Iran 'danger for world': Gore

[Clara T]

Iran 'danger for world': Gore
Sun Feb 12, 1:26 PM ET

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia (AFP) - Former US vice president and defeated presidential hopeful Al Gore lashed out at Iran's clerical regime, denouncing it as a threat "for the future of the world."
"Iran is ruled by corrupt politicians and clerics," the Democrat said in an address to the Jeddah Economic Forum in Saudi Arabia.

He said the "corrupt leadership" combined with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli outbursts should raise alarm bells all over the world, including the Arab world and the Gulf region. "There should be more voices in the region saying this leadership is dangerous for the future of the world," said Gore, who was President George W. Bush's rival in the 2000 presidential election.

<snip>

Bush's Republican administration is a leading proponent of allegations that Iran, contrary to its assertions about the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, intends to develop nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted on February 3 to report its concerns about Tehran's nuclear programme to the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060212/en_afp/irannuclearpoliticsus_060212182612

[DemInDistress]

1. george w bush greatest danger to the world...imo nt

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Who "is ruled by corrupt politicians and clerics"? Al?

Pot Kettle Black. Please Al take a deep breath and rethink your position here. Please don't add your voice to the war chorus.

Oh by the way "defeated presidential hopeful Al Gore" is an inaccurate statement.

[NYCGirl]

13. Where is he asking for war? NT

[Warren Stupidity]

65. He's not.

He is perhaps unintentionally joining in with the drum beat of reasons why we have to kill Iranians now.

Peace.

[mom cat]

66. I would have rather seen him use his eloquence to encourage a

peaceful solution.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Exactly.

Al needs to practice reflecting before acting. He might honestly believe Iran is a threat. Heck, I think Iran having nukes is not a great idea too, but the necons are trying to get a war on here and catapulting the scary mullah meme is helping the wrong side.

[AlGore-08.com]

70. But he WAS calling for a peaceful solution of Middle Eastern tension

If you read some of the earlier, less inflamitory articles, you'll see the context for his remarks:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6§ion=0&article=77743&d=13&m=2&y=2006

JEDDAH, 13 February 2006 — Focused reasoning and intense dialogue that invite a full and courageous examination of the issues that our world is facing is the most important characteristic that helps to bridge East-West divisions.

This was the view expressed yesterday by former US Vice President Al Gore during his speech at the 7th Jeddah Economic Forum.

“The 21st century has to be a century of renewal, and our ability to overcome these kinds of cycles of disrespect and violence is the key to making it a century of renewal,” he said, alluding, like many other speakers at the forum, to the recent controversy that erupted over caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Commenting on the negative Saudi image in America and the treatment meted out to Saudi nationals and Muslims in the US after the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, he said that he and his Democratic Party colleagues have always opposed illegal detentions of Arabs and other people in the United States.

(more... )


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Saudi_Gore.html

Gore decries treatment of Arabs post 9-11

(snip)

On Iran, Gore complained of "endemic hyper-corruption" among Tehran's religious and political elite and asked Arabs to take a stand against Iran's nuclear program.

Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes but the United States and other Western countries suspect Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

"Is it only for the West to say this is dangerous?" Gore asked. "We should have more people in this region saying this is dangerous."

(more... )

[The Backlash Cometh]

49. We are a joke to the world.

We lost the high moral ground on this one a long time ago.

[951-Riverside]

3. Gee Al you could say the same about Saudi Arabia & Egypt

[Orsino]

63. Or about the US.

[TheGunslinger]

4. And I get criticized for calling Gore what he is: DLC-Dandy

[journalist3072]

5. I love my DU family, but it's amazing to me how

When Al Gore says something ya'll agree with (like his speech on the limits of presidential power), everyone starts a "Gore in '08" thread.

When he says something you don't agree with, you call him "DLC light!"

I happen to agree with Al that Iran (specifically their leader) poses a threat. Like Bush, the Iranian President is a certifiable nut job, especially after denying the Holocaust ever happened.

[QC]

7. People are either saints or devils here--nothing inbetween--

and their status can change within seconds, due to a single action or remark.

[journalist3072]

9. That's exactly right!!! It's really something to see, isn't it? eom

[QC]

10. I think it can be really funny to watch. n/t

[badgervan]

18. Diversity Good

I'm glad that there are different viewpoints given on a dem site. Sure beats everyone thinking and talking in lockstep. Those folks are called republicans.

[QC]

19. Diversity is wonderful, but the whole bipolar saints/devils thing

is just silly. No one is going to do what pleases us 24/7.

[NYC Liberal]

30. Except that people change their own opinions from second to second

One remark they SLIGHTLY disagree with - they're just the same as Bush & the Republicans.

[AuntiBush]

45. Good Call, badgervan!

That is the exact "to a tee" difference between Republicans and Democrats. While we might appear debateable, well, it's because Democrats offer 1 huge tent. We're not all like-minded, rather diverse as the world is round.

Good Call. :thumbsup:

[fujiyama]

22. The reflexive

knee jerk opinions on people are fascinating.

But I especially love when peeople flip out when Jon Stewart makes fun of a liberal or Democrat. The man's a freakin' comedian...

The other day someone called him a "piece of shit" for criticizing Chavez.

[rinsd]

60. Even better is when you get DU icon vs. DU icon

Like when Dean casually referred to Chavez as a whacko.

Not that was a :popcorn: moment.

[rayofreason]

16. It truely is remarkable.

On another thread Feingold was getting trashed for saying similar things about Iran. Somone wrote, and I paraphrase, "What does he know that I don't?" Well maybe Feingold knows a lot more, and maybe Gore does as well.

Could it really be that Iran actually does represent a major threat and that Gore is trying to alert the progressive wing of the party that they should not dismiss that threat?

[springhill]

37. As long as he is not calling for an attack.............

If he really believes it fine, but he is also enabling Bush and this administration in its goal of dominating the Middle East, which has nothing to do with Iran being dangerous. What I worry about is that the general population (like many on this board) will hear this and think that we should again start a war against a country who is not threatening us. There are many countrys that talk a good game but do not go around invading other countrys; however, we do.

[okieinpain]

58. well dems should say that iran is a threat, and that the bush admin

has made us and the rest of the world less able to deal with them because of their actions in iraq.

[bucklebone]

62. Iran is a problem

and they do threaten our friends (Israel) and stability within the region. Don't be surprised to see a joint US / Israeli attack on Iranian nuc-u-lar facilities.

Don't say that Iran threatens us. You don't need to launch missles onto US soil to be a threat to the United States. We have treaties with other countries in which we will respond to attacks as if we had been attacked. For example if Iran attacks England or France or or Denmark or Israel, I would hope that the US would respond as if we had been attacked.

This type of treaty keeps the bad guys from doing no-no's to our friends.

[lostinacause]

69. Isreal should not be part of any attack on Iran if possible. They

are in a fragile state as it is.

[Pirate Smile]

48. Right. Perhaps Gore and Feingold are actually giving their honest,

educated opinions on the subject.

Yes, it is possible - really - but some people don't care, don't want to hear it, laa laa la la laaa laaa, I can't hear you laa laa la la laaa!!!


Now Russ and Al are Bush Neocon enablers.

Give me a friggin break.

[endarkenment]

52. Sometimes you should keep your honest opinion to yourself.

Because expressing it will serve no good. This is a case in point.

[mzmolly]

44. This is true.

:hi:

[951-Riverside]

23. journalist3072 & the rest we're not Mindless drones or Freeps

If someone speaks the truth like Al did a few weeks ago of course we'll give him thunderous applause but that doesn't mean we're going to sit back and agree with anything he tells us if we did that we'd no better than the Bush-Bots out there.

[QC]

50. We're talking about demonization here, not disagreement.

When Gore or Feingold or Byrd or someone else does something people here do not like, the reaction is not that they are mistaken or we disagree with them or the like: the usual reaction is to attack them personally, as DINOs, no better than Bush, etc.

That very much *is* dronish, freepish behavior.

[endarkenment]

41. Iran is not a threat.

I don't care how many times they trot out their president to make stupid statements, his statements aren't a military threat. So we can set aside Iran's president as a military threat. Lets look at Iran's military - is that a threat? To whom? Has Iran had a history (in modern times, as some people here will bring up ancient history at this point) of aggression? Their military force is a defensive force and poses no threat to anybody else in the region.

Suppose Iran does develop a nuclear weapons capability. Since 1945 only one nation (that would be the United States) has actually used nuclear weapons, and they have only ever been used against nations that do not have a retaliatory capability. What we have learned about nuclear weapons and nations is that nations do not commit nuclear suicide. The Iranians may very well feel, and quite rationally, that they need a nuclear deterrent in order to preserve their sovereignty. They are confronted with two hostile nuclear powers in the region, one of which (that would be us again) has hinted on several occasions that it would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran on a first strike basis.

If Al Gore wants to reduce the nuclear threat in the region I suggest that he support a nuclear free middle east regional treaty, the immediate withdrawal of US forces from the region, and a unilateral public commitment by the United States to respect the sovereignty of all nations in the region. Perhaps by placing Iran in parity with Israel, with no nations in the region having a nuclear arsenal, the entire threat of nuclear conflict in the region could be eliminated.

Al Gore might be making his statements with good intentions, but if so he is mindlessly playing into the hand of the neocons, who are determined to move forward with their vile plan for conquest of the region.

[loveandlight]

54. yes, let's not play into their hands

The current actions of the U.S. practically begs anyone we speak out against to develop nuclear weapons as fast as they can to defend themselves against us. At this particular moment in time, I agree, what is needed is a vigorous defense of a nuclear free middle east, not just an attack on Iran. The last thing we need right now is to expand this war for more killing and destruction. Please, Al, I love ya, don't go there...

[okieinpain]

59. funny, I can agree with some of this too. and only because bush

and his crew has made this a plausible reason. I mean the US us to be able to say that we've never attacked another nation without being provoked, not any more.

[Roland99]

47. And it's not just so much rhetoric and chest-beating (a la Saddam in 90s)

or Kim Jong-Il? Or even Chavez?


Strong rhetoric is flowing like water these days.


What has Iran actually done to pose any type of threat other than talk tough?

[okieinpain]

57. I'll agree with you.

[MrSlayer]

6. Well he isn't wrong.

But we should be encouraging an overthrow from within the country rather than a war.

[Clara T]

8. That's against international law n/t

[MrSlayer]

14. So is bombing the piss out of them for no reason.

It would be better to topple the government from within.

[Clara T]

17. Yes of course both are

but as we saw in 1953 the reasons are despicable for doing either/both.

Stop meddling in others affairs.
And of course the motives are wicked and the players involved in both are criminal in nature.

Sorry I can't get with either of those programs.

[fujiyama]

25. "Stop meddling in others affairs."

While I wish things could be that simple, it undoubtedly is not.

Encouraging Democratic forces in countries ruled by oppressive regimes is not wrong in itself. The problem is as we've seen with this regime is that they are incapable of choosing thee right allies, because the talk of "spreading freedom" is insincere and completely BS as it is.

While it may seem like a false choice and I understand why you do not favor either course of action, if I were forced to choose one, I would prefer their US backed opposition forces from within rather that costing American and other civilian lives.

[Clara T]

29. "Encouraging Democratic forces in countries"

You are probably aware of the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953? The details and the motives.

There is zero possibility that the US would encourage what you suggest in Iran or anywhere. If I am mistaken give me ONE example in the last 50 years of such thing. Quite the opposite.

The entire premise of the discussion must be turned back around to see it clearly as it has been presently turned around to obfuscate.

[fujiyama]

35. I agree

Bush speaks a good deal about "spreading freedom", but it's all BS. I didn't say I trust this administration.

[PSPS]

11. "Former US vice president and defeated presidential hopeful Al Gore"

With an opening sentence like that, no wonder there's no byline on the story. It's a whitehouse press release.

[Warpy]

12. Yeah, well so is the US

and our nuts already have nukes. Lots of nukes.

What the hell is Gore thinking?

[AlGore-08.com]

20. It's often called "baring moral witness"

Sort of like Jimmy Carter calling Smirk out at Coretta Scott King's funeral.

Just because there are some people in the Smirk Admin who are not happy about Iran potentially getting nuclear weapons, it does not mean that Iran getting nuclear weapons is a good idea. (Even a broken clock is right twice a day.) Amnesty's latest report on Iran:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/iran/index.do

Amnesty International continues to document serious human violations including detention of human rights defenders and other prisoners of conscience, unfair trials, torture and mistreatment in detention, deaths in custody and the application of the death penalty. Iran has one of the highest number of recorded executions of any country in the world. Amnesty International is particularly concerned about the execution of children and individuals who were minors when their crimes were alleged to have taken place. In the past few months, a number of human rights abuses--including large-scale arrests, incommunicado detention and torture--have taken place in the context of recent unrest among the country's Arab and Kurdish minorities. Lawyers, journalists and others who have spoken out against human rights violations have themselves been targeted for abuse.

(more... )

And just because Gore points out that Iran is evil, it doesn't mean that Gore would automatically support a war against Iran. He called Sadam evil quite a number of times, and still opposed the invasion of Iraq from the moment it was suggested.

[NobleCynic]

55. Aye

You are correct in your analysis. More over just because the Bushies say Iran is evil doesn't mean anyone who agrees that Iran is pursuing a dangerous course is Bush-lite.

[tatertop]

38. Good question. Why help Bush beat the war drums?

This is a major MAJOR fuck up on Gore's part.
What the hell was he thinking?

[AlGore-08.com]

15. This is from a hinky Bulgarian source originally - - better one below

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201165.html

Gore Laments U.S. 'Abuses' Against Arabs

By JIM KRANE
The Associated Press
Sunday, February 12, 2006; 9:08 PM

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia -- Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

(snip)

On Iran, Gore complained of "endemic hyper-corruption" among Tehran's religious and political elite and asked Arabs to take a stand against Iran's nuclear program.

Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes but the United States and other Western countries suspect Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

"Is it only for the West to say this is dangerous?" Gore asked. "We should have more people in this region saying this is dangerous."

(more... )

[Emillereid]

21. You let me down Al. I didn't expect you to be out beating the drums of war

[Andromeda]

31. Where did he say that?

He was just speaking the truth but he didn't say we should go to war.

[Emillereid]

36. I don't think Iran is particularly dangerous -- they have a right

to develop nuclear energy for peaceful means -- and until PROVEN otherwise, we have no reason to be ranting that they are going nuclear or dangerous and any other such belligerent rhetoric. Who are we anyway -- the COPS of the world -- or just the biggest bully on the block?

And since the major nuclear powers haven't lived up to their obligations to disarm as laid out in the Non proliferation treaty -- I don't see why non-nuclear nations should have to stay nuke free. I want them to; I wish the whole world was nuke free.

The US particularly has no right to be on Iran's case -- we are after all the only nation to ever use nukes; we are currently talking about using strategic, battlefield nukes, and we have proved ourselves belligerent and very prone to attacking other countries. Yes, Iran is governed by lunatics, but so are we.

We turn a blind eye to Israel's nuclear weapons -- but decide that Iran shouldn't be so armed. Israel's government's treatment of the occupied Palestine shows that they're not so responsible in the belligerence department either.

If I could run the zoo for a day -- I'd disarm them all. And I'd certainly get rid of all the crazy, fascist governments while I was at it including Bush and company as well as the loony Mullahs.

[endarkenment]

43. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the neocons

are in another pre-war propaganda barrage campaign to build public support for aggression against Iran. Al Gore is not calling for war but he is, intentionally or not, aiding the propaganda campaign by declaring Iran 'a threat'.

The planetary bully is justifying its next act of aggression by claiming that those nasty Iranians are threatening us. Who is the actual current threat to world peace right now Mr. Gore? Iran or the United States?

[dethl]

24. Nooooo Gore...

Why aren't you speaking out against the real war(read:whore)mongers. Bush is just trying to pick another fight to raise his pathetic poll numbers, aothough I don't think anything will help him at this point in time.

[mitchum]

26. He really said "corrupt politicians and clerics" while in Saudi Arabia?!

and the irony ecaped everyone?

[abelenkpe]

53. Yeah I'm surprised more people

haven't mentioned that. Also, I keep seeing the saudi flag at all those demonstrations against the danish cartoons, but find it interesting that no one accuses Saudi Arabia of fomenting the protests. No, it's convienently Syria and Iran who are accused of encouraging protests. Y'know the countries we plan to attack next.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

27. "Iran is ruled by corrupt politicians and clerics,"

And that makes it different from us in what way?

Al, I've no fondness for Iran, to be sure; but regime change must begin at home.

[NYC Liberal]

32. And Gore HAS been speaking out about our own corrupt

government, too.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

34. I'm glad he has the spine to do so...

If we can get the thugs out of there, there may be hope of avoiding WWIII.

[Andromeda]

28. Al Gore is right on the money.

Iran does pose a danger to the whole world. President Ahmadinejad is a lunatic who is pushing for the destruction of the West, e.g., U.S. and Israel. He won't stop until he gets other Arab nations to go along with his insanity by whipping up strong feelings against the U.S., Israel and every other nation who supports the West.

Some people aren't taking these threats from Ahmadinejad seriously enough and that will be their downfall if we don't pay attention and deal with him.

Gore is raising the volume on this because so many people are acting complacent about this and that is a big mistake. He doesn't say to go bomb Iran; he's just saying we should be aware and on our guard.

We need to have some strong diplomatic intervention with this situation before it gets out of hand.

[kster]

33. Yep, I think

Gore is trying to tell them to control Iran over there, so that nut case * isn't given a reason to attack Iran. My two cents.

[Theduckno2]

40. I feel the same way, his remarks go towards diffusing the situation.

As far as I'm concerned the sooner this matter is resolved the sooner Bushco is forced to deal with other more pressing matters. I think that most of the world has had enough of Bushco's belligerence(Iran's too) and Gore's comments are designed to get Middle Eastern players on board with the EU etal.

It would be nice if, as a result of negotiations, members of nuclear-club would reiterate commitments not to threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons AND actively work to reduce stockpiles of existing nuclear weapons. I can dream can't I?

[fujiyama]

39. Gore's now a fascist Bush enabler!

Like Feingold and Clark and Kerry and...

:eyes:

[leesa]

42. I do not understand how this Iranian guys leadership...which has basically

been a defensive response to non-stop unproven attacks from the US and other countries, is any more threatening than what has been said by the US or Israel or many other countries who have been wagging their nukes.

[AuntiBush]

46. I Tend to Agree

If you trust Al Gore enough to back his speech re our liberties, rights and freedoms being stripped by *, why not have faith in him now?

If Gore screams out about Global Warming, and the latter mentioned above its because he knows we're in trouble. No sense for double-standards now.

I trust this man. And by the way (re the article) since when was Al Gore "defeated?" Less they neglected to say by the Bush gang & Supreme Court.

[dbackjon]

51. Iran has been a threat

Far greater than Iraq ever could be. Al is correct in his assessment. If only Georgie-boy hadn't screwed the pooch on Iraq....

[0rganism]

56. I won't prejudge Gore without reading his ENTIRE SPEECH

For instance, when Gore states, "There should be more voices in the region saying this leadership is dangerous for the future of the world," I'm not going to automatically construe this as a call for invasion. What it looks more like is an advocacy for sane foreign policy on our part and on the part of nearby nations who could easily be affected by Iran's activities.

It's very easy to be misled about Al Gore; his opponents are subtle and vitriolic, willing to go to great lengths to frontload any and all descriptions of a usually reasonable politician with prejudicial language. I've seen far too much "selective quoting" from Gore that turned out to be saying something completely different in context to immediately cast aspersions upon him. I was misled in 2000, and I refuse to make the same mistake again. Gore may have some very good reasons for saying what he said that have absolutely nothing to do with baseless sabre-rattling. Remember, during Clinton's administration, the CIA wasn't the complete tool of an imperial presidency that it is today.

[The Straight Story]

61. He was saying the same things about Saddam and Iraq back in the day

as well (when he was VP).

[Megahurtz]

64. So why in the world

is Gore getting in on this now?:wtf:

[Adelante]

67. I'm puzzled by this

Not by anything he said or might have said, but why say it in Saudi Arabia? Honestly, if he did have plans for 2008, this won't help. If he said the same things in this country, it wouldn't seem so odd to me.