Al Gore

“I smell the presence of Satan”

Is Littleton's evangelical subculture a solution to the youth alienation that played a role in the Columbine killings, or a reflection of it?

  • more
    • All Share Services

“This is a church on fire!”

It’s Sunday morning, less than a mile from Columbine High School, and Trinity Christian Center is heaving and rumbling like an old-time tent revival. The frenzied congregation thrusts its arms up toward the heavens, belting out the spirit their souls just can’t contain. No one’s got the fever like a sunburned young high schooler, radiating from the choir like the wild orchids bursting through her sundress. Head thrown back, eyes squeezed shut, her lips keep charging straight through the instrumental jam:

This is a church on fire!

This is a Holy Spirit flame.

We have a burning desire,

To lift up Jesus name …

Two weeks ago, the country’s attention was turned to Trinity Christian Center, site of four Columbine victims’ funerals. This was Rachel Scott’s church, and the Columbine junior’s funeral was nationally televised. What the cameras couldn’t fully capture was the power of the evangelical Christian culture that has taken root in Littleton, and among its young people, as it has in many of the nation’s suburbs.

Anyone in America with a working television, of course, sporadically witnessed the outpouring of faith in the wake of the killing spree by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, which left 15 dead. One after another, grieving students described the victims as “servants of Christ ” and spoke of their “personal relationships with Jesus.” The morning after the shooting, almost 100 students piled together into a huge group prayer hug in Clement Park, arms raised to the sky, voices joined in hymns to the Lord. The cluster alternated between songs and spiritual proclamations. “We feel the presence of Satan, operating in our midst!” a young girl cried out. Students flocked to churches for comfort, often trekking to three or four grief ceremonies a night. And most of the funerals were held at three evangelical churches: Trinity Christian Center, Foothills Bible Church and West Bowles Community Church.

Meanwhile, across the nation, Columbine senior Cassie Bernall has become a modern-day Christian martyr for proclaiming her faith in God immediately before being gunned down. In trouble with friends and in school, Cassie was forced by her parents — whom she’d threatened in letters to kill — to attend West Bowles Community Church, where, after protest, she underwent a spiritual awakening and was born again.

“Millions have been ‘touched by a martyr,’” her pastor, the Rev. George Kirsten, told his congregation this past Sunday. He shared a vision youth pastor Dave McPherson received while ministering to the Bernalls: “I saw Cassie, and I saw Jesus, hand in hand. And they had just gotten married. They had just celebrated their marriage ceremony. And Cassie kind of winked over at me like, ‘Dave, I’d like to talk, but I’m so much in love.’ Her greatest prayer was to find the right guy. Don’t you think she did?” And while Kirsten works to console his grieving congregation over Cassie’s loss, he sees the girl’s murder as an opportunity to save more souls. “Pack that ark with as many people as possible,” he says.

While that strong Christian faith proved invaluable in comforting this community after the killings, it also ignited simmering tensions in Littleton. Those tensions briefly rose to a boil after the memorial ceremony on April 25, which drew Vice President Al Gore and 70,000 mourners, packed in more witnessing for Jesus than any Sunday sermon at the local evangelical churches. The Rev. Don Marxhausen, pastor of St. Philip Lutheran Church in Littleton, was quoted by the Denver Post as feeling “offended,” and “hit over the head with Jesus.” Marxhausen serves as de facto leader of local Protestant churches, and officiated over the small, private funeral for Dylan Klebold. Non-Christians felt excluded, too, and the memorial’s lily-white lineup offended many non-whites.

Colorado is certainly well known for evangelical activity. The Promise Keepers are headquartered just ten miles from the school in Denver, Focus on the Family operates 50 miles south in Colorado Springs, and the regional Mormon temple serving several states sits right there in Littleton. A Salon News survey of local churches and church associations indicated nearly twice as many evangelicals as Catholics active in the area, a radical departure from national figures. All the local Littleton clergy report active youth movements, in addition to student-sponsored groups such as the Columbine Bible Club. One evangelical minister described the typical youth ministry as expecting attendance at two meetings a week and two additional monthly events, for a typical schedule of 10 commitments per month.

But in the wake of the Columbine killings and the evangelical proselytizing — and controversy — they engendered, some local evangelicals insist Littleton is no hotbed of born-again culture. “Any time there’s a major catastrophe, a lot of ‘God talk’ surfaces,” said a leading evangelical minister. “Give us six months, and most of that will be gone.” But others disagree. A staffer in that minister’s own office described Columbine as “a very active churchgoing community.” And in an indication of the growing tension in the community, the normally outspoken evangelical minister insisted on anonymity.

Others aren’t so shy about proclaiming their influence. “Men and women, open your eyes!” wailed the Rev. Bill Oudemolen from the pulpit at Foothills Bible Church the Sunday after the massacre. “The kids are turning to God! They’re going to churches!”

Weeks after the worst school-based killings in American history, Littleton is still trying to figure out what that really means, and whether this emerging religious culture is a solution to youth alienation that played a role in the Columbine killings, or a reflection of it.

The conflict over the Columbine memorial offered a window onto the spreading evangelical movement changing the culture of suburbs like Littleton all over the country, but especially in the South and West. The movement includes some Baptist and Presbyterian churches, but nondenominational “community churches” or “megachurches” are the real force behind it, and several have sprung up around Columbine High School in the last few years.

Most of Columbine’s student body is drawn from unincorporated Jefferson County, well west of Littleton and farther afield from Denver, where the gently rolling hills suddenly give way to the Rocky Mountain foothills, rising up like a great barren wall. Travel west three miles from Columbine, to where the strip malls and subdivisions drop away, and three new, modern megachurches rise up from the prairie, dominating the terrain on the edge of what feels like the end of the inhabited world: West Bowles Community Church, Centennial Community Church, and Foothills Bible Church, as far from Denver as the mountains will physically allow.

They’ve joined a host of older community facilities, like Trinity Christian Center, and Southern Gables Church just west of Columbine, where pastor Jerry Nelson leads a loose association of 33 evangelical churches, known informally as the Southwest Metro Denver Area Pastors. Trinity’s services were actually conducted at Columbine High until three years ago, as were West Bowles’ in the mid-1980s. Low-tech Trinity Christian, housed in a converted Kmart, is the most working class of the bunch, and it’s an outpost of old-time religion, with an active but comparatively small membership that’s deeply engaged with the church. The newer evangelical churches tend to be more refined, professional and market-savvy.

On the opposite end of Littleton, South Suburban Christian Church exemplifies a national trend of marketing to different demographic groups by a single church. The moderately evangelical congregation, which is home to Dylan Klebold’s prom date, offers four different Sunday services, targeted to four distinct market niches. The most traditional service features a liturgy appealing to straying Catholics and Lutherans, while “Hiz Place” caters to Gen-Xers gathered around tables with espressos. “You wouldn’t recognize it as church,” beams pastor Deral Schrom.

In the first days after the Columbine shootings, local religious leaders were a model of civility, setting aside differences and welcoming one another into their services. By nightfall on the day of the shootings, 35 local churches had united into an ad hoc union called the “Clergy Coalition on Scene,” to work together to calm their shattered community. Three evangelical ministers from a distant suburb, free of the baggage of local religious politics, and the needs of a terrorized congregation, were deputized as leaders. They organized regular meetings to coordinate clerical response and discuss boundaries of good behavior. There was general agreement that this was no time for proselytizing to shell-shocked students. “They weren’t ready to be preached to, but they were ready to pray,” said the Rev. Aaron Jamal, the African-American minister who headed the Coalition and later spoke at Isaiah Shoels’ funeral.

A few ministers brought booklets and Bibles — the assorted “paraphernalia” of proselytizing — to the grief sessions, but Jamal politely asked them to put them away. “They were well-intentioned, but off the mark,” he said. “It does absolutely no good to throw a bunch of paraphernalia at someone who doesn’t understand what it has to do with what they’re going through.”

It was clear that faith was invaluable to many hardest hit by the tragedy. On the afternoon of the shooting, reporters were cleared out of Leawood Elementary School before victims’ parents were notified, but Red Cross volunteer Lyn Duff witnessed the scene firsthand. Duff, who is Jewish, was moved by the reaction of the evangelical families to their loss. “It was like 180 degrees from where everybody else was,” she said. “They were singing; they were praying; they were comforting the other parents, especially the parents of Isaiah [Shoels]. They were thinking a lot about the other parents, the other families, and responding a lot to other peoples’ needs. They were definitely in pain, and you could see the pain in their eyes, but they were very confident of where their kids were. They were at peace with it. It was like they were a living example of their faith.”

But early rumblings of a conflict began to emerge with within hours of the tragedy, playing out far from public view. Barb Lotze, youth pastor at Light of the World, a local Catholic church, hosted a huge prayer service for students, and found herself grappling with competing challenges of good taste, religious opportunism and the spirit of working together with fellow clergy. She was struck by the necessity for inclusion as she watched students, parents and townspeople from a host of different faiths pour into her pews. Midway through the service, an eager young minister from another denomination approached her excitedly about an “altar call.” Altar calls are a foreign concept to Catholics and mainline Protestants, but a key feature of evangelical worship, the ritual commonly referred to as being “born again.” Lotze was torn, but agreed in the spirit of inclusion.

The young man rushed to the altar and proclaimed his love for Jesus Christ, and asked who was ready to come forward and accept him as their own personal savior. No one moved, Loetze said.

“Nobody?” the young man asked in astonishment. At that, young people began to leave the church.

“The kids are not ready if they don’t know Christ to come at this point,” she said. “They just want to be hugged, they want to be loved, told that we’re going to get through this together.”

Most Protestants agreed with Lotze, including some evangelicals. “I think it would be crass to have an overt invitation,” said Jeffrey Marchant, a local resident and director of legislative and cultural affairs for Focus on the Family. “Most genuine Christians would probably not be interested in something opportunistic like that. I wouldn’t.” But others saw the killings as a God-given marketing opportunity, a chance to save souls. The Rev. Oudemolen of Foothills Bible Church, for instance, told his congregation that the parents of victim John Robert Tomlin requested he make John’s funeral “an evangelistic service,” including “an invitation” to be born again.

“What an incredible opportunity,” Oudemolen said, “not only here, but through the live [television] feed that we had.”

The delicate balance between comforting and recruiting held until the Sunday after the massacre, when 70,000 mourners gathered for the official statewide memorial service. Working with the governor’s office, a committee of a dozen local ministers put together what they considered a diverse program of singers, public officials and four clergy. “Roman Catholic, Protestant and Jewish, I think that’s diverse right there,” Gov. Bill Owens’ spokesman, Dick Wadhams, said later. It might have looked good on paper — if one overlooked the fact that both Protestant ministers and all three headline singers were evangelical, and that every person at the podium was white, despite the fact that Isaiah Shoels had reportedly been targeted by the killers because he was black.

Perhaps less foreseeable was the instinct of the politicians to grab ahold of God with both hands while the grabbing seemed good. Al Gore suddenly found his Southern Baptist roots, quoting the Scripture more than any clergy on the panel. The Rev. Billy Graham’s son Franklin dominated the ceremony with a lengthy and impassioned recruitment speech for one particular brand of Christianity. He called for a return of prayer to schools, and in one flurry, invoked the name of Jesus seven times in under 45 seconds. Evangelical leader the Rev. Jerry Nelson, pastor of Southern Gables Church, gave a brief speech which got right to the point: “There is only one rational way to live without despair in a world of such pain. And that way is to know the son of God, Jesus Christ.”

Much of the Denver clergy was outraged. Christian leaders, in particular, were embarrassed by the association. “It was not a pleasant experience,” said the Rev. Michael Carrier, pastor of Calvary Presbyterian Church, and chair of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado. Some clergy and local residents defended the panel as representative of the Columbine community. But Carrier insisted that “This was a service for all Colorado. It did not reflect that broadness.” He saw a different moral obligation as imperative in addressing mourners: “That is such a vulnerable moment. So I’m always personally very careful not to do anything other than honor and respect what they’re feeling. I would not use it as an evangelistic opportunity.”

Wadhams was unapologetic. “I think it is reprehensible to politicize a memorial service,” he said without a hint of irony. He described the controversy as “fairly insignificant–a bunch of whining pastors.”

Rabbi Fred Greenspahn of Beth Shalom Temple in Littleton, the lone non-Christian at the podium, described how “up-front Christianity” is often perceived by outsiders. “Jews hear that as: ‘They expect me to become one of them. And I don’t like it when they pressure me. I don’t pressure them; why do they pressure me?’” That feeling is often shared by Catholics and mainline Protestants, he said, because many evangelicals use the term “Christian” in a manner intended specifically to exclude them. Greenspahn, who is the chair of the Religious Studies department at the University of Denver, praised Archbishop Charles Chaput for conveying his message at the memorial without using the word Jesus. “He was thinking about Jesus,” he said. “People who heard him understood him to be referring to Jesus. But he didn’t use that word, because he knows that this wasn’t the right occasion, according to our unstated rules [of civil discourse].”

Watching the memorial at home on TV, Rev. Schrom gasped when Nelson began proselytizing. “Oh, Jerry!” he said out loud, realizing that Nelson was going to catch a load of flack for expressing himself that way. He defended Nelson’s right to make that speech, but said he personally would have tempered it a bit, “acknowledged other folks.” Schrom described Nelson’s choice as the moral dilemma evangelicals face every day: the conflict between respect for others’ beliefs and the moral obligation of “standing up for a belief in Jesus Christ as the only way.” He said he would have tried to be more sensitive to a diverse audience, but he too, would have had to use that valuable opportunity “to witness to what I believe.”

Yet he bristled at some “spiritual headhunters” less interested in spreading love than “just racking up another scalp. The Bible was never meant to be a club,” he said. “If I’m using it as a weapon, that’s really sad.” He said he tries to keep one thought in mind as he struggles with that dilemma: “Jesus never said ‘I came to make you more religious.’ He said ‘I came to give you life; that your joy may be full.’”

Ironically, though, it was Greenspahn who drew parallels between the social ostracism suffered by the killers at Columbine High, and the treatment of evangelicals by mainline religions, including his own. “I’ve heard evangelicals being criticized in some pretty cruel terms,” he said. One reason the evangelicals felt the need to drive home their point of view was because they’ve been so often excluded in the past, he said. “We always get a Protestant, a Catholic and a Jew for these things,” but never an evangelical.

“Finally, they’re invited to a ceremony with a governor and a congressman and a senator and the whole world watching, out it pours: ‘I’m going to show you what I think.’”

Greenspahn is right. It’s grown fashionable in many circles to demonize evangelicals, without really understanding them. It’s striking that the national media largely ignored the evangelical aspect of the Columbine story, with secondary stories about the national response to Cassie Bernall the rare exception. It may be that reporters — who, according to national polls, are far less religious than most Americans — didn’t know how to deal with what they saw. Clearly they couldn’t sneer, in the wake of the tragedy and in light of the obvious comfort many found in churches. But they couldn’t delve beneath the surface of what they witnessed, either.

But the remarkable youth ministry among evangelicals in and around Littleton is part of a national story, with repercussions beyond the Columbine tragedy. The transformation of Cassie Bernall represents, perhaps, the best these churches have to offer teens. Two years ago she was strung out on drugs, deeply involved in witchcraft, and began writing hateful letters to her parents. “She said she wanted to kill them,” said Pastor Kirsten. “She was going down the road of Dylan and Eric.” Youth pastor Dave McPherson described her then as “lifeless, callused and cold.”

McPherson counseled her desperate parents to “cut her phone, lock the door, pull her out of school, don’t let her out of the house without supervision.” Her parents complied on every count, and a bitter struggle followed for the next four months. “She despised us at first,” McPherson said. Then something mysterious happened on a weekend youth ministry, where she converted overnight. “She left an angry, vengeful, bitter young girl, and came back brand new,” Kirsten said. McPherson says there were no signs leading up to it, which makes no sense to a lot of people, but is common among those who have undergone a conversion, McPherson said.

After the conversion, she attended youth ministry enthusiastically, but struggled with social pressures right up to her death. “We’re not saying she’s Joan of Arc,” McPherson said. “But she understood what it meant to just go home at nights saying ‘I feel left out. I don’t feel like I fit in. But guess what, I’m going back again.’ Our conversation Monday, in our youth staff meeting, was how do we get Cassie to fit in better? And the next day she’s dead.”

But despite her difficulties, McPherson said, Bernall never slipped back into her old ways, a common syndrome among teen converts. She wore a “What would Jesus do” bracelet to school and volunteered with Victory Outreach Church, helping drug addicts and ex-convicts in Denver. McPherson said a group of 60 ex-cons came to mourn her. “They came down and just said, ‘She covered our backs when we were in need; now we’re here to cover her back.’” Just before her death, she had announced her intention to cut her long blond hair after graduation to donate it to a group that makes wigs for children with leukemia. Kirsten said one of Misty Bernall’s first reactions to news of her daughter’s death was that Cassie would be so disappointed that her organs could not be donated.

The Cassie Bernall story may sound like a parent’s dream, but it would be risky think forcing kids into church is a cure-all. Interestingly, Bernall has emerged as a figure of adulation and respect among self-described stoners from local high schools, even as they reject what they describe as attempts by parents to cram Christianity down their throats. The reaction of a group hanging out at Southwest Plaza Mall a mile from Columbine was typical. “Right on!” they howled at the mention of Bernall’s name. Between cigarettes, the half dozen girls from Columbine, Chatfield and Dakota Ridge high schools openly discussed drug use, yet applauded Cassie for kicking hers, which they considered far more serious. “I give her so much respect for doing that,” said Katelyn Noschese, a senior at nearby Dakota Ridge.

But these same students recoiled at parental attempts to force their beliefs. “They need to back off,” said sophomore Amy Henderson. Henderson was expelled from Dakota Ridge after a pot-smoking incident. She now attends a small private academy, which she described as dominated by at-risk youth. She attends Foothills Bible Church under protest each week. Her parents now accompany her to the adult service, since she was caught “ditching” youth services for several years.

“They need to lay off and leave the person alone,” Henderson said of evangelicals. “If they’re going to find God, then they’ll find him on their own. Their parents aren’t going to force them to, because the more their parents try to get them to, the further away they go.”

When pressed, she said she believes in God, though not quite the same conception of him as her parents. “I don’t believe in the Adam and Eve theory,” she said. She bitterly complained of “five-hour fights” with her father over the issue. “He doesn’t respect what I believe. All he wants is me to believe in what he believes. He doesn’t listen to anybody else. She said she actually resists exploring or embracing her beliefs in the face of so much strong-arm pressure. She said that all of her friends who found religion accepted it without intervention. “Nobody can convince them to believe in God,” she said. “People have to come to it on their own.”

Kirsten conceded that forcing too hard in situations like Henderson’s can easily backfire. “It worked out well for the Bernalls,” he said. “But it could have just as easily backfired.” He suggested parents find ways to work with their kids to find agreeable solutions. “Believe me, if you just come in their blasting them, and beating them up, that will definitely be counterproductive.” But he stressed that the greater problem is parents avoiding confrontation. “Most parents are way too passive today,” he said. “It’s so painful and so difficult, that most parents don’t do it.”

The evangelicals were also quick to seize on the Columbine killings as evidence of Satan’s work. Although most of the religious outpouring in response to the tragedy was positive, and stressed faith as a loving, healing force, some ministers deride that approach as “‘Sound of Music’ theology,” in the words Pastor Bill Oudemolen of Foothills Bible Church. While Oudemolen has had words of comfort for mourners in all of his sermons since the tragedy, his primary focus is on Satan. “I smelled the presence of Satan,” he announced the Sunday after the shooting. Dozens of times he repeated the theme: “It’s coming from Satan … Satan had a plan … What we saw Tuesday came from Satan’s home office.”

Kirsten also considers the Columbine killings Satan’s work, and directs his congregation to God as an avenging force. He likens Cassie Bernall to the martyrs calling out to God at the onset of the Apocalypse, paraphrasing Revelations 6:10. “How long? How long will it be, until my blood is avenged?”

Lynn Ross Bryant, expert on American religion at the University of Colorado and active in a mainline Protestant denomination, was heartened by the outpouring of Christian faith after Columbine, but troubled by recurrent themes of evilness. “The ‘Satan in our midst’ talk could really lead to a demonizing not only of the kids involved in this, but of other kids in school,” she said.

Initially, Oudemolen identified Satan specifically with the two killers, but this past Sunday, he broadened the indictment during his sermon: “[Satan] wants us to see trench coats and people in gothic attire and makeup and here’s what he wants us to feel: Look how powerful and scary Satan is.”

“It was hard for me to sit through that,” Henderson recalled hours later at the mall. “I was getting angry. I wanted to tell him to shut up.” She’s highly sensitive to slurs against goths, whom she described as nice people already angry with society. She contrasted them with evangelical kids, whom she characterized as “really judgmental. The youth groups are more clan-like than a lot of the high schools,” she said. “If you don’t believe in the right God, you’re a bad person.” She also sees the emphasis on Satan as something of a cop out by society: “I believe that the kids were responsible for their own actions,” she said.

Back at the Trinity Christian Center, I can’t take my eyes off the sunburned young girl in the choir. Her eyes haven’t opened once — I wonder what she sees back there. She’s singing with her whole body: lungs bursting, head whipped side to side, flowing blond hair sailing behind it, dancing nearly weightless through the superheated air. I wonder about her past: Was it as troubled as Cassie’s? Or as Amy Henderson is right now?

I can see how this church, and others like it, could be the perfect balm for teenage alienation. And I can also imagine it making outcast kids feel even more beyond redemption: the proselytizing, the insistence on Jesus as “the only way,” the demonization of those who sin. It has affected me both ways. In the weeks since the Columbine killings I’ve haunted these churches, and I’ve been moved by their love and their spirit, and the genuine kindness shown to me, a stranger. But as a gay man raised Catholic, I find it hard to believe that for all their talk about love — and the true warmth they’ve shown me — they’d extend that same warm welcome if they knew the real me.

If we’ve learned one thing from this tragedy, it’s what every one of us who went to high school already knew: It can be hell, and kids are facing tremendous pressure –to perform, to achieve, most of all to fit in. Amy Henderson just shakes her head. “It’s hard in a high school atmosphere. High school is just so cliquey. It’s just — it’s hard.” Evangelicals are no doubt making a difference for some teenagers, but for others, they may be making it harder.

Dave Cullen is a Denver writer working on a memoir, "In a Boy's Dream."

Why President Gore might have gone into Iraq after 9/11, too

Americans don't think the world would be much different if he'd been president on 9/11 -- and they may be right

  • more
    • All Share Services

Why President Gore might have gone into Iraq after 9/11, tooAl Gore concedes the 2000 presidential election

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 is almost upon us and the commemorations are well underway. So it’s probably not surprising that someone would commission a poll asking Americans how different they think world would now be if their country’s response had been guided not by George W. Bush but by Al Gore.

What is surprising is what the poll, conducted by “60 Minutes” and Vanity Fair, found: A clear majority of Americans — 56 percent — don’t really think anything would be different. This includes 62 percent of independents, 57 percent of Republicans and 48 percent of Democrats. Even among Democrats, only 44 percent say they thought the world would be a better place now if Gore had been in the White House back then.

If the numbers seem startling, it’s because the “global war on terror” that Bush chose to launch in the wake of 9/11 has long seemed like an especially vivid affirmation of the truism that elections have consequences. You could argue that virtually any president would have signed off on the invasion of Afghanistan immediately after 9/11, but Iraq was a war of choice, and as Bush was making his case for it in the fall of 2002, Gore’s was perhaps the loudest voice in American politics saying, “No!” The question of whether the world would be much different today has President Gore been in power seems like an open and shut matter. How could it not be?

And yet, there actually is a strong case for the public’s skepticism.

It starts with remembering just how conditioned Americans in 2001 were to view Saddam Hussein as the source of much of the world’s evil and instability — and just how easy and painless they had come to believe war was.

This was a product of the first Gulf War, which had been sold as a noble and necessary effort to check the aggression of a brutal tyrant with dreams of regional hegemony. “We’re dealing with Hitler revisited!” George H.W. Bush famously declared in the fall of 1990. Americans bought in and rejoiced when Operation Desert Storm ended with Hussein’s army evicted from Kuwait, and with surprisingly minimal Americans casualties.

But the ease with which victory was attained also led to hubris, and politicians from both parties, media commentators, and average voters spent the rest of the decade lamenting Bush’s failure to “finish the job” — that is, to pivot when he had the chance from Kuwait to a full-scale invasion of Iraq that would have ended Hussein’s reign. Hussein’s own actions only encouraged this thinking. After the war, he quickly resumed his menacing posture, crushing a Kurdish uprising and taunting U.N. weapons inspectors for years to come. Americans were also told that he’d tried to arrange the assassination of Bush in 1993.

This explains why, during one inspection showdown in 1998, a Gallup poll found that nearly 70 percent of Americans wanted President Clinton to use airstrikes to target Hussein himself (instead of just his supposed weapons installations), and 60 percent wanted American ground forces to launch an invasion. Clinton, like Bush before him, recognized that this was “unfeasible,” but he felt compelled to balance his desire to avoid war and occupation with voters’ intense hatred and fear of the Iraqi madman. Thus, he attacked Hussein as aggressively in his speeches as Bush had, approved some airstrikes, and signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which put the U.S. government on record supporting regime change.

So while there were no Iraqi nationals on any of the 9/11 flights, it was easy for foreign policy hawks — and, in particular, the neoconservatives who had long seen the forced removal Hussein as the first step in the democratization of the Middle East — to convince the public that at least part of their thirst for vengeance should be directed at Hussein. It was only natural for Americans to assume that a man they saw as “Hitler revisited” must have some way, somehow been involved in the attacks on their homeland. And even if he hadn’t, well, surely he’d be behind the next one — unless we acted now to stop him.

The story of how Bush bought into this is well-known. His instinct after 9/11 was too think big and aggressively, and his inner circle was littered with neocons and other hawks who’d been waiting for just the right opening to push for an invasion of Iraq. This, supposedly, would not have been the case in a Gore White House.

But look a little closer and you’ll realize that President Gore would have been hearing the same pleas. His own vice president would have been Joe Lieberman, perhaps the most hawkish Democrat in Washington on Middle East issues. Marty Peretz, his old friend and confidante, would have had Gore’s ear and filled it with arguments for going into Iraq. Loud, influential, non-conservative media voices — like Tom Friedman and Peter Beinart — would have amplified these calls on the outside. Republicans would have been screaming for an invasion, and the public would have been on their side. Clinton could barely hold them all back in the ‘90s; after 9/11, would Gore have stood a chance?

Here it’s worth remembering Gore’s own history. In the 1980s, he made his name as a senator and presidential candidate by positioning himself as one of his party’s foremost hawks. One of the reasons, in fact, that Clinton put him on the Democratic ticket in 1992 was Gore’s vote for the Gulf War, which most Democrats had opposed. You could argue that Gore was a changed man by 2001 and 2002, and that he saw the world in a fundamentally different way, and maybe that’s true.

But it should be noted that when he announced his opposition to Bush’s war push in the fall of ’02, Gore endorsed the basic goal of removing Hussein and securing his (supposed) WMD stockpiles. What he objected to was more the go-it-alone nature of Bush’s approach. In other words, you could also argue that Gore, still stung by the 2000 election outcome, may have been motivated in some way by his desire to stage a big, principled fight with Bush — and that a different result in ’00 might have produced a different, more hawkish response from Gore, one that would have led to … an invasion of Iraq.

Or we can give Gore the benefit of the doubt and say that he would have delivered the same speech opposing a war with Iraq even if he had been president — and that he would have resisted overwhelming pressure from Republicans, the media, the general public, and even some members of his administration. Would the country’s war fever have eventually died down until Americans gratefully concluded that Gore had been right all along? Sure, it’s possible. But it seems more likely that the same taunts that haunted Bush throughout the ’90s — “He should have finished the job!” — would have then dogged Gore, and that the political consequences would have been profound. Maybe Gore would have pushed through some new type of sanctions, or a few more rounds of weapons inspections. Hussein would have just thumbed his nose at all of this, and every time he did, the chorus in America would have grown louder: Why is President Gore letting this tyrant push us around — especially when it could lead to another 9/11?!

If the 1991 Gulf War is what shook America’s Vietnam syndrome, then the occupation of Iraq is what shook the hubris that followed the Gulf War — and made Gore and Clinton and George H.W. Bush look prophetic. But without the Iraq war, Gore’s wisdom probably would have gone unappreciated for years to come. If anything, it would have been a serious political liability — the sort of thing that his Republican opponent in 2004 (John McCain? Bush again, anointed by a GOP still furious over the “stolen” election of 2000?) would have been well-positioned to exploit.

Obviously, it’s impossible to know what would have happened if Gore had been president on 9/11. But here’s guessing that, one way or another, America would have gotten the invasion of Iraq that it had been itching for since 1991.

Continue Reading Close
Steve Kornacki

Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki

Al Gore: We need an “American Spring”

The former VP tells Olbermann we need a non-violent Tahrir Square, but he doesn't mean revolution

  • more
    • All Share Services

Al Gore: We need an Al Gore

Former Vice President and Current TV chairman, Al Gore, made an appearance on his own channel Tuesday to decry the state of American politics.

He told “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann that we need an “American Spring” like the Arab Spring, with our own version of Tahrir Square, to reinvigorate political activism in America. However, Gore made clear with a number of qualifications that he was not calling for revolution. Rather than advocating taking to the streets, he seemed to be calling for more Americans to get online to make their political views heard — a far cry from the revolutionary activity in the Arab world.

Gore also emphasized that he does not see the Tea Party as an example of grassroots political activism, largely because the movement has the support of billionaires like the Koch brothers pushing agendas in Washington.

Watch the “Countdown” clip below:

Continue Reading Close

Natasha Lennard covers the Occupy movement for Salon. A British-born, Brooklyn-based journalist, she has been covering Occupy Wall Street since before the first sleeping bag was unrolled in Zuccotti Park. One of the first journalists arrested at an Occupy action, she has managed to enrage Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. You can follow her on Twitter (@natashalennard), and email her any Occupy updates/videos/ideas to natasha.lennard@gmail.com

Drop the Gore vs. Obama script

The former VP indicts the media, corporate titans and both parties, not just Obama, for inaction on climate change

  • more
    • All Share Services

Drop the Gore vs. Obama scriptFormer Vice President Al Gore introduces Vice President Joe Biden at the annual Tennessee Democratic Party Jackson Day on Friday, July 16, 2010 in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)(Credit: Mark Humphrey)

The sweep and complexity of Al Gore’s 7,000-word climate-change jeremiad in Rolling Stone, making news because he chides President Obama, in itself partly exonerates the president. As Gore indicts the media, corporate leaders, both political parties and by extension voters for their inaction on the deadly challenge, it seems almost churlish to single out one man for blame, even if he is the president: Look at what he’s up against!

The fact is, Gore didn’t single out the president in “Climate of Denial”; most of his piece indicts the media for indulging in “debate” about whether climate change is real and human-made, when the science is unanimous that it is, as well as turning news into entertainment, to the detriment of serious reporting on global threats, in search of bigger audiences. He also calls out Fox News as a 24/7 purveyor of disinformation and Republican propaganda, on the heels of Jon Stewart’s great takedown last night. But Gore’s critique is just, like, too complicated, and kind of a downer, and maybe hits too close to home. So a lot of outlets are just saying: “Hey! Look over there! It’s not us — It’s Obama! Fight!”

What Gore is ultimately saying about Obama, that he “has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change,” has been said by plenty of other advocates on plenty of other issues, particularly about domestic economic issues. It points to an inconvenient truth about politics right now: President Obama came to power with a mandate for “change,” but no one agreed about exactly what that meant, and in these first two-plus years, on divisive issues, he’s tried to split the difference. He and his team assumed that the biggest problem in Washington was dysfunctional partisan gridlock, and if you committed to compromise on the big problems, you could “do big things.”

But with a Republican Party whose strategy consisted of saying no to everything, no matter how reasonable, that approach didn’t work. The Obama team also thought they could make progress by cutting side deals with the powerful interests that block change, promising big healthcare interests, for instance, that the public option was off the table. Healthcare reform ultimately passed, but without a public option or other methods to contain costs, and the side deals contributed to public cynicism about the process and the product. Likewise on the failure to pass a climate change bill, Gore says, “Senate advocates — including one Republican — felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return.”

Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson’s story, linked from the Gore piece, fleshes out that disappointment. After a strong climate bill passed the House, the Senate took up the issue, and a “tripartite” team of John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham made progress. But advocates said “the administration applied the same backroom approach it took to health care reform. Instead of waging a public debate to pit the American people against the corporate polluters, Obama gave the polluters a seat at the negotiating table. In private, big energy firms were offered sweetheart deals to acquiesce to the climate bill, including expanded offshore drilling for oil giants like BP and taxpayer subsidies for coal and nuclear interests that outstripped those for clean energy.” The deal fell apart anyway, and just after Obama unilaterally announced that his administration would extend offshore drilling, without any climate change concessions on the part of industry, came news of the BP oil spill, which ensured that coddling oil companies would be remembered as a bipartisan folly. 

The question for Obama, and for Democrats more broadly, now that compromise and co-optation hasn’t worked is: What next? On one level I react to complaints about the president failing to use his “bully pulpit” with a little weariness: More speeches? Really? We need action. And I sympathize with the president about the lack of backing in Congress for bold change. But at the heart of the many calls for Obama to take the lead in defining the dire problems we face — on climate change, on income inequality, on the troubled economy more broadly — is a deep and widely shared frustration: The president hasn’t seized a moment of profound crisis and opportunity to tell Americans exactly why the status quo isn’t working anymore, except for a tiny sliver of America, and what we’re going to do about it.

Right before I read Gore’s piece I finished an article by Mike Tomasky that made almost the same exact case on the issue of economic inequality. Peter Whoriskey’s terrific Washington Post report, “Breakaway Wealth,” got everyone’s attention: It’s unconscionable that the share of wealth that goes to the richest .01 percent of Americans has shot from 2.5 percent in the mid-1970s to more than 10 percent today. That inequality threatens the foundations of our country. It’s part of why we have an economic crisis in the first place: Unemployment is sky high, wages are stagnant (or falling, for those at the bottom), people are using services that drain tax revenue instead of doing work that produces it. The concentration of economic power leads that elite to have more political power, which they use to protect their economic power. This threatens democracy, even if they don’t talk about it at Tea Party events.

Tomasky concludes: “God forbid also that a Democrat — the president, let’s say — make this argument and draw these connections for the American people … Mr. President, Democrats: it would seem that now is the time.” Paul Krugman has likewise noted, going back to the debate over the inadequate size of the 2009 stimulus: OK, maybe the president is right, and he couldn’t have gotten more money from conservative Democrats and Republicans. Still: If he’d made a stronger case about the broken economy, raging economic inequality, and the imperative to spend government money now to get things moving again, the worst that could have happened is that he’d lose, but Americans would know what Democrats believe we’re up against — and what we believed would work, even if Republicans blocked it. And who knows, a rousing call to bold action might have galvanized Americans to demand more from Washington. We’ll never know.

The frustrating thing about the lack of a bold approach to climate change is that action on this massive threat has the potential to ease several problems at once, not just environmental ones: Massive public and private investment in alternative energy and conservation technologies could spur a renaissance in research, development and manufacturing, and provide jobs at every level, from top scientists to underskilled workers weather-proofing public buildings. And of course, reducing our dependence on gulf oil would enhance national security by making intervention in that region less tempting, giving us more freedom to pursue both human rights and genuine American interests in oil-producing states.

But it would also require that Democrats take on the people who profit from the status quo, and as Gore lays out, that’s not easy. I wish Gore had talked a little about his own role with the Democratic Leadership Council in the 1980s and ’90s, pushing his party to be more friendly to business, which is part of what’s led to the sad reality that both parties compete to serve corporate America. I don’t say that to be insulting; I’m sure Gore has some important insights about what was right, and wrong, about that endeavor. We live with its legacy today. He makes one point I’ll quibble with: that the slow but certain demise of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should inspire climate-change activists, because it shows the power of hard work and activist organizing to do what’s right. With no disrespect to the legions of DADT advocates whose work I admire: Strong advocacy wasn’t the whole story. DADT fell for two primary reasons: Americans are coming to accept gay rights more broadly, and it was a win-win solution. The military gets more soldiers, and gay people get more rights. Maybe most important: It didn’t cost corporate America a dime. It didn’t require higher taxes. It was a tough sell but far easier than what Gore is proposing. We’re winning the social issues, and losing on the economic ones.

I recently ran across a comment Franklin Delano Roosevelt made on the eve of becoming president in 1933, when the Depression shocked the country into reappraising virtually everything about itself .”All our great Presidents were leaders of thought at times when certain historic ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified … [I]t needs to be reaffirmed at this juncture that the United States is one organic entity, that no interest, no class, no section, is either separate or supreme above the interests of all.” Obama took office in just that sort of time, and sympathetic critics, like Gore, wish he’d seized the sort of moment FDR described. For better or worse, though, it’s not too late: The climate change crisis gets worse every day, and the economic crisis isn’t going away any time soon either. 

I discussed the Gore piece with Rolling Stone’s Eric Bates on Hardball today:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Continue Reading Close
Joan Walsh

Joan Walsh is Salon's editor at large.

Is Keith Olbermann at Current TV the weirdest idea ever?

Confirming rumors, Keith Olbermann announced a new gig with Al Gore's cable and Internet channel this morning

  • more
    • All Share Services

Is Keith Olbermann at Current TV the weirdest idea ever?This frame grab from MSNBC video, shows Keith Olbermann on "Countdown" on Jan. 21, 2011. Olbermann returned from one last commercial break on "Countdown" to tell viewers it was his last broadcast, and read a James Thurber short story in a three-minute exit statement. Simultaneously, MSNBC e-mailed a statement that "MSNBC and Keith Olbermann have ended their contract." The network thanked him and said, "we wish him well in his future endeavors." Neither MSNBC President Phil Griffin, Olbermann nor his manager responded to requests to explain an exit so abrupt that Olbermann's face was still being featured on an MSNBC promotional ad 30 minutes after he had said goodbye. (AP Photo/MSNBC) NO SALES, MANDATORY CREDIT(Credit: AP)

UPDATE (11:07 a.m.)
Like a new media champ, Keith Olbermann announced his new job on Twitter:

Greetings from Keith Olbermann, Chief News Officer of Current Media! And awayyyyyy we go! #FOK

Olbermann will both host and executive produce — this is key — an hour-long prime-time show five nights a week on Current. In addition to this anchor role, the sometimes tough-to-manage Olbermann will help overhaul Current’s news strategy and hold equity in the company.

Current’s already launched Olbermann’s page on its website.

Nothing is more vital to a free America than a free media, and nothing is more vital to my concept of a free media than news produced independently of corporate interference. In Current Media, Al Gore and Joel Hyatt have created the model truth-seeking entity. The opportunity to partner with Al, Joel and Mark Rosenthal makes this the most exciting venture in my career.

Reactions so far have been positive. David Shuster tweeted almost immediately after the news:

Brilliant business move, excellent journalism effort by currentTV in hiring @keitholbermann. The prime time show sounds terrific.

Also via Twitter, Mother Jones’ Washington editor David Corn remarked:

Right now on Current TV: “Viral Videos,” featuring “Keyboard Cat.” Later, “Kill It, Cook It, Eat It.” KO will be rebuilding a network-again

————-

Keith Olbermann, the former MSNBC host turned tweeter about the weather, will announce his next move today. According to the New York Times’ Media Decoder blog, Olbermann will team up with Al Gore’s Current TV in some sort of Internet-meets-teevee jujitsu. Since the former “Countdown” host is contractually forbidden from working in television, Current seems like an interesting choice.

Started in 2005 by Al Gore and cronies, Current TV originally set out to break the cable mold with a mixture of user-generated content, Internet-friendly short segments called “pods,” and some sort of partnership with Google. These ideas never really worked out, and after massive layoffs during the recession, Current could use some new wind in its sails.

Enter Keith. His harried departure from MSNBC left many viewers, fans and even foes wondering what the polarizing pundit would do next. And let’s not forget the great gossip about who would fill his slot at MSNBC. A new Keith Olbermann show on Current TV would both offer Olbermann the independence he longs for and the flexibility to work on the Internet in the near term.

Of course, we’re still in the gossip arena, and speculation abounds. The Times blog post came after an announcement Monday that Olbermann would announce “the next chapter in his remarkable career” Tuesday at 11 a.m., less than 24 hours before Current TV is set to make a big announcement to advertisers. This is dizzying. It’s entirely possible that Olbermann, who once wrote a column for Salon, will announce something entirely different, that he is doing his own thing. In a way, the crumbs lead in that direction as Olbermann has already set up a new Twitter account (@FOKNewsChannel, or “Friends of Keith News Channel”) and someone registered a pretty obvious domain name (TheOlbermannShow.com).

Keith and Current are not the weirdest pair ever. Since Al Gore invented the Internet — we couldn’t help ourselves from that joke — what better place to experiment than with his channel. The politics make sense, the brands make sense, and everyone’s a little sick of speculating.

We’re on the edge of our seats.

Continue Reading Close

Adam Clark Estes blogs the news for Salon. Email him at ace@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @adamclarkestes

Mark Kirk doesn’t support regulating carbon anymore, because Al Gore got divorced

The new Illinois senator reverses course on cap-and-trade, cites the former vice president's personal life

  • more
    • All Share Services

Mark Kirk doesn't support regulating carbon anymore, because Al Gore got divorcedFormer U.S. Vice President Al Gore (L) and his wife Tipper leave after holding a news conference in Palo Alto, California after winning the Nobel Peace Prize in this October 12, 2007 file photo. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have announced their separation after 40 years of marriage, according to media reports on June 1, 2010. REUTERS/Kimberly White/Files (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS PROFILE)(Credit: © Kimberly White / Reuters)

So, Mark Kirk voted for cap-and-trade in 2009, when he was in the House of Representatives. But then he ran for Senate, and so he had to decide that cap-and-trade was tyrannical and the entire idea of regulating carbon is socialism because there’s no such thing as global warming. Now Kirk wants to block the EPA from regulating emissions themselves.

How to explain the about-face? Well, a lot has happened since 2009. 2010 happened, for example. And while 2010 was the hottest year on record, something even more significant went down last year:

Another Republican blasted from both sides of the spectrum for his record on emissions, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, said he is “not terribly concerned” about taking heat from green groups for his criticism of EPA action on carbon emissions.

“The consensus behind the climate change bill collapsed and then further deteriorated with the personal and political collapse of Vice President [Al] Gore,” Kirk said in a brief interview last week.

I think this means that when Al Gore split with his longtime wife, Tipper, in 2010, there was no longer overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. It just makes sense.

There is maybe an explanation for this! Mark Kirk divorced his wife in 2009, and the next year it was revealed that he repeatedly lied about his military service and other aspects of his biography. So maybe he just assumes that everyone else is constantly making things up, until they get divorced.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Page 1 of 107 in Al Gore