Joe Klein -- praising Gore, and asking good questions

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Democrats can't duck this fundamental shift in policy Gore's speech wasn't a masterpiece. It seemed hastily composed and rewritten (he has an unfortunate habit of putting in sweaty all-nighters before a major address). The tone was resentful and it was filled with sloppy, contradictory thinking. An argument can be made that there was politics involved - that Gore was positioning himself for 2004, currying favour with Democratic activists, who tend to be more dovish than most Americans. But raising an important issue for tactical effect is quite different from ignoring an issue for tactical convenience. Gore performed an essential public service. He nudged a necessary debate. He was followed to the podium, several days later, by Senator Ted Kennedy, who delivered a more eloquent and tightly argued version of the same message (and, yesterday in Blackpool, by a somewhat more cautious Bill Clinton).

Furthermore, Gore made a crucial distinction: a war against Iraq and the campaign against terrorism are not identical. Indeed, an immediate attack (in January, one assumes) on Saddam Hussein could complicate the larger cause. A successful war against Iraq raises at least three nettlesome questions. Will it increase or decrease the threat of a biological or chemical attack on the US? Will it increase or decrease the stability of the region? Will it increase or decrease the number of young Muslims who believe the propaganda about America's satanic role in the world?