0 Republicans in the Senate who voted against it.) Again, given that the majority of Americans supported the invasion, didn't those Democratic "Nay" votes require some guts? Didn't they require more guts - - and foresight - - than is required of anyone, Republican or Democrat, who voted for the invasion and opposes it now that Iraq is a quagmire and the vast majority of the American people want our troops home?

Finally, if there wasn't enough debate leading up to the Iraq War, perhaps you should look at the media's coverage of the proposed invasion of Iraq, and consider whether the media shares a large part of the blame for the lack of debate. (I would especially urge you to revisit the coverage of Colin Powell's February 2003 presentation to the U.N.)

[still_one]

1. but Russ Feingold was the ONLY Senator who voted against the Patriot Act

[AlGore-08.com]

6. Yup, another act of political courage by one of us on the Blue Team

F.Y.I. for those who don't know, Gore has consistently opposed the Patriot Act as well.

[Greeby]

12. Lets not forget those in the House who said no as well

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

[still_one]

16. agreed

[laylah]

23. That is because

he was the only one who READ it, at that time. Go figger!

Jenn

[dave_p]

2. Gore, Kucinich, Obama

Of today's hopefuls, Kucinich voted consistently against war, and Obama spoke strongly against it though not yet a national figure. They did their job, unlike the media. Our inconvenient memory must be as problematic as all those inconvenient truths.

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. Howard Dean was against the war and was ridiculed for it

[KoKo]

4. Kick and Recommend.... The Media still lies about this...blaming Dems

unjustifiably for their own lack of coverage of the Byrd Speeches on Senate Floor...House Debate where John Spratt managed to hold Dems together to vote against the IRW and of course Al Gore's Magnificent speech and the MILLIONS here and overseas who protested the Invasion which were never covered.

:thumbsup:

[AX10]

5. K & R!

[FrenchieCat]

7. Actually there are more Dems with guts than you are giving credit to.....

You stated that Additionally, there were 126 Democrats in the House who voted against the invasion, and 22 Democrats who voted against it in the Senate. (There were only 6 Republicans in the House who voted against it, and 0 Republicans in the Senate who voted against it.)

Well, in correcting your information,
there was 1 Republican in the Senate who voted against; Chafee
and 1 independent - Jeffords....If I recall correctly.

In addition, there were other Democrats with Guts aside from Al Gore....those who voted against the Resolution in the numbers that you gave.....while others worked behind the scenes to attempt to get less destructive resolutions passed.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

[DrFunkenstein]

10. I Wouldn't Add Clark To That List So Quickly

At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

"

[FrenchieCat]

13. You mean the same article that also reads.....

with the following text as quoted here in Paragraph 4?

"General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading."

Paragraph 4.

AGAIN....

"IT SHOULD HAVE A PROVISION REQUIRING BUSH RETURN TO CONGRESS BEFORE INVADING".

Now, let's look at the resolutions that were available to vote on up to the day that the final version was voted on....shall we?...cause I remember a Blank check one, and then I remember an "After this vote, go to the UN and then come back here for another vote" one!

10/09/02: Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine UPDATE:
URGENT ACTION ALERT!

UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq. It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Call NOW to stop the President from getting a blank check from Congress and ensure a second vote by Congress before the President can launch a war on Iraq For the House, urge your Representative to support the Spratt and Lee Amendments. In addition, encourage them to support a “motion to recommit” (see below for more information).

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.

Don’t give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority

President's War Resolution. You can reach your Representative and Senators via the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or call toll-free 800-839-5276.
Contact Members of Congress at www.congress.org
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102

Wes Clark has consistently said he supported the Levin amendment once it was clear that there would be a vote on a resolution. He did not say he supported the Lieberman "blank Check" amendment even if the article implies it by means of using two sentences out of a 90 minute interview--Who knows what was "left out"? :shrug:

What Clark was saying 2 days before the IWR VOTE:
USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.
Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.p-fritz.net/p/irc.html

What Clark was saying 1 day before the IWR VOTE:
Clark's op ed on September 10, 2002....One day before the IWR Vote:
In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know,

....there is still time for dialogue before we act.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/
----------------------

Now, let's look at the rest of that NYT article you proudly display 3 sentences via assorted threads of as though you've hit paydirt!....it is amazingly short considering it's based on a 90 minute "free for all" interview (reporter's term)!

As Mr. Nagourney, your fav Journalist extraordinary goes on....

"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."

At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

So now a General is calling for help from a press secretary And how was that really done? Was Clark kidding? was anything else said apart from Help Mary? Did Wes just scream it out in desperation like a child in a position that he couldn't control or did he do it with intellectual concern? A man who's faced dictator was "crying" for help......OKey-DOkey! Me, I don't know...cause we weren't there...but that is certainly the "impression" that Nagourney provides us in imagery....isn't it? And of course, that's what a General would do on his first day out on the trail right???? :sarcasm:

Then your best bud Nagourney writes...

"at one point the Press secretary "interupts" the interview.

:wow:
When did this "interruption" take place? As soon as Wes Clark "cried" for her help :cry: ...or was she sitting there for a good 15 minutes and decided to interject something...cause, er..she's like the press Secretary...so I guess that would be part of her job....to participate somewhat!

And what did she say again?.....oh yeah...that the resolution that Clark would have voted for was "the" resolution that called for leverage for a U.N. based solution.....and what did the general answer to that according to the article?......"right?" "exactly?".

Did he only say that, or did he say some other things in that 90 minute interview between those two words.......? How long was Mary there after she came running to "rescue" the 4 star General to the end of the interview? Was it that she came running in the first 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60? We don't really know, do we?

I could go on....

The general's remarks in a free-rolling 90-minute airborne interview suggested the extent of the adjustment he faces in becoming a presidential candidate."

Let's see...."suggested the extent of the adjustment"...why? He used to give press conferences all of the time while NATO Commander. Why would a 90 minute interview "suggest" adjustements? Was he chocking? Was he just acting like he wasn't feeling well and it all seem very difficult to him? Or is this a subjective remark that doesn't really say much of anything...other than the interview was 1 1/2 hours long.

Maybe that was the problem. Maybe Clark said a whole lot of things in that 90 minutes, and considering how short the article was....maybe the aim was not to get Clark's real views on things.....but to get enough quotes that could be strung together in a way to discredit Clark. Is that even possible, or is the media a paragon of virtue these days, with absolutely no agenda?

Again, my point is that we just weren't there.....and considering the media we have, I'd rather think that the media had more to do with how this all played out than you want to think.

Clark said numerous times before and since that he was against going into Iraq, and if we were to go it should be with a UN mandate and that we should give Bush a "blank check".

Considering that you support the candidate with the "Botched Joke" and others supported the "candidate who Screamed".....I think you know where I'm coming from.

I believe Clark when he said that he supported the Levin resolution and would not have voted for the blank check. So his statements are consistent enough here.....even with the hack doing the writing and who knows what else the reporter did with Clark's words.

But you should believe Adam Nagourney of the New York Times :eyes: ....and if this comes back to haunt you when Journalism "Gotcha" is dissing your candidate of choice.....don't look over at where I am....cause I won't see you.

[Donna Zen]

22. Adam Nagourney is an asshole

Chris Matthews admitted on the air that Clark has talked to him during a meeting in Europe against the war. There were plenty of people who were willing to have the discussion that Matthews and the rest of the jerks on the MSM refused to have.

The cable crackpots are still interviewing the people who got it wrong, and shut out the people who got it right.

[freefall]

19. Thanks for correcting the record about Chafee the only Republican

to vote against the IWR, FrenchieCat. I was born in Rhode Island and proud that the only R to vote "No" was from my state. Also, I haven't noticed if it is mentioned elsewhere in this thread but Frank Lautenberg was running for the Senate at the time (he won and is now the Senior Senator from New Jersey)and announced that he would vote no if he could.

Peace,

freefall

[dflprincess]

8. What about Wellstone???

He was in a tight reelection race.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Here is Matthews on Al Gore's speech in 2003

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081103.shtml

<snip>

"Matthews “agrees with all” of Gore’s speech! But Matthews serves that conservative cable audience, and he likes the way cable money spends. He likes the way big wads of cash feel when they’re jammed in his pockets. So although he agrees with everything Al Gore said—Gore “accused the president of basically lying about the reasons for the war,” Matthews said—he didn’t dwell on the substance of Gore’s speech. Instead, he made this oddball statement:

MATTHEWS: Talk to me, both of you, about the psychology of the Democratic Party which I find very depressing. If George W. Bush—let’s be honest about this. Everybody watching, conservative, middle-of-the-road, or liberal—if the George W. Bush had won the popular vote by 600,000 votes in the last election, and somehow didn’t manage to become president because he didn’t win the electoral college, fair or not, he would have walked around the country in Texas as some sort of stud. He would have been the stud duck of the country. Everybody would have looked up to him and applauded wherever he went. He would have been the guy who got the most votes. Al Gore looks and acts like a guy who really, really did lose. He really did lose. And why is that? Because you know that Bush would have loved it. Bush would have had the most votes. He would have said, sure the guy gets the job, but I am the most popular guy in the country. Why is that?

Huh? Matthews never tried to explain his oddball premise—his claim that Gore, in contrast to a hypothetical Bush, “looks and acts like a guy who really did lose.” But as his puzzled guests tried to figure how to reply to such a weird question, Matthews—pandering for all he was worth—made his bizarre point again:

MATTHEWS: Yes, but why doesn’t he act like a guy who got the most votes in the last election? Why does he act like a loser?

Huh? As noted, Matthews never tried to explain this judgment. And oh yes, something else—he never spent a minute discussing the specifics of what Gore had said.

How good does cable money spend? How good does it feel when it’s stuffed in your pocket? Well, look what Matthews will do to get it! According to Matthews, “Al Gore said today that George W. Bush has basically deceived the American people with false reasons for war, with false economic information.” Al Gore “accused the president of basically lying about the reasons for the war.” And Matthews “agrees with all of it,” he said! But who was “the loser” in all this? Of course! Although Gore was right—and Bush was a criminal—Matthews asked his befuddled guests to explain why Gore seemed like such a loser! But so it goes as men like Matthews stuff that cable dough deep in their souls. Our question: When modern crackpots speak of treason, is there any reason why cogent people shouldn’t think of a man like Chris Matthews?"

<snip>

[Supersedeas]

17. Matthews would be a huge problem if people really paid attention to him

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. Chris likes to think of himself as a Political Van Gough

Broadbrush strokes are his favorite tool.

[Mz Pip]

14. Barbara Lee

The Only Congresscritter that voted against handing the store over to BushCo 3 days after 9/11. Said it took too much power away from COngress. She had to have body guards for a while because of the death threats.

Barbara Lee has more guts than any of them. She didn't trust BushCo even before he talked about Iraq.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[gratuitous]

15. And how about the MILLIONS of people in the streets?

Or does Matthews' memory tend to fog over when recalling the days between September 2002 and March 2003? There were millions of us demonstrating in the streets, convinced that someone in power somewhere had to take into account such public and popular sentiment. We were wrong, of course. Bush dismissed all of us as a mere "focus group," and the media whores didn't need to be told twice to ignore us or deride us as naive or run endless clips of the "colorful" demonstrators as if they constituted the entirety of the anti-war faction.

How many, Mr. Matthews? How many responsible spokespersons did you have who were anti-war? Not just against this or that detail of the Bush war plan, but against the whole thing? How much air time did you give them from September 2002 to the onset of hostilities in March 2003? And how does that compare with the apologists for aggression?

You're a sickening little toad, Mr. Matthews. Please go croak in some other country.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. One quick correction...

There was 1 Republican Senator who voted against it, Lincoln Chafee.

[hvn_nbr_2]

20. Uh, Tweety, NO MEDIA SHILL FOR BUSH SHOWED ANY GUTS IN 2002

Sorry for SHOUTING, but it needs to be shouted.

[Kolesar]

24. You tell 'em! ... eom

[many a good man]

21. Another correction

In February 2003, only 37% supported war without UN authorization.

[Armstead]

25. Ted Kennedy in the Senate

He was vilified for his attempts to block the Iraq War before it started.