More headlines: Al Gore on Homeland Security
(Following are older quotations. Click here for main quotations.)
Invest in technological edge to keep military strong
Gore believes that our military needs to take the fullest possible advantage of America’s technological edge. His Pentagon will fulfill that promise by:- Increasing the Investment in Advanced Hardware. Gore will ensure that the next
generation of information-age weapons is in our soldiers’ hands in a reliable way, keeping them steadily ahead of potential adversaries.
- Investing in the Generation After Next. Gore believes that America’s strategic edge is in its technology.
He will continue the strongest defense technology investment in the world. He will also take fullest advantage of our economy’s strong lead in the most advanced information, communications, surveillance, and reconnaissance technologies.
- Supporting
a Healthy Industrial and Technology Base. Gore will create strong incentives for the defense industry to draw on our commercial technological prowess, and for the best commercial firms to bring their capabilities into the defense market.
Source: AlGore2000.com “Briefing Room”
May 27, 2000
Even as student at anti-war Harvard, Gore intended to serve
In the summer of 1967, just before the antiwar movement at Harvard intensified, military service was part of Al Gore’s plan. Gore’s cousin recalled a series of conversations in which it sounded like a sure thing. “Never, ever did he indicate to me that
he wasn’t going to go in,” the cousin recalled. Gore had no great passion for soldiering, but neither was it in his nature to buck the system.But as Gore neared graduation, he found himself caught between two nearly irresistible forces: the newly
charged moral and political climate at Harvard and a deep sense of obligation to protect his father, whose antiwar position was imperiling his political future in Tennessee. Each wrenched at his conscience.
His Harvard friends remember Gore’s ethical
concerns, but they also recall a series of explicit signals from his parents about what needed to be done. “He said if he had my parents, he would have made a different decision,” said one friend. “He was committed to his father’s situation.”
Source: Inventing Al Gore, p. 60-3
Mar 3, 2000
Concluded Vietnam was a mistake, but had valid purpose
In 1988, Gore said that Vietnam “certainly matured me in a hurry. It gave me a tolerance for complexity. I didn’t change my conclusions about the war being a terrible mistake, but it struck me that opponents to the war, including myself, really did not
take into account the fact that there were an awful lot of South Vietnamese who desperately wanted to hang onto what they called freedom. Coming face to face with those sentiments [in the local people] was something I was naively unprepared for.”
Source: Inventing Al Gore, p. 87
Mar 3, 2000
Called for replacing MIRVed MX with single-warhead Midgetman
[After a teen audience said most of them believed they would see nuclear war in their lifetime], Gore resolved to become an arms control expert. There was a place in the debate for a moderate voice, he believed, one that bridged the chasm
between the emerging “nuclear freeze” movement and the bellicose rhetoric of Ronald Reagan and his Cold Warriors. He studied for more than a year and laid out his thoughts in a Senate floor speech in 1982.Gore called for the US and USSR
to convert all their multiple-warhead missiles to single-warhead. Under Gore’s plan, the superpowers would agree to a freeze on new weaponry while they negotiated a schedule for converting from the huge MX to the Midgetman system. Although he didn’t
kill the MX, he managed to limit proliferation of a dangerous weapon (only fifty were finally deployed) and came close to carrying out his vision for the Midgetman.
Source: Inventing Al Gore, p.142-5 & p. 149-50
Mar 3, 2000
Quicker than Clinton to favor force; but avoided it in Haiti
Gore was inherently quicker than Clinton to favor military force as an option. Even before official CIA reports confirmed Saddam Hussein’s involvement in a foiled plot to assassinate former President Bush with a car bomb on a visit to Kuwait City, Gore
urged a tense and tentative Clinton to launch a retaliatory cruise missile attack.Gore’s instincts were the same in the Balkans. At meeting after meeting, Gore argued passionately for bombardment to force the Serbs to the peace table [regarding
Bosnia]. He and Clinton were not together on the issue. But after the administration was unable to persuade European allies to join them, even Gore stood down.
His impulses weren’t unswervingly hawkish, however, and he brought a willingness to think
outside of the box to solve problems. He was the administration’s most consistently vocal supporter of former president Jimmy Carter’s intervention into the diplomatic crises in North Korea and Haiti. Both ended successfully.
Source: Inventing Al Gore, p.275-6
Mar 3, 2000
Stay engaged with Russia over nuclear disarmament
Russia has 20,000 nuclear warheads. They may not be aimed at the US, because they’re detargeted now, but within two seconds those targets could be re-programmed. As long as they have that kind of arsenal, [I support] programs designed to dismantle their
warheads, to help them move toward a reduction in military force. The movement toward democracy and free markets in Russia may not have been as rapid as we would like, but the movement to reduce the [nuclear] threat overall has been a good thing.
Source: Democrat Debate in Manchester NH
Jan 26, 2000
Led efforts to reduce nuclear weaponry & arms race
Gore has led efforts to reduce weapons of mass destruction. In a 1980 meeting in his home state of Tennessee, then-Congressman Gore asked a gathering of students how many
expected to see nuclear war in their lifetimes. He was stunned to see nearly every hand in the room rise. Gore returned to Washington and began an intensive
study of every aspect of arms control-becoming a Congressional leader on the subject. Two years later, Congressman Gore advanced a new idea for bringing new
stability to the US-Soviet nuclear arms race: deterring a first strike by moving from multi-warhead missiles to single-warhead missiles on both sides in a phased “build-down.”
Source: Gore campaign statement on election2000.aol.com
Jan 1, 2000
20-year history of supporting comprehensive arms control
For Gore, the nuclear arms control issue is one in which he has been involved for the past two decades, in both the House and the Senate. In Congress, Gore put forth a comprehensive arms control proposal in the 1980s and he
co-chaired the US-Russia bilateral commission, which oversaw a program to deactivate 2,500 Russian nuclear missiles pointed at the US.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A5
Oct 15, 1999
Voted for B2 & Seawolf
Voting record on Defense spending issues:- Gore voted NO on cutting $2.7 billion for production of additional B-2 stealth bombers, halting production of the B-2 fleet at 15 planes instead of the 20 planes (S 3114, 9/18/92)
- Voted NO on cancelling
funding for a second and third Seawolf nuclear submarine. (S 2403, 5/5/92)
- Voted YES to reduce the defense spending levels for smaller weapon projects by $8.8 billion in fiscal 1993. (S Con Res 106, 4/9/92).
Source: Project Vote Smart -- Voting Record
Sep 18, 1992
Disparaging military sends wrong message to world
Gore today rebutted Republican charges that the readiness and morale of the armed forces had declined during the Clinton administration. “It’s that year-after-year commitment to a strong American defense that makes me so concerned when others
try to run down America’s military for political advantage in an election year. That’s not only wrong in fact, it’s the wrong message to send to our allies and adversaries across the world.”
Source: Kevin Sack, NY Times
Aug 23, 2000
Classic security agenda: pay troops; build best military
[Gore would continue what he calls] “the classic security agenda.” Gore says, “America must have a military capability that is second to none.” Gore committed that he would invest the necessary resources to ensure our troops are adequately paid
and our weapons systems continue to be upgraded. Gore pledged to build upon our key alliances and to be prepared to selectively engage in conflicts where America’s national interests are at stake.
Source: Press Release on speech in Boston
Apr 30, 2000
Eliminate “Don’t ask, don’t tell” quickly
As president, Al Gore would move expeditiously to eliminate the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy by urging Congress to let gays serve openly in uniform. “We’re in a posture which makes it impossible for very good people to serve without living
in fear that something private about themselves will be divulged and held against them,” Gore’s national security adviser said yesterday. Homosexuals are barred by law from serving in the military. Only by keeping their sexual orientation secret and not
engaging in any homosexual acts can they serve in uniform, under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. [This statement] did not modify Gore’s position, but the aide signaled the vice president’s intention to make action on the issue an
early order of business should he win the White House. Gore’s position is at odds with that of Pentagon officials, who say “don’t ask, don’t tell” is working and unveiled new training regulations on the policy last month.
Source: Tom Bowman, Sun National Staff
Mar 23, 2000
Commit troops only if diplomacy fails and if it’s winnable
Q: When should US troops be used in international military operations? A: If we’re part of an international alliance [the rules are that]:- Our commander in chief always retains command
- Military force is the only option that can solve the proble
- Military force, if used, will in fact solve the problem.
- Allies are ready to go in with us and share the burden.
- The expected cost is worth what we are protecting by way of our national security interests.
Source: Democrat Debate in Johnston Iowa
Jan 8, 2000
Bush’s SDI is a risky foreign policy scheme
Bush says he would build and deploy a global Star Wars system that he believes could defend the US and all our allies against any missile launch from any source. In the 1990s, most serious analysts took a look at the implausibility of this
endeavor, the fantastical price, and the dangerously destabilizing consequences of traveling down that path, and rejected this notion. Bush wishes to return to it, and chose the worst possible venue in which to launch his risky foreign policy scheme.
Source: Press release of speech notes
Apr 30, 2000
Against SDI & more carriers; for Grenada & nuclear freeze
[In the 1988 presidential campaign, Gore debated sharply with six other Democratic contenders] over the proposed “Star Wars” defensive shield, which Gore opposed. [A reporter at the time] called it his “one moment of passion.” Gore searched for ways
to differentiate himself from the Democratic pack: as Al Gore, national security candidate, the only one willing to use force to protect America’s vital interests. He was a recognized player in he arms control debate and collaborated with the Reagan
White House on the MX missile compromise. [He pointed out that he] had supported the Grenada invasion and the flagging of Kuwaiti tankers in the Persian Gulf and opposed a ban on ballistic missile test flights.
But on major defense issues Gore was
solidly in the Democratic mainstream. He had supported the nuclear freeze and sharp limits on Star Wars spending, opposed funds for two new aircraft carriers and, until the campaign, most aid to the Nicaraguan contras.
Source: Inventing Al Gore, p.194
Mar 3, 2000
Led effort to dismantle post-Soviet nukes
As Vice President, Gore has led important arms reduction efforts around the world - including the dismantling of Kazakhstan’s nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the
former Soviet Union; negotiating Ukraine’s decision to give up all its nuclear weapons; and a deal with Russia and Kazakhstan to keep more than half a ton of bomb-grade uranium from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Source: Gore campaign statement on election2000.aol.com
Jan 1, 2000
Supported 1980’s “build-down” of nuclear missiles
In a 1980 meeting in his home state of Tennessee, then-Congressman Gore asked a gathering of students how many expected to see nuclear war in their lifetimes. He was stunned to see nearly every hand in the room rise. Two years later, Congressman Gore
advanced a new idea for bringing new stability to the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race: deterring a first strike by moving from multi-warhead missiles to single-warhead missiles on both sides in a phased “build-down.”
Source: www.AlGore2000.com/issues/fp.html 5/16/99
May 16, 1999
Led dismantling of post-Soviet “loose nukes”
Gore has led important arms reduction efforts around the world,including:the dismantling of Kazakhstan’s nuclear arsenal, the 3rd largest in the former Soviet Unionnegotiating Ukraine’s decision to give up all its nuclear weaponsand a deal
with Russia and Kazakhstan to keep more than half a ton of bomb-grade uranium from falling into the hands of terrorists.Al Gore has led Clinton Administration efforts to prevent and combat terrorism, to protect American families and communities.
Source: www.AlGore2000.com/issues/fp.html 5/16/99
May 16, 1999
Nuclear plan: no SDI; fewer missiles; less production
The time has come when we are shifting decisively away from a half-century of growing dependency upon nuclear weapons. Our objective should be:- to curtail nuclear weapons’ function in military doctrine
- to hold open, rather than seal off,
options for further dramatic reductions in numbers of nuclear weapons
- to review SDI in light of problems of strategic stability consistent with ultra-low levels of nuclear weapons
- to block the development of new designs aimed at
Source: Senate Floor Statement , Washington DC
Jun 17, 1992
Voted for funding Soviet dismantlement & deploying ABMs
Voting record on Defense issues:- Gore voted YES on authorizing $500 million to assist the Soviet Union and all of its republics with the dismantlement of nuclear, chemical, and other weapons.(HR 3807, 11/25/91).
- Gore voted YES on an amendment
that would show it is the US’ goal to maintain strategic stability with the Soviet Union while at the same time deploying an anti-ballistic missile system with one or more ground based sites and space-based sensors. (S 1507, 7/31/91)
Source: Project Vote Smart -- Voting Record
Nov 25, 1991
Opposed SDI because USSR would build counter-measures
Assuming the [1991 proposal for an SDI anti-missile] system worked well, it would protect against no more than 100 warheads or perhaps a fraction of a single boatload of Soviet SLBM’s. In the event the Soviets have missiles that are fully equipped with
penetration aids, however, the United States system might be unable to handle even one heavily MIRV’d ICBM with penetration aids and decoys and chaff to confuse the radars. Ironically, if such a system were deployed without
amendments to the treaty and without agreement by the Soviet Union in advance, as President Reagan contemplated when he first proposed the SDI system, its very deployment might well
push the Soviet Union toward equipping its ICBM force with the penetration aids and decoys and chaff which would ironically then sharply undermine the usefulness of a system of this kind even against an accidental launch.
Source: Senate Floor Statement , Washington DC
Jul 23, 1991
Continue SDI research within ABM treaty
There is no need for us to force a choice among competing technologies and architectures [for SDI]. There is absolutely no need
to try to buy the American people a placebo against the fear of nuclear war. We should develop short range defenses because
they are feasible and important for dealing with proliferation at distances from ourselves. We should continue research and
development on ground-based defenses. We should invest in possible breakthrough technologies. We should, in short, hold steady.
Source: Senate Floor Statement , Washington DC
Jul 23, 1991
Abandon ABM Treaty only when conditions change
I am not unalterably opposed to anti-ballistic-missile defenses. I am not a believer that the ABM Treaty must exist forever in its present form, or even at all. If I oppose ballistic missile defense and
support the ABM Treaty it is because of a reasoned conclusion valid in a given context. And my reasoning tells me that the committee’s consensus on defenses [supporting SDI] is not a true guide to action, nor is it necessary at the present time.
Source: Senate Floor Statement , Washington DC
Jul 23, 1991
Deterrence works-replace it only when SDI works as well
For the foreseeable future, the most serious danger faced by the US in the realm of strategic weaponry and intercontinental ballistics missiles will still be the threat we face from the arsenal possessed
by the Soviet Union. We worry with some reason about the possibility that in the future some leader in the mold of Saddam Hussein might somehow acquire an intercontinental ballistic missile.
We have many, many thousands of such missiles aimed at the US right now.
What has kept the peace, what has defended the US, is a mutually agreed deterrence which we accept and the Soviet Union accepts.
If we are going to discard the notion of
deterrence, we ought to make certain that we have something at least equally effective to put in its place. We do not have a substitute for deterrence today, and we should not discard deterrence prematurely.
Source: Senate Floor Statement , Washington DC
Jul 23, 1991
Page last updated: Feb 08, 2010