Buzzflash Op Ed: Draft Al Gore

[Larkspur]

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/10/con05368.html

Haven’t we had enough of the "I was for the war before I was against it" democrats? Didn’t the American people see through that? The front-runner for 2008 is Hillary Clinton. We all know it. She voted for this war and has supported it all along. She wants to send more troops. This is an opposition party? This is a vision?

I was watching the Chris Matthews show this morning, and in between the whining and self-aggrandizement, they actually made a good point. Of course, this was most likely an accident. Hey, if you put enough monkeys in pundit seats and let them talk for as long as they want to, eventually, they will speak the complete works of William Shakespeare. Even if one of them is David Brooks.

The point that the dancing monkeys skirted around and sort of got out, after a lot of back-slapping and guffawing at Matthews’ "witticisms," was this. The democrats are in the same position now, as they were in 2004; they’re the "me too" party pinning everything on the "Anybody but Bush" vote. If the war in Iraq is still going on come 2008, (and I’d really like to see how Bush is going to get us out by then) what is Hillary Clinton going to run on?

There exists a vacuum. The leading Democratic contenders carry too much post-9/11 "I’m a bigger patriot than you are" baggage. They cannot challenge this President on his policies without being laughed at. Yet, there is one man who can. There exists one man with the qualifications and credentials to challenge the prevailing ideology. One man who helped preside over eight years of what now seems like one of those dreams you wish you never woke up from. One man who was never for this war, and is on record as such. Al Gore.
<SNIP>

It seems the vaccum of Dem leadership in Washington DC is building momentum to support an Al Gore for President 2008 campaign.

[Mira]

1. Thanks for saying what I've been thinking

I am on bended knee about it, as well as that Michael Moore will make a movie about Louisiana and Mississippi........so much to pray for, so little time :)

[Cha]

3. I wanted Michael Moore to

make a movie about the voting frauds and he was said to be making a movie about the hmo..and then Katrina happened and he's been down there in Louisianna and Mississippi..really helping out.

Michael is such a film guy maybe he won't be able to help but make a Doc about what he personally saw.

Welcome to DU, Mira!

[Cha]

2. I really like buzzflash..from

the way they write their little comments after all their headliners..I agree with them 99% of the time..what's not to like?

I love Al Gore..not sure if he's gonna want to do it, though.

This is classic..." "I’m a bigger patriot than you are baggage."

I hope I remember that..it's so succinct!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. YES! YES! A THOUSAND TIMES YES!

Hilary can put in her time as VP. She'll still be young enough to be prez in 11 years.

[KaryninMiami]

5. Nothing would make me happier. He's my first choice in 08.

Actually, that's not true- Barbara Boxer or John Conyers would be ahead of Gore in my book but Gore has a better chance of pulling in votes from many directions and that's a good thing. He did win in 2000 and he earned the right to serve as President. Whomever wins in 08 is going to have a huge amount of leftover Bush baggage to contend with so it had better be someone who has the brains and the wisdom to get this country back on track. Gore has that and more.

Sign me up for the Draft Gore campaign!

[BeyondGeography]

6. The case for Gore is straightforward and compelling

There is absolutely no way we can put a pro-IWR Democrat out there in 2008. Gore won't be tainted by 8 years of foreign policy appeasement and domestic timidity. He's crystal clear on the issue of fiscal responsibility and the unilateral invasion of Iraq, plus he has a track record of skill and competence at the executive branch level. As for the issue of 9/11, Richard Clarke spoke very highly of Gore's attention to the issue of Al-Qaeda in Against All Enemies. Based on his own record, he can bring far more weapons to the 2008 campaign than any other candidate out there.

The Hillary's and John Edwards of the world are hopelessly compromised on Iraq. I will not consider supporting them as a nominee and would have a difficult time seeing them generate even as much support as Kerry had in 2004 should either get the nomination.

The only major concern is the MSM, which will take the knives out should Gore run, but their influence is reduced in my opinion relative to 2000. Furthermore, if the NYT and their ilk has an iota of integrity (I'm just asking for an iota here), they will give him a fairer shake than they did in 2000. At the very least, the Comeback Kid aspects of the story will conceivably crowd out some of the style bullshit that they immersed themselves in last time.

I'm a pro-Gore Clarkie; who, like many others here, wouldn't mind seeing the General as his running mate.

[bee]

7. exactly right. Gore/Clark Gore/Clark Gore/Clark

It nearly brings a tear to my eye.

[Upfront]

8. Gore & Clark

I am on board and it could happen.

[BlueCaliDem]

56. Perfect match!

I'm ON BOARD should this happen!

General Clark was against the invasion of Iraq from the git-go--I know this for a FACT because I watched with great amazement how other talking-head generals came on all the cable media shows to support *'s rush to war in Iraq while the lone voice of calm reason, was none other than Wesley Clark!

Both Gore and Clark have been against this abhorrent war in Iraq from the git-go and they won't be laughed at!

If we can get those two on the ticket (and with Howard Dean at the helm at the DNC) there's a really GOOD chance they'll survive the Iowa and New Hampshire elections and become the candidates for the 2008 presidential pick!

[AntiFascist]

39. I agree...

and we need some way of dealing with the MSM. Everyone does a great job of criticizing mainstream media figureheads here on DU...if only it could get more exposure.

[LynneSin]

9. Sorry no

He had his chance in 2000 just like Kerry did in 2004

Fresh Blood please. I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton but I would support her over Gore or Kerry

[bee]

10. Clark / Gore? ;-) n/t

[LynneSin]

13. Gore can't be VP

I think there are term limits on the VP

[bee]

16. excellent point Lynne. I havent had my coffee yet.

:hangover:

edit to add: I clearly need more cowbell. Did you know that Christopher Walkin is running for president in '08?

http://www.walken2008.com/

[Rowdyboy]

21. From a quick reading of the linked article, I get the impression that

there are no term limits on vp's, but I may have missed something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[MadisonProgressive]

11. Huh? He WON in 2000!!

I'm behind Al 100%. Gore/Clark.. yeah, that's the ticket!

[LynneSin]

12. Yes and I still think he gave up

Plus we lost so many states that Bill Clinton carried because Gore AND Kerry both come off as elitist knowitall politicians.

Bill Clinton won in conservative leaning states because he knew how to reach out to people and bring them in. ANd when the shit-hit-the-fans with Gennifer Flowers, Clinton never let the scandal weigh him down like Kerry did with those Swift Idiots.

We need someone with Charisma and someone who will say "FUCK YOU" when repukes start finding insignificant stuff and using it against our candidates. Although I'm not keen about Hillary for president I know she will. And I know that Ed Rendell will because that guy is Mr. Charisma here in PA.

Plus, Senators can't win. They have too much of a voting record with these massive bills that have line items in there that could be used against them. Until line-item veto bill gets passed - senators are essentially fucked.

[AlGore-08.com]

24. In 1992 Clinton won a smaller percentage of the vote in most states

Than Gore did in 2000, because Perot took about 19% of the vote in 1992. The only states where Clinton got more than 50% of the vote in 1992 were Arkansas and DC. Even in 1996 Clinton had the power of incumbency, Perot still took 8% (when he wasn't even running). Gore's totals in most of the swing states he's criticized for loosing in 2000 equal or surpass Clinton's 1992 performance.

The post-impeachment climate was so hostile in 1999 and 2000 that Gore started out 20 points behind, and ended up wining by a larger margin than Kennedy in 1960 or Nixon in 1968.

And when it comes to charisma... how do you measure something like that? It's totally subjective. What you can measure is votes. Gore carried New York state by a larger margin than HRC did in 2000, by 5%.

http://www.nytimes.com/specials/election2000/states/newyork.html

I'm just sayin'...

[Mabus]

34. SCOTUS handed down a decision, where could he have taken it?

Gore took the contest for the 2000 election as far as he could take it. As you'll remember, the pResidency was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, not the voting public. How much farther could he have taken it? And to where? Do you honestly think the GOP would have allowed the UN to intervene?

I also believe that part of the problem back in 2000 was the lack of funding to and by the DNC to contest the election. It was an unprecedented election and no one was prepared for it. The GOP had the upper hand all the way - from Ellis in the Fox booth calling it for his cousin George to brother Jeb being governor to having the Secretary of State in their pocket. The media was rooting for the GOP. What chance would any Democratic candidate have with all that against them? I mean, look what happened to Kerry with the SBVT. The media mantra did a lot of damage and it shouldn't be overlooked.

As for Gore asking the Senators not to oppose the electoral college results. First, the context, the media had being doing a hatchet job on Gore for some time. The rightwing talking points were the same ones they pulled out in 2004 against Kerry, that is, the Gore was wooden, uninspiring, too smart (out of touch with the common American), a little whacky, a liar, they questioned his military record and concluded he was wishy-washy. Hell, they did almost the same thing to Dukakis in 1988. It is the GOP's standard operating procedure/MO when they can't find the "sex angle" like they did with Clinton, Hart and Kennedy.

Anyway, back to Gore asking the senators not to oppose the electoral college results:

the media repeated the GOP lies to the point where they were accepted by almost as many Americans that believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Among them:
1) Gore was a sore loser and Gore was trying to subvert the election by going to court (when it was actually the GOP that filed the first suit);
2) the country was divided and Gore's continuing to contest the election only furthered that divide;
3) the Democratic party was un-American because they didn't want to count the military vote;
4) the ballots had been recounted several times (they hadn't) and
5) Floridians (later to be determined to be GOP congressional aides) were protesting the recounts.

So, with all of that said, an almost evenly divided American public was told over and over again by a Democratic-hating media that it was in the country's best interest that Gore not contest the election any further. After all, SCOTUS had spoken. If Gore had continued to fight after the Supremes had ruled the Democratic party would have suffered immensely and Gore would have forever been branded a whackjob.

After the election was over Gore, like Kerry, had to get on with his life. Gore was pretty damaged by the press all during the election cycle. So was Kerry and so is every other Democratic leader that the GOP and the MSM target. The difference is that Kerry is a sitting senator and has to remain in the public eye. Personally, if I had had the GOP chanting "Get out of Cheney's house" outside my home 24/7 for weeks on end, had the media up my ass for weeks, had members of my own political party not be as supportive as they could have been and had lost a Supreme Court decision, I might decide to take some time off too. Otherwise, every thing I said or did would be scrutinized and construed as being an attempt to act like a president. In otherwords, Gore was in a position that no one had been in our lifetime. Anything he did would have sent Barbara Olsen or Ann Coulter into a tizzy on Hannity and Colmes. I dunno, talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

Anyway, that's how I see it. You can disagree if you want but I've pretty much said all I can the subject.

originally posted by me at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2121824#2123396">My Take

[drummo]

75. Well said.

The people who bash Gore for not fighting after the SC decision
forget the circumstances under which Gore had to fight for 36 days.
I wonder how many of them listened for those thugs in front of his house for more than 2 days while also thinking about how to outmaneuver the Rep army down there in Florida and in the media.
They would have gone insane. But they demand even more from Gore.

[BlueCaliDem]

124. Add to That, That Nader Too Chuckled and Smirked...

...and said it was ridiculous that the GOP stole the election through the Supreme Court.

I recall him doing this many a time on broadcast television as he blamed Gore, not the GOP, for the manipulated loss of the 2000 Presidential Election.

He told us Dems (and Bill Maher reiterated it) that we needed to "get over it"; the conspiracy theories (conspiracy theories??!) and that Gore had lost fair and square because "he ran a horrible campaign", and he, and the Democrats are to blame.

I can understand the bitterness with which Nader perpetuated this lie, since well, Democrats were (unfairly) pissed at him so-called "taking votes from Gore", but what he did out of spite against the angry Dems, only helped the GOP lies and deceit that was rushing through all the media like a California brush fire and made them all the more feasible.

Gore had been tarred and feathered, and forced to be the sacrificial lamb of democracy and there was nothing he could've done about it.

[drummo]

74. We lost those states because of Clinton's BJ and lies

[jerryster]

128. Which states are you referring to? n/t

[drummo]

130. Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio

and we lost voters in Florida and WV as well because of that damn character issue.

It was a nationwide problem.

In addition NM, Iowa were all extremely close. Guess why?

[Q]

50. Gore never had his 'chance'....

...and you're not helping by perpetuating the myth that he did. What other candidate won the popular vote and had the Supreme Court interfere with a legal recount?

Gore deserves a chance to right the wrongs of the STOLEN 2000 election. And I would be willing to bet that millions of Democrats would agree with me on this point.

[drummo]

73. Because Hillary is fresh blood, right?

He is older than Gore. And she is as old news as Gore.

Beside, Kerry lost. Gore won. They are not in the same category.

[Apollo11]

14. In Gore We Trust

www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net /
:)

[_ed_]

15. Sounds good

I have one reservation for a Gore ticket, however. Although it's been almost 6 years now, Clinton hatred is still strong among the right wing nuts in this country. They still blame him for stuff that happens today! They could do the "guilt by association" thing they did in 2000.

That said, I would feel very good voting for a Gore / Clark ticket. I don't respect many politicians, especially most of the current Democratic leadership, but I do respect Al Gore.

Gore spoke at my college graduation, and I had the opportunity to receive my diploma from him and shake his hand. I have a sixth sense about people when I first meet them, and I'm never wrong. The "vibe" I got from Al Gore was very favorable. I could tell that he was happy to be there at our graduation. I was near the end of the pack in getting diplomas, and he was still very gracious and warm after already hading out 500 or so. His speech was also excellent, and not all about himself, even though he was six months away from the Presidential election.

[CardInAustin]

17. I love Al....

I think Al is great, but he simply is not the candidate for us in 2008....at least not if we want to win. Separation makes the heart grow fonder, and I think some of us have forgotten about the mistakes his campaign made in 2000. Plus, we need a candidate that appeals to most of America....not just those of us on DU.

I would love to see Al as President....but it ain't gonna happen.

[Cha]

18. Al Gore has learned a

hellava lot since 2000..that's the way some people do..they live, they learn.

Prez Jimmy Carter says Al Gore won in 2000 and bush(according to buzzflash) is the proud owner of a failed presidency(sic).

Personally, I like Come Back Stories..but hey!

[drummo]

76. Gore appealed to most of America in 2000

Apparently separation made you forget that he won more votes than both Bush and Clinton.

And what mistakes are you talking about?
Those "mistakes" would be seen now as brilliant decisions if only 1000 voters in Palm Beach had known now to vote.

[Vox_Reason]

19. Have you read his speeches?

Check out the speeches he's made for MoveOn. Freaking GREAT. I'd love it if he were to compile all the speeches he's made in the last several years into a book, with a foreword and perhaps some further contemporary reflections on each one. Well, reflections beyond "I told you so!!":banghead:

[Mabus]

46. Have you read his latest speech? Knocks it out of the ballpark AGAIN

Remarks by Al Gore as prepared Associated Press / The Media Center October 5, 2005


It starts off:

I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse . I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.

How many of you, I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it's almost as if America has entered "an alternate universe"?

I thought maybe it was an aberration when three-quarters of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11, 2001. But more than four years later, between a third and a half still believe Saddam was personally responsible for planning and supporting the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, non-stop coverage of the O.J. trial was just an unfortunate excess that marked an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. But now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time.

Then it gets better.

[Vox_Reason]

58. THANKS!

These are always such a treat. Nice thing to come home from work and enjoy! Much appreciated!

:popcorn:

[1932]

20. Gore was for the war before he was against it.

He has been for every American war since 1990 and he strongly advocated for US miliary action in Iraq throughout his years in the Clinton white house.

[Apollo11]

22. True, Gore is no peacenik ...

He is for a smart, coherent and effective foreign policy.
For an honest, truthful, reality-based approach.
For democracy, justice and human rights.
For working with America's allies all over the globe.
For a pro-active approach to tackling threats and preventing wars.

He is not on the same page as pacifists who say it is always wrong to use military force.

But he would never go to war for the wrong reasons, asking soldiers and civilians to give their lives for a pack of lies.

Americans are not asking for a perfect world with no conflict. No President can deliver that.

What people want is a President with integrity and honesty.

Al Gore is that President.

[1932]

26. I'm impressed by politicians who like FDR say that you have to fight

fascism, or like Lincoln were willing to fight for justice, or Washington and Jefferson who were willing to fight for freedom.

I'm not so impressed with politicians who do everything that Wall Street wants and then advocate for military involvement in all the places Wall Street is interested in seeing American interests furthured.

Sometimes the interest of the former intersect with the latter, but even in those cases I like to separate out the motivations of each. I'm not convinced that Gore is truly motivate by the former and not the latter.

[AlGore-08.com]

28. Good grief, you can make a case the FDR only opposed fascism

for economic reasons. World War II lead to a huge economic boom, so it was in Wall Street's interest to go to war. There were tons of old money families that made out like bandits with war contracts - - that's how Harry Truman rose to national prominence, sniffing out the war profiteers. But just because the war benefited Wall Street doesn't mean that FDR went to war because it benefited Wall Street. Ditto with Gore's support of the first Gulf War - - which he supported because Hussein was a brutal dictator who routinely tortured and killed political opponents, repressed ethnic minorities, and then invaded another country. He also supported it because there was political and military support in the Middle East for the war - - that it wasn't the US alone that was supporting the war. And Bush I did not use the midterm elections to bludgeon the Congress into voting for the war - - he waited until after the midterms to put the question to a vote.

[1932]

29. Wall St refused to cooperate with FDR until the very last second.

Ford was making more money selling passenger cars and wouldn't tool up for the war. They waited two months after promissing to do so before shifting to war production so FDR confiscated the two-month run of vehicles.

HST ended up abandoning New Dealers and sided with Wall St.

You need to read Richard Parkers biography of John Kenneth Galbraith so that you correct your misapprehensions.

[drummo]

88. And in your world Ford = Wall St?

Even if what you say is true, Ford was just one company not the entire
business sector.

And one man with one book is not good enough. Multiple independent sources have to confirm that events which happened decades ago indeed happened and are not just the fabrications or biased interpretations of one man.

If one book by one man would be enough to judge someone you could pick the first anti-Clinton or anti-Kennedy book and say haha they were thugs.

[Larkspur]

23. Gore never said he was anti-war. He opposed Bush's pre-emptive

strike doctrine and delusions of empire.

Gore supported the 1991 Gulf War because Saddam had invaded Kuwait and we had a moral duty to repel that invasion. Also, Bush I built a real coalition to oppose Saddam and that coalition paid for most of that war.

Gore also held no illusions to how bad Saddam was. If Saddam was given a chance, he would have rebuilt WMD's. The sanctions also hurt millions of innocent Iraqis and it must have been frustrating that Saddam was able to remain in power despite those sanctions.

Other than Clintonista gossip, do you have specific links to support your statement.

[1932]

25. Tactical objections to war isn't the same as being anti-war.

That Clintonista gossip came straight from Clinton's mouth on CSPAN in fall 2003 within a week or two of Al Gore's anti-war speech.

Also, googling the other day, I found an article that summed up Gore's pro-war positions over the years. It said that he said, roughly, "GHWB personally let me down by not pushing through to Baghdad."

[AlGore-08.com]

27. Gore supported the first Gulf War, he has consistently opposed the 2nd

Using your logic, if I think the allies were right to fight the Nazis in the 1940s, does that mean that I automatically support every future war against Germany?

[1932]

30. Gore wanted to invade Iraq during Clinton years based on the information

that was available then.

His criticism of Bush is either opportunistic or tactical to the point of beign useless for drawing distinctions in his foreign policy.

[Larkspur]

31. Clinton is a proven liar and a philander, why should we believe Bill?

And speaking of political opportunism, Bill is the hallmark of political opportunism. He wants his wife as President and he wants to improve his "legacy." Gore backed by Dean-ocrats and progressives could deter Bill's wet dreams of being the first First Husband.

[1932]

33. Why hasn't Gore denied it then?

[Larkspur]

35. In his Sept 23, 2002 speech he refers to his support of Gulf War 1

and his opposition to Saddam, and he gives good reasons for his vote in 1991 and why he still supported a day of reckoning with Saddam.

Unlike the Clintons, Gore has done much to redeem himself. The Clintons have innocent blood on their hands and they want more of it.

[1932]

40. So then on what does Gore base his objection to Gulf War II?

Quotes and links, please.

[Larkspur]

42. Where are your links to the Clintonista critiques of Gore?

Here's the link to a transcript of Gore's Sep 23, 2003 speech --http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=84. Read it. He gives his reasons in this speech.

Here's also another link to another speech -- A Commentary on the War Against Terror: Our Larger Tasks -- dealing with the War on Terror and Islamic extremism http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=84 This is one of my favorites on the overall topic on Islamic extremism & terrorism.

[1932]

44. Here's a link to Clinton's quote:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/03/clinton.htm

Q: What about the recent speech by Al Gore, in which he criticized the Administration for using the prospect of war for political ends?

A: Well, I neither heard it nor actually read it. All I read were the press reports. And ... my observations would be three.

One is, I think he was right to be genuinely disturbed about the documents that were uncovered from the Republican political consultants, which indicated that the timing was dictated by the politics of the midterms. I can only imagine what they would have done to us if they'd found a computer disk that said, 'Hey, we got to bomb Bosnia because we're not in good shape for the '94 elections.' I mean, they would have just killed us.

And so I think the idea that at the time America was taking a much more unilateral tone. This was before the President's speech in Cincinnati. So I think he was right to do that. In the news reports;I want to say again, I did not read the speech... Al Gore has a good, clear unambiguous record of being strong, both before his service as Vice President and in all the private meetings we had in the White House, on the importance of trying to contain Saddam Hussein and dealing with his chemical and biological weapons. So if he said what I think he said, I think it's fine. The news reports implied that he only talked about the political timing and the savaging of the international process and didn't express sympathy with the Administration's dilemma in trying to find a way to deal with this and in understanding that America takes it more seriously than a lot of other countries do. I'm not sure that's a fair report of what he said. Because I didn't read his speech.

But I guess what I thought was, The points he raised were points well raised;and legitimate for a Democrat to raise. That's what the loyal opposition ought to do. But from my point of view... Because I believe that this is a serious problem that has to be addressed, when I raise them I try to raise them in the context of this serious problem we face from Iraq.... I'm for the Administration dealing with this. And let's talk about how to deal with it. That's the way I've always felt about it.

I'm not sure if this is the transcript of the event I believe I saw on CSPAN. I think this is from a private interview with James Fallows at the same event (at the U of Arkansas).

In the thing I saw on CSPAN, I am fairly certain he made two more points: Al Gore was one of the most vocal anti-Hussein people in the cabinet and Al believed there was enough evidence during the Clinton administration to warrant a military action. In this quote, as he did in the thing I saw, Clinton is trying to negotiate the difference between the Gore who is critical of Bush and the Gore who wanted to do the same thing Bush did when he was VP. Clinton tries to cast the speech in a light that is absolutely the most favorable to Gore, but I still think it's a light that supporters would like to smoke up just a little bit so that Gore sounds like he doesn't believe the military should be the strong arm for capitalism anymore.

As for the links to your website, the reason I ask you to summarize them is because I believe that when someone makes a good argument, his or her supporters should be able to summarize it succinctly with a few supporting quotes. When someone has a muddled argument, the supporters tend to refer you to a long speach or a link, acting like that's an argument in and of itself to give someone a link.

I'll check out your links, but I still think it says a great deal that your argument is entirely "follow the link." Are you sure you don't want to take a stab at summarizing his argument?

[Larkspur]

48. Clinton never read Gore's speech directly. He only read news reports abou

it. It's sad that Clinton didn't read Gore's speech or view it BEFORE commenting on it. Shows that Clinton can be as bad as the RW media who intentionally distorts the Truth. Of course Bill is a proven liar, enough said.

do you have a link of Clinton's reaction to Gore's speech AFTER he read it?

[1932]

51. He's commenting on the way it was spun. Gore supporters are spinning

it in a similar way. Clinton is saying the spin doesn't match the Gore who was in his cabinet.

[Larkspur]

62. And Clinton should know that the Corporate controlled Media intentionally

distorts the truth, so why didn't Clinton read Gore's speech in full and comment on Gore's words, not on the Corporate controlled Media spin?

The speech Gore gave does match the Gore that was in Clinton's cabinet.

[1932]

65. But Gore's supporters are saying the same thing as the MSM.

The MSM were saying Gore was anti-war to make him look like a nutter like Howard Dean at a time when most Ameircans weren't criticizing the war. Now, Gore's supporters are saying he's anti-war because they think that's what progressives at DU want to hear.

Clinton is saying no matter what Gore is now, when he was in his cabinet, he believed that the US needed to militarily intervene in Iraq based on information that was available then.

I suspect that Gore, like Clark, merely has tactical objections to the invasion of Iraq rather than philosophical problems with the US aggressively spreading its free-market values around the world for the benefit of Wall St.

[drummo]

93. Noone here speaks about Gore like the MSM does

And you don't see your own contradiction:

You say:
Clinton is saying no matter what Gore is now, when he was in his cabinet, he believed that the US needed to militarily intervene in Iraq based on information that was available then.

Then you say:

I suspect that Gore, like Clark, merely has tactical objections to the invasion of Iraq rather

Clinton never said that Gore was for invading Iraq in the 90s.
He said that Gore supported US military intervetion against Saddam.
Of course he did. Without that Saddam couldn't have been contained effectively. His military capability couldn't have been weakened without regular US military interventions in the 90s. He couldn't have been deterred from terrorists acts like the assassination attempt against Bush Sr in Kuwait without US military interventions in the 90s. (Read Dick Clarke's book about the effect of the 1994 Muqabarat HQ strike.)
And probably he couldn't have been removed from power without US military intervention which means supporting the Iraqis on the ground from the air but NOT SENDING 150,000 US TROOPS TO IRAQ! That's what the post-Gulf War uprising was all about and Gore was mad that Bush Sr missed a great opportunity to get rid of Saddam without sacrifying our own troops.

And what the fuck do you want with Wall St? This has nothing to do with Wall St but with Saddam's intentions to rebuild his WMD programs after the Gulf War.

[drummo]

91. Which Gore supporter said that Gore was never anti-Saddam?

Or that he was never for regime change in Iraq?

Or that he opposed every kind of military action against Saddam no matter what?

Or that he never wanted to contain Saddam?


Name that Gore supporter. Because Clinton did not say that Gore wanted to invade Iraq while he was in his cabinet. You are making that up.

[drummo]

80. Re:"Here's a link to Clinton's quote:"

Al Gore has a good, clear unambiguous record of being strong, both before his service as Vice President and in all the private meetings we had in the White House, on the importance of trying to contain Saddam Hussein and dealing with his chemical and biological weapons.

So you think Clinton said Gore wanted to invade Iraq in the 90s, right?

Contain is not invade. Of course Gore wanted to contain Saddam. Thank
God our foreign policy was not in the hands of people like you but people like Gore.

The very reason the invasion itself was not a much bloodier exercise was that Saddam's military capability was reduced to a joke in the 90s thanks the the containment policy which was upheld by Clinton.

[1932]

86. Gore felt there was enough justification for using the US military

in Iraq based on intelligence available at the time. Gore was one of the biggest hawks in Clinton's government.

This is fine. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the foreign policy that can result when you have people like Gore participating in disucssions on foreign policy that are ultimately resolved through discussion.

However, these are my problems: I'm not clear on Gore's motivations for that policy. I'd prefer a president whose motivations and convictions are shrouded in less mystery. Lieberman and Gore are without a doubt at the far right of the Democratic party on these issues. I think we can do better than these two. And I am not impressed that Gore is now characterized as anti-war because of a speech in 2003 when he has this very long and contradictory history from a time when he actually did have his hands on foreign policy.

[drummo]

92. Are you really that slow?

Gore felt there was enough justification for using the US military in Iraq based on intelligence available at the time.

Enough justification to invade Iraq?
When did he say that? Where did you get that? Clinton sure didn't say that in that interview.
Military action against Iraq does not automatically mean land invasion of Iraq.
Get it? Two different things. Military action against Iraq can mean a whole range of things. Just because someone wants to bomb a suspected WMD fascility or intelligence HQ does not mean that he wants to send 150,000 US troops to Iraq.

Gore was always for using targeted bombings as part of the containment policy. So was Clinton and most reasonable people (i.e. not you).
He was for Operation Desert Fox (note: military action! but not land invasion).But who denied that?

The IWR of 2002 was not about targeted bombings. It was about full scale unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq. If you can't understand the difference go back to school.

Bush didn't want to continue containment.
He didn't want to boost the Iraqi opposition.
(As it was mandated by the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998)
He didn't want covert action.
He didn't want internal revolt against Saddam.
He wanted to invade and occupy Iraq.
When did Gore support that?

However, these are my problems: I'm not clear on Gore's motivations for that policy.

The motivation for using military action against Saddam was the same as the motivation to use every other pillar of the containment policy:
contain Saddam. Gee!
Is that good enough motivation to you?

The trageted bombings were partly responsible for preventing Saddam to rebuild it's WMD program. It was needed and thank God that people like Gore were there in the White House and not idiots like you who cannot comprehend the difference between air strikes and invasion just because both called "military action"

Gore NEVER promoted a land invasion of Iraq. Get over it.

I'd prefer a president whose motivations and convictions are shrouded in less mystery.

It's only a mystery to you who apparently knows nothing about Saddam's Iraq and his motivations in the 90s.
It's not a mystery to me.

Lieberman and Gore are without a doubt at the far right of the Democratic party on these issues.

Lieberman voted for the IWR.
Gore opposed it.
There couldn't be a bigger difference.
Just as Cindy Sheehan about that.

Lieberman thought that it was a good idea to give the authority to Bush to invade Iraq in 2003 March.
Gore thought it was the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history.
Now you can hear that from many others, icluding Gen. Odom who also supported military action to contain Saddam in the 90s. I guess he was contradictory as well. And Joe Wilson, who also was for military actions to contain Saddam in the 90s but was against Bush's invasion.
He too contradicted himself -- according to your "logic".

I think we can do better than these two.

1.A far-left peacenik will never get to the White House.

2.We don't need a far-left peacenik as president.
If it had been up to you Saddam would have managed to keep his entire
WMD program in the 90s because "oh never use the US military against Iraq it's so rude".

And I am not impressed that Gore is now characterized as anti-war because of a speech in 2003 when he has this very long and contradictory history from a time when he actually did have his hands on foreign policy.

1.Gore is not characterized as anti-war except by idiots in the media and right-wing voters who cannot understand anything more complicated than a label.

Gore was against Bush's invasion of Iraq.
One of many reason for that was that he didn't want to divert resources from another war: the war in Afghanistan. That's hardly anti-war.

Gore understand geopolitics like few other. And knows when and what military action makes sense and when and what military action doesn't make sense.

Invading Iraq in a unilateral fashion in 2003 March didn't make sense.
So he opposed it.
Bombing the Muqabarat HQ in Iraq in 1994 made sense. So he supported it.
And so on.

2.He has not been contradictory at all except in your black and white mind.

Gore was for regime change in Iraq at least after the invasion of Kuwait. He was also for containing Saddam up to the point when he would be removed. In fact he couldn't have been removed in any fashion had he not been contained. But that itself was a no-brainer. Who liked Saddam?
However he never promoted the invasion of Iraq to achieve that goal. Get it?

[1932]

45. Here's another interesting article about Gore:

Rogues' Gallery: Who Advises Bush and Gore on the Middle East?
Ian Urbina
(Ian Urbina is a freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C.)

The right-wing American Enterprise Institute (AEI) -- home to Newt Gingrich, Charles Murray and Dinesh D'Souza -- would certainly prefer a Republican presidential candidate who could be distinguished on foreign policy from his Democratic counterpart. But roundtable discussions hosted by the Institute on June 14 and June 22 found that George W. Bush and Al Gore read from basically the same script. What contrasts the panelists did manage to find were not between Bush and Gore but rather between the two candidates and Bill Clinton.

{snip} The separate Gore discussion assessed the Democratic candidate as a hawk in the Clinton White House. As Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times was quick to point out, Gore has the track record to prove it. " has been readier to consider and support military intervention, from Grenada in 1983, which was not the universal consensus among Democrats, to the Gulf War, to Bosnia in 1993. He is not a prisoner of the Vietnam syndrome."

AEI's panelists also saw the candidates as far less willing than President Clinton to support humanitarian and UN missions. All agreed with former assistant secretary of defense Richard Perle's evaluation that the Clinton administration had been "great at dealing with Kofi Annan and appalling when it comes to dealing with some dangerous leaders that do not wish us well." There was consensus among the panelists that Bush would only intervene where vital national interests were at stake. The Gore panelists credited the vice president with a similarly skeptical view of US international responsibility: "Unlike President Clinton, you won't find Al Gore talking about that kind of broad commitment...to humanitarian intervention," concluded McManus.

{snip}

Gore's One-Man Team

Gore has assembled a 25-person advisory group on foreign affairs, most of whom are veterans of the early Clinton administration. During his tenure under President Clinton, Gore occasionally turned for foreign policy advice to Sandy Berger, the White House national security adviser and Richard Holbrooke, the United Nations ambassador, whom many consider the leading candidate for secretary of state in a Gore administration.

But at present, only one man, Leon Fuerth, seems to exert real influence on Gore's decisions. Fuerth, a one-time foreign service officer and current Cabinet-level foreign policy adviser, prides himself on being a master of discretion. He has described his proper comportment as "nameless, faceless and odorless," since his ideas "belong to the vice president." Fuerth is expected to be national security director if Gore is elected president, and the two men enjoy an unusually close relationship. During President Clinton's cabinet meetings their habit of passing advisory notes to each other become so distracting that protocol was abandoned to let Fuerth sit at the vice president's immediate right. Known for his gruffness, Fuerth has earned in State Department circles the nickname "Darth Vader."

Over the years, Fuerth has consistently encouraged Gore in taking aggressive stands on foreign policy. Fuerth's toughest positions have been with Iraq, Iran and North Korea, places he has privately described as "giant zits on various parts of the body." Fuerth remains firmly unmoved by Iran's attempts at reform, for example. He lobbied fervently for a controversial and expensive plan to transport Caspian Sea oil and gas via a route that will avoid Russia and Iran. In 1998, Fuerth fought unsuccessfully to convince President Clinton to impose sanctions against three foreign companies that were big investors in Iran's energy sector, arguing that to block investment in Iran was worth offending the European Union.

During Gore's run for the nomination in 1988, Fuerth helped him formulate a strongly pro-Israel line.(3) At that time, Gore criticized the Reagan administration for attempting to push Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir into withdrawing from land it occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its Arab neighbors. In 1990, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Fuerth produced a three-inch-thick binder explaining why Gore should break with other Senate Democrats and vote in favor of going to war. Senator Gore was one of six Democrats to support the war. Fuerth was also a strong advocate for early military strikes against Serbian forces.

Fuerth's outlook on Iraq differs little from that of Bush's advisers. In a recent interview billed as a "gentlemanly discussion," Fuerth clashed on Iraq with Bush adviser Robert Zoellick, former assistant Secretary of State. Their real disagreement, however, was not over whether to use force, but over whose fault -- President Clinton's or President Bush's -- it was that Saddam Hussein was not already dead. The route of diplomacy was not discussed, nor was the option of rigorous military sanctions and enhanced border inspections. Nor did either man mention lifting the economic sanctions that by UNICEF estimates are killing 250 Iraqi civilians a day. Whereas Zoellick has joined his fellow Vulcans in advocating the seizure of Iraqi territory using US air and/or ground forces, Fuerth remains more coy. "Ultimately Saddam Hussein is going to make a mistake that plays into our hands…hat mistake will confer on us the legitimate right to deal with him," remarked Fuerth, adding that such a US response may or may not be coordinated with the Iraqi opposition.

Gore's choice of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) as his running mate, while made for domestic reasons, gives even clearer indication of his likely foreign policy orientation. Lieberman joined Gore among the six Democrats to lobby for the 1990-1 Gulf war, and since then has strongly advocated continued sanctions and backing for the Iraqi opposition. Lieberman supports Star Wars and has consistently voted against any reductions in the Pentagon's budget. He is one of the largest recipients of AIPAC money and has harshly criticized the Clinton-Gore Middle East policy for being too easy on the Palestinians. In 1997, he wrote Clinton: "Our government's Mideast policy of evenhandedness, in contradiction with reality, continues. It is wrong. Evenhandedness has not been earned." The letter stressed that "no more concessions" be made to Yasir Arafat, "the villain who is unwilling to stop the terror." A Gore-Lieberman administration would likely be an even less honest broker in the Oslo "peace process" than the compromised Clinton administration has been.

This electoral season, candidates Bush and Gore are even less distinguishable on foreign policy than on domestic policy. Judging by the Middle East "experts" who surround them, US policy on the Middle East is unlikely to move in a progressive direction whichever candidate is elected.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer216/216_urbina.html

[Larkspur]

49. AEI is a RW think tank. Their assessment of Gore is not credible

I agree that Gore is not a dove. I'd call him a pragmatic hawk and that is the way I saw him in 2000 and saw him after his Sep 23, 2002 speech.

And Lieberman's selection had more to do with countering Clinton's sexcapade in the Oval office than with becoming more militant against Palestinians.

[1932]

52. AEI is a small part of that story.

Is the reporter who wrote this story biased? Was Fuerth not Gore's advisor? Did Gore not pick Lieberman as his running mate? Are the other facts related in this story not accurate? Is the LA Times reporter who spoke on the Gore panel biased?

Gore and Lieberman intersect on too many points to say his selection was just about Clinton's penis.

Stiglitz writes in The Roaring Nineties about Gore's Telecom Committee which gave the pro-Wall St Treasury Department everything it wanted. Arthur Levitt in his book about his time at the head of the SEC writes about how Lieberman defeneded Wall St at every opportunity (most blatantly by protecting the accounting industry from regulation).

Lieberman and Gore were both hawks.

[Uncle Joe]

54. Al Gore picked Lieberman because

he criticized Clinton's behavior during the Lewinsky scandal, and while this scandal may have made no difference to some, it left a bad taste in the more moderate/conservative sections of the nation. Al Gore also endorsed Howard Dean over Leiberman precisely because he more than any other Democratic candidate came out against going to war with Iraq.

The Republicans controlled the Congress during the time of the Telecom bill and had enough votes to over ride any veto by Clinton. I believe Al did the best he could with what he had to work with.

[1932]

55. I think he picked him to send a strong signal to Wall St about what kind

of president Gore would be.

Joe was very supportive of the accounting industry during the Clinton years.

You should read The Roaring Nineties if you want to understand how the Telecom Bill was written. Stiglitz, who participated in the internal debates, has a different impression. He says that, basically, he and a bunch of progressives argued one way, Treasury argued another way, and Gore broke the tie by going with Treasury and that Clinton was never presented with the progressive argument because he gave Gore control over the drafting of the bill.

[Uncle Joe]

57. Well I guess we will never agree as to why Al picked Joe,

I tend to believe AL's good intentions, it seems you do not. Regarding Clinton, I do not believe he has Al Gore as his first choice as President anymore, I believe Bill is doing what he can to promote Hillary for President now, with the help of the same corpwhorate owned MSM that waged their "War Against Gore" because he more than any other political leader gave you and me a voice to compete with them when he championed the internet. They have had it in for him ever since, and when Clinton gave Al control over the Telecom bill, it was because he trusted AL's expertise on the subject over his own.

P.S. Al to this day is giving the people a voice with "Current" T.V., what Al has done is to teach us how to fish as opposed to giving us one.

[1932]

59. We can agree as to what kind of guy Lieberman is, right?

It's funny how we can do that so easily with Joe, but not with Al.

Current TV is less useful to progressives than the program it replaced.

[Uncle Joe]

68. Current TV

is the only TV that allows two way communication/participation, you may prefer the old model where the few at the top of the network food chain determine what the truth is to tell to the unquestioning masses but I do not.

Regarding what we think of Joe and the reasons that AL selected him are two different things.

I am somewhat surprised that you are intent on helping the corpwhorate owned MSM tear down the man that empowered you to give your written opinion to people around the world. To me this is powerful stuff.

[1932]

69. Current TV is basically public access with commercials. Wayne's World.

Wayne's World hasn't changed the world and neither will Current TV.

The reasons Gore was successfully torn down by the MSM are very closely related to things that I'm pointing out in this thread. Gore was a fine, talented man who did more than any other VP. But he was also a guy who bent over backward for Wall St, was very corporate friendly, was big hawk, and didn't have much to say about class and about how normal people experience life in America. All that made him a very easy target for the MSM.

[drummo]

70. Normal people? I'm amazed by the arrogance of "normal people"

as they think they live such a life which cannot be understood by people like Gore.

Gore knows more about America than you do. Seen more heard more.
Therefore he knows more about how "normal people" live than you do.

[1932]

81. By normal people, I mean people who work for a living who don't have

a lot of assets and who'd been in trouble if they lost their jobs.

I think if Gore had been more concern for people like that he wouldn't have sided with the treasury department over almost every dispute in the telecoms act drafting stage and perhaps wouldn't be such a hawk and wouldn't have thought Joe Lieberman was an ideal VP.

If your argument has come down to you saying Gore knows more about how normal people live their lives in Amerca then I do, then I think that says a great deal about your argument. You're comparing two things, one of which you obviously know nothing about, and the other you seem only to think you know about. Unless you're Gore's personal friend or you are Gore, then I'm not sure you know much about his convictions and his cares. Who knows? Perhaps these are his convictions and concerns. But if they are, he has picked poor ways of expressing them -- particulary his selection of Lieberman as his VP.

[drummo]

98. Gore worked for a living, too. He didn't have a lot of assests

in fact he didn't have a single stock during his 24 years in Washington at all, since he sold all he had (not many even in 1976)
when he ran for Congress to avoid any conflict of interest. He never had a portfolio after that for 24 years (I don't know what's the case today), unlike for example Ralph Nader who is supposedly so anti-corporation and pro-normal people.

He didn't have yachts, he had only one house, in fact that was Tipper's house, and the farm was owned by his partents.

Contrary to the urban legend Gore was not rich either before or after he went to Washington. So why is he not a "normal guy"? After he lost his job on Jan 20,2001 he had to look for another like everybody else.

Unless you're Gore's personal friend or you are Gore, then I'm not sure you know much about his convictions and his cares. Who knows?

If that's your logic then you don't know anything about Gore, either and then whatever you say about him cannot be taken seriously.

And it matters how much life experience you have. Gore understands how small farmers and farm workers live (he worked and lived together with them for long enough to see it) just like he understands how Bill Gates lives. One doesn't rule out the other.

The reason why he made a compromise on the Telecom Bill was that compromise had to be made. A much worse bill would have been passed by the Reps if Gore had refused to cooperate.

As for being a hawk, that has nothing to do with "normal people" since most "normal people" don't understand foreign policy, geopolitics or other counties outside the US, for that matter.

[Uncle Joe]

95. Personally I believe Current T.V.

is an acorn that will become an Oak tree.

I also believe the reasons the corpwhorate owned MSM tore down Al were several.

1. He was the primary champion of the internet thereby going a long way toward democratizing information and threatening their monopoly on the truth, the corpwhorate owned MSM wanted to dumb down the American People in effect making us ignorant and easier to control.This is why the corpwhorate owned MSM would go on to slander him stating that he claimed to have invented the internet, which of course he did not. Incidentally, I believe the democratization of information is extremely important for "normal people", as Al just recently pointed out in his speech regarding the "Threat To Democracy" to the WE Media.

2. His near solo attempt in congress and as Vice-President at waking the world up regarding the dangers of global warming. His bestseller "Earth In The Balance" cites the potential of New Orleans flooding 13-14 years before Bush's people knew it could happen. I believe Al thought this would effect "normal people" in a most devastating way. Al goes on to urge us to wean our selves away from the combustion engine, this pissed off two corpwhorate groups; the American Auto industry that wanted to spend it's money on attorneys and lobbyists fighting these changes, instead of scientists and engineers to research ways that could adapt their engines to be low or non polluting as Japan did, and the oil industry that could care less about what happens to the planet as long as they can make a buck selling oil. The oil industry would go on to fund the corrupt incompetent ones to power and use their jets (Enron) to fly Bush's people down to Florida to fight the possibility that the "normal people's" vote would be counted.

3. Al held hearings while in congress on toxic waste in Toone Tennessee, these hearings would expand to include Love Canal. This pissed off the corpwhorations that would have liked to dump their toxic waste anywhere they wanted, I believe Al thought this would not be good for "normal people". The corpwhorate owned MSM would later go on to slander him over this saying that he claimed to have discovered Love Canal, which of course he did not.

4. Al for the most part has always been a loner in congress. He was not so much in the various cliques that form among members in congress. I believe he felt he was there to do a job for the "normal people" first and that entangling himself in to a clique would force him to compromise his duty to the people. I believe it is this very trait to the "normal people" that he sees as duty bound to represent that hurt him in Tennessee, because as Vice President he governed for the nation first and his home state second, when for example he took on the tobacco corpwhorations.

Al Gore is a hybrid part Tennessee and part Washington D.C., I see nothing wrong with this, it gives one a unique perspective of local, national and global viewpoints. If the movie "Mr.Smith Goes To Washington" were to be made today, I would have Al Gore star as the leading role.

P.S. Al also demonstrated his commitment to the American People recently when he` chartered two American Airlines planes at a cost of $50,000.00 each,(although I believe a Pizza man covered one of them later) to rescue 270 patients and evacuees (normal people) from a flooded Charity Hospital cutting through red tape and warnings from FEMA not to do it and fly them to Tennessee.

[drummo]

97. Sure because Gore liked corporations so much he was

an easy target for the corporate media.

You are incredibly logical.


Current in not like Wayne's World. It's more democratic than any other
channel now and anyone can change the content who is talented enough to create a ready-for-TV report. Wayne's World never provided that opportunity for anyone.

[drummo]

71. Because Current is NOT for progressives, or conservatives

or people with any particular ideology. And never intended to be. Which is a good thing since most Americans are not partisans.

[1932]

82. It's about targeting a demographic and selling soft drinks and sneakers to

them.

[drummo]

101. Bullshit.

Keeping a network alive costs money. Nothing wrong with that.
Where can that money come from?
1) Donations -- not enough, ask DemocracyNow
2) Commercials

Who cares about the ads? They are rarely seen on Current. I care about the videos, particularly by the VC2 pieces which show events from a unique perspective. For example I didn't see the coverage of the Gaza pullout on CNN as interesting as Adrian Baschuk's pieces about the issue. I'm glad that Current gives young producers and citizen journalists an opportunity to air their views on TV.
Most of these people couldn't get exposure anywhere else because the MSM would refuse to air something like this:
http://current.tv/studio/media/684

[drummo]

96. Yeah sure EVERYTHING Gore does is for Wall St

Gore picked Joe because Clinton's BJ. You are a little paranoid.

If he had wanted to send a message to Wall St (which itself is not a bad thing) he could have picked Bayh or any other moderate Dem.

It was Joe because he came out against Clinton's so forcefully.

Joe was very supportive of the accounting industry during the Clinton years.


Man, I can't imagine a bigger sin that that. Nevermind that this country actually needs an accounting industry.
And if someone "supports it" sure that means he also "supports" the few thugs in the accounting industry who break the law and screw the little guy.

And because I support many things Microsoft is doing that means I also support their recent anti-gay move. Sure.

Once again, one book by one man is not enough. Joseph E. Stiglitz is not some kind of ultimate authority on how the the Telecom Bill was born.
But I remember the Gore-Gringrich debates and if it hadn't been for the Gore team's resistance the Telecom Bill would have legalized complete deregulation, far worse than it turned out to be thanks to the compromise.
And I think the Telecom Bill was a good bill on balance. Not perfect but it benefited far more Americans than it hurt.

And Clinton knew very well what the liberals wanted.
Do you really think that he intentionally kept himself in the dark about such an important policy? Clinton? Of all people? He is not Bush. He actually cares about what the heck is going around him.
And he didn't sign a bill if he didn't know what it was all about.

And thank God the far-left liberals didn't get their way. They are not better than the far-right conservatives.

[1932]

99. Your rebuttal is my counter-argument.

Everything you don't care about is what I care about.

I rest my case.

[drummo]

104. You did not say what you care about. You only bashed

Wall St and the accounting industry as a whole and stated that someone Gore being a hawk in the 90s is bad without explaining what was bad about bombing Iraq to contain Saddam or going against Milosevics who killed and wanted to kill far more people than the NATO bombings did.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

102. Whatever his reasons

picking Joe Lieberman as a running mate is something I find it very hard to forgive Gore for doing.

[jackthesprat]

103. Me too.

When I heard that announcement on the radio, I knew Gore was finished.

[drummo]

106. He was not finished after he picked Joe. Quite to the contrary.

He jumped in the polls.

Guess what? There are a few non-liberal voters in America.
Actually the majority of voters are non-liberal.

What finished Gore was the Supreme 5 decision, not Lieberman.

[jackthesprat]

107. Yes.

this is where I should depart; don't want to get banned for pointing out that gore lost.

[drummo]

109. He didn't lose. The point of the campaign is to convince

enough people to get out and vote for you. Gore achieved that and you cannot deny that. By saying that Gore was finished after he picked Joe you mean that he lost enough voters (!) to lose the election. That was clearly not the case. He had enough voters. What he didn't have was enough certified votes. But that has nothing to do with the effect of Gore picking Lieberman on the voters themselves because many votes which should have been certified were not, and many voters who wanted to vote for Gore could not.

Mugabe is president in Zimbabwe. Did he win the election? No.
Bush was president after 2000 in the US. Did he win the election? No. Then who won the election? Gore. If he won the election Joe was a good pick.

[drummo]

105. It was good tactical move. And Joe was not the pro-Bush whore

he is today. For one thing he didn't want to invade Iraq in 2000.

[Larkspur]

64. This article was regurgitating AEI talking points about Gore

It was not an unbiased review of Gore's positions.

[1932]

66. 3/4s of it is about Fuerth, which has nothing to do with AEI's Gore Panel

at that conference.

And, as for the AEI conference, are you saying the LA Times reporter on the Gore panel is a liar? Those are the only quotes from the AEI panel about Gore. The rest is apparently independent research confirmign that Gore wasn't so different from Bush on foreign policy.

[drummo]

87. And even if you trust this scribe where in the fucking earth

is there a single sentence that states Gore wanted to invade Iraq in the 90s?

Stop spinning. Gore was for the removal of Saddam at least after the invasion of Kuwait but NOT BY INVADING IRAQ! Get it? No? Then go and join Bush's advisors because they don't get it, either. For them regime change and invasion are the same.

But what do you think the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 was all about?
It passed overwhelmingly and was signed into law by Clinton. But it didn't call for a full-scale invasion of Iraq in order to change the regime over there.

Gore was one of the first in the Congress who spoke out against Saddam in the 80s when it was not politically cool at all, since the "big evil of the Middle East" at the time was considered Khomeini not Saddam. Still, Gore was one of sponsors of the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 which would have put tough sanctions on Saddam after he gased the Kurds. If those sanctions had been implemented Saddam couldn't have invaded Kuwait. There wouldn't have been a Gulf War and
and US troops wouldn't have been in Saudi Arabia -- which is what Osama used to recruit people for his cause.


So sure you think because he sponsored that bill he also promoted the invasion of Iraq, right? After all he was anti-Saddam.
Of course he was anti-Saddam. Which sane person was pro-Saddam?

Fuerth was Gore's NasSec advisor after 1983. He gave him 1000s of advises. Do you want to make far reaching conclusion based of all of them? Gore had his own mind and he got advise from many people not just Fuerth. For example, before the Gulf War he was the Senator who talked to the most people who had something to do with Iraq. The last one was Joe Wilson back then the acting ambassador in Baghdad.
Do you know what advise he gave Gore? Do you want to say that because Gore got advise from Joe Wilson he somehow was for the invasion of Iraq?

It's one thing what Fuerth wanted it's another what Gore said and did.
Moreover, Fuerth himself never advocated a US invasion of Iraq.
He did promote military actions against Iraq like Operation Desert Fox. But not a land invasion of the country. Capisco?

And what do you want with the Joe selection? Did Joe ever propose the invasion of Iraq in 2000? No. He flip-flopped after Bush started to push for the war in 2002 summer just to look "tough on terrorism"

As a result Gore turn his back on Joe and didn't even call him before he endorsed Dean.

Furthermore, selecting Joe had everything to do with Clinton's BJ but nothing to do with Iraq. You fallacious thinking that somehow the reason why Gore picked Joe was that both agreed Iraq should be invaded makes you as bad as any right-wing spinner on the airways.

[1932]

89. Today the Democrats have an opportunity to break from the past.

Globalization based on rules which tip the balance in favor of Wall Street, and using the military to enforce it on the world, was fun in the '90s. Now we see where it leads: incredible polarizations of wealth which is destabilizing for the entire world.

Few people in Clinton's adminstation were more enthusiastic about the worst expressions of globalization than Gore. In a best case scenario, Gore is vague on the most important points. Worst case scenario, he's exactly on the wrong side of the divide within the democratic party about when it's appropriate to do Wall Street's bidding and when it's appropriate to use the military overseas.

We can do so much better than that.

[drummo]

108. The Dems will not win with this irrational anti-Wall St drivel

You should be specific as to what is wrong with Wall St and concretely which company you don't like and why and prove that your proposal would indeed be better not just for a few poor guys but for the majority of Americans. After all you need a majority to win elections -- except if you steal like Bush.

There are way too many players on Wall St to have such an overly generalized position about Wall St as a whole.
There are very good companies in the US which produce goods and provide services that you youself use.
Many of the anti-Wall St radicals are hypocrites. They would not go and live in Bulgaria or Romania where the business sector is far more regulated but they are quick to come up with soundbites like Wall St is the reason why we are in Iraq now.


Are you a Naderite, by the way?

Few people in Clinton's adminstation were more enthusiastic about the worst expressions of globalization than Gore.

1.How do you know that? You were not there. And Gore rarely talked about globalization in public. In fact I can't remember one occasion.Link to a speech or something?

2.Gore's definition of globalization may very well differ from your
definition of globalization.

3.There is no evidence that without globalization there would be less poor people in the world today. The biggest reason why there are so many poor people is overpopulation. You will not stop that by stopping globalization. Tell the guys and gals in Kenya and Bangladesh not to f**k so often or at least use some kind of contraceptive method and you'll see less poor people. What the third world is doing with reproduction is simply crazy. No economic system would be capable to meet the needs of so many people, except an economy driven by advanced nanotechnology, but that is decades away.

[1932]

127. Read The Roaring Nineties by Joe Stiglitz and Arthur Levitt's book

about his time as SEC Chairman.

Then get back to me and we'll discuss what kind of Democrats we want running for president.

[drummo]

129. Why should I read THAT book? It's a short of Bible or what?

Stiglitz and Levitt have their own opinion. So what? Opinion is like a body part everybody has one.

I will not judge the performance of the Clinton administation based on one or two sources. But it seems to me that you read one book and concluded that it is the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth. This is the way urban legends are born. It's always more convinient to accept the account of one source than to check out multiple sources and the many contradictions between their accounts of the same event or time period.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who would argue with Stiglitz's interpretation. So why don't you read and listen to their accounts as well?

[drummo]

94. Yes they were both hawks but neither Joe nor Gore

wanted to invade Iraq in the 90s.

Joe then flip-flopped big time after Bush started to push for the war in the summer of 2002 and not coincidentally Gore kicked him to the curb and endorsed Dean without even calling Joe beforehand.

Do you have Wall St obsession? Wall St is not responsible for Saddam's unwillingness to come clean in the 90s. Wall St did not invade Kuwait in 1990. Wall St didn't want to assassinate Bush Sr.

And without Wall St this country would be like Romania. No thanks I don't want your vision to be implemented.

[drummo]

79. And you expect us to accept AIE as a credible source?

It a right-wing think-tank. It's irrelevant what they say about Gore.
You could have quoted Focus on the Family.

Moreover this was written long before Bush became the neocon's darling. Bush was running in 2000 as an anti-nation building isolacionalist.

[1932]

83. The first couple paragraphs descrive a panel discussion at the AEI

about Gore and Bosh's foreign policy plans before the 2000 election.

AEI is conservative. Members of the Gore panel said that he was a hawk at that time, which his supporters here admit readily. I've seen no allegation that the LA Times reporter who made the statements about him which are quoted is biased. I've seen nobody allege that any of the statments about Gore's foreign policy plans are inaccurate.

The article, which is published by the a journal which nobody has alleged is biased, then goes on to make an argument that this is the case about Al based on independent reporting about Gore's advisor Fuerth, which nobody has alleged is inaccurate.

If your argument is that the entire piece is tainted because in the first few paragraphs it describes a discussion about Al Gore (which apparently would have given comfort to AEI members considering voting for Al) then that isn't much of an argument) at a conservative think tank, then that's pretty weak.

Don't you think that if they were biased and wanted to hurt Gore, they would have run a conference saying that Bush would be so much better than him, and not tell people that he has a very similary foreign policy (whihc is true)? It's not even like you would have evern know about this conference if this middle eastern review journal hadn't published it.

I think by saying, "OH, the AEI is mentioned in this article!" isn't so much a logical refuge as it is a psychological refuge. It's one thing to say the source is biased. It's another thing to say the source mentions an institution which might be biased, and then provide no logical argument about why that means the picture painted by the article is not accurate.

[drummo]

110. I said OK trust this article -- But would you finally gimme a quote which

shows Gore supported the invasion of Iraq in the 90s?

You don't have anything.

Not even Fuerth is described in that article as someone how wanted to invade Iraq in the 90s, let alone Gore. (note: Fuerth is Fuerth and Gore is Gore and both had their own opinion about foreign policy issues not always in agreement with each other)

What does it matter what that panel said or what the LA reporter said if none of them said that Gore wanted to invade Iraq in the 90s?

That was your allegation.

Prove it.

Just by showing that Gore was for military action against Iraq you say nothing new. Of course he was for military action against Iraq since it was part of the containment policy. But it's not the same as invading Iraq.

Get it?

Don't you think that if they were biased and wanted to hurt Gore, they would have run a conference saying that Bush would be so much better than him, and not tell people that he has a very similary foreign policy (whihc is true)?


Actually they did promote Bush throughout the campaing and after the campaign as well. They are a right-wing think-tank. And saying that
Gore was just like Bush (bullshit otherwise) did serve Bush well who was perceived in 2000 as a lightweight on foreign policy.
Republicans used this tactic with regard to the environment as well. They were glad to hear Naderites say that there was no difference between Bush and Gore on the environment. They never argued with that. Of course in other states, such as West Virginia, they were telling voters that Gore was an enviromental extermist -- obviously very different from Bush.

[Samantha]

126. Gore himself said

If we invade Iraq, we will be doing the same thing we went after Saddam for during the first Gulf War -- invading the borders of a sovereign nation (paraphrasing).

He also said three days before the war, "I would not start this war."

He said, "Saddamm is not the one shooting at us."

I did not save the links to these speeches and I am not going to look them up for you. It's difficult to believe you could not have heard Gore's anti-Iraq war remarks before the invasion.

[drummo]

90. Why do you think that Gore even knew or knows about this

interview?

Clinton didn't know about his speech.

Similarly Gore does not follow every word Clinton utters.

But most importantly Clinton said nothing in that interview which suggests that Gore was ever for invading Iraq. That's your spin not Clinton's opinion.

[Apollo11]

32. we already had this discussion

right here on this forum a few days ago.

If you want to know Gore's position on Iraq, read the speeches he made in 2002 (Feb. 12th and Sep. 23rd) and 2003 (August 7th).

You can find the transcripts in the "Campaign Resources" section on www.algore-08.com

Some here have accused Gore of changing his position on the Iraq issue, but if you read his speeches they are consistent. There are changes of emphasis but I cannot find any contradictions.

It's true that back in 2002, Gore believed that Saddam Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." But that is what everyone was saying at the time - although we now know that the available intelligence was not being accurately represented to the public.

As Bu$h would say: "Fool me once - won't get fooled again!" ;)

[drummo]

112. Actually that's past tense

"stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

and it's true. Saddam indeed did that in the past. And he would have done it again if he hadn't been contained by the Clinton administration.

[drummo]

84. What? Gore never wanted to invade Iraq and you lie.

Gimme a quote where Gore said in the 90s that we should invade Iraq.

Gore was for containment which included occasional targeted bombings but not invasion. Two very different things.

[drummo]

78. And you judge Gore based on what Clinton said?

Clinton couldn't figure out what to say about the IWR. He was whishy-washy and contradictory. And his wife voted for it.

Gore opposed it all along because he knew it was a blank check for war nothing less and would make us less not more secure.

Clinton was never a foreign policy virtuous when it came to armed conflicts. He was hesitant and indecisive. That's one reason why Gore not Clinton should have been president in the 90s.

[drummo]

85. Another lie. Gore never said that.

Gore said that he felt to be let down because Bush Sr did not support the Kurd-Shiites uprising against Saddam.

That's not a US invasion of Iraq.

Idiot.

[drummo]

77. Bullshit. Gore never advocated the invasion of Iraq

Military action is NOT necessarly invasion.
Targeted bombings, covert actions are military actions but not
full-scale, unilateral invasion what Bush did.

Gore opposed Bush's war from the get-go. Go and read the speech he made in SF in 2002 Sept.

And yes, Gore is not a peacenik. If he was he wouldn't have a damn chance to win. But that doesn't mean that he supports every damn military action someone invents in Washington.
It has to be done on a case by case basis.
Vietnam didn't make sense. The Gulf War did.
So Gore opposed the first and supported the second.
The intervention in Yugoslavia made sense. The invasion of Iraq didn't.
So Gore supported the first and opposed the second.

[no one]

36. Gore isn't the only one

I'm sure we can find a Governor such as:

Granholm

Richardson

Warner

Napolitano

Any of these outsiders can do the job.

[Larkspur]

38. Wasn't Granholm born in Canada?

If so, she would not qualify to be a Prez candidate because of that fact.

Napolitano isn't running, as far as I've heard, and the others are a bit too DLC for me.

[drummo]

72. Can do what kind of job? President? Gimme a break.

No more governor. They always screw it up in their first years because they know nothing about the federal government and think it's like their little governorship where they don't have to deal with national security, intelligence or military issues.

Even California's budget is a joke compared to the federal budget.

If you are governor you cannot get the experience necessary to run the federal government. Period.

Clinton was in trouble, Bush was in trouble (still is), Carter was in trouble, Reagan was in trouble. Coincident?

[Uncle Joe]

37. Yes! I believe sometimes circumstances come to a head

demanding a great leader to come forth for the good of the nation and in this case also the planet. I can think of no other leader that fits the bill better, in today's times to set the world right than Al Gore.

P.S. It still blows me away that Al, more than any other political leader empowered us, Daily Kos, MYDD, most every blogger on the internet including the deluded people at the Free Republic only to be trashed for his efforts. Prometheus Gore in 08!

[Historic NY]

41. Al Gore your country needs you................

Gore/Clark 08.

[lildreamer316]

43. I'll say it until I lose my voice.

Al Gore is it. Only it. Perfect answer. Done deal. Let him hide his candidacy from the RW machine as long as possible. That's ok; we can "clear the brush" for him. We've got work to do to prepare the way for him; let's consolidate and go. NO time to waste.

[Apollo11]

47. response to 1932

You have shown us some interesting sources and quotes.

The situation in the middle east is not simple, and politicians have to seek advice from experts they trust. I am not an expert on the situation in the middle east, so it is difficult for me to judge whether certain advice has been good or bad.

But I have a strong feeling that Gore has changed since 2000. He has had some time to think about a lot of issues and he has used his time well.

Personally, I like what Gore has been saying in his speeches since 2000. I think he is telling us what he honestly believes. He speaks to me.

I don't think it is useful to debate whether Gore is a "hawk" or a "dove". We should not try to categorize him in this way.

Gore does not believe that America should retreat from the world. He believes that we are all living on the same planet and we should take an interest in what goes on in different parts of the world - whether its environmental damage or human rights abuses.

I still say he would (will) make a great President.

[1932]

53. It's a pretty big leap of faith to assume Gore has changed.

There are many better democrats whose support requires smaller leaps of faith on less important issues.

Unquestioned support for wall st and war mongering to extend "American values" are issues that are too important to take a chance on a guy who had many chances to evaluate how he feels about these issues before 2002.

[Larkspur]

63. This is your spin about Gore based upon your pro-Clinton bias

It's not based upon facts, which you already prove you lack.

Gore has the experience in Washington DC and with foreign affairs that give him credence to "Swing voters" to being a competent government official and politician. Gore also has been away from the mess in Washington DC and has reconnected at a personal level with what ordinary Americans face. His exodus from Washington has made Gore reconnect with his populst roots. His speeches since 2000 are evident of this.

Whereas, Bill Clinton has done much to cozy up with the corrupt Bush family. Gore has done a terrific job of intelligently bashing Bush's dogma, which is poisoning our democracy. At best Clinton let's Bush's pro-robber-baron corrosive agenda pass.

[1932]

67. And that is just a desperate last-ditch defense of Gore that helps

you on a psychological level avoid the facts that have been posted in this thread.

[drummo]

120. What facts? Where is the fact that proves Gore ever wanted to

invade Iraq?

You showed nothing.

[drummo]

119. And why do you think that while in Washington Gore forgot

about the little guy?

Sure his initiatives during those 24 years do not prove that. Nor do the way he campaigned and promised would act as president. Unlike Bush he wouldn't have hiden in Washington for months without talking to the public and wouldn't have screened his audience at town hall meetings.

In most cases the little guy is out-of-touch with the government and not the other way around. Most "normal people" have no idea about how the government works or what people over they do and they are not even interested in it. Instead they support or opposed an image that is built up by the media and cherrypicked reports. 1932 did exactly that with regard to Gore and Iraq. He couldn't give a complete timeline of Gore's actual record on Iraq let alone everything he did during those 24 years but hell he is quick to spin the words of a few reports that he finds worthy enough to read.

Democracy is not just a privilege it is also a responsibility. If the average Joe is not willing to educate himself about the government he does not deserve attention from the government.

That's why I don't understand why Gore wants to serve the masses so much. 1932 thinks he knows better. So let him serve himself.

[drummo]

118. Your are right Gore has not changed. But then you shouldn't

say that he was for the war before he was against it.

He was never for Bush's invasion. Period.

As for the Wall St nonsense, sorry but Wall St is part of the US and it will not vanish from the face of the Earth just because you don't like it because of some vague, useless ideology.

[drummo]

117. Gore has not changed on Iraq.

He never supported invading the country but he supported regime change and containment until Saddam is there.

Nothing in 1932's sources refutes that.

[Neshanic]

60. Gore/Clark not damaged goods. Hillary, Kerry, no way.

Let Gore be Gore. He would be awesome. Clark....what a team.

[ticapnews]

61. Can't we draft Shrub instead?

He does still owe seven months and 25 days to the National Guard... This would be a great time for him to serve it.

[jackthesprat]

100. Sorry for non orthodox opinion here, but,

Al Gore couldn't beat a drunk, stupid, business failure. Haven't we had enough?

[Uncle Joe]

111. To begin with Al Gore in fact did win the popular and electoral count,

he only lost by one vote in the Supreme Court. A court that thought an arbitrary deadline was more important than determining the will of the American People.

The American People did not know in 1999-2000 that Bush was a drunk, stupid business failure because the corpwhorate owned MSM did not tell them. The vital issue of the day with the corpwhorate owned MSM (and keep in mind this was after Osama declared war against us) was who would you rather have in your home for a beer. The corpwhorate owned MSM were too busy trashing AL Gore because he empowered you and me when he championed the internet.

[jackthesprat]

113. Sorry, no.

I saw the debates. Gore: "I agree with that...I agree with you...."
Terrible. All Gore had to say was: "Shut up you stupid drunk; you know nothing."

[Uncle Joe]

114. This is just one small example of

the corpwhorate owned MSM's 180 on who won the debates, click on link for much more and google 2000 debates or "War Against Gore".

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092804.html

How did the press review Bush and Gore’s first debate? As he looks back, Krugman sets the stage for the spinning that would ensue:
KRUGMAN (9/28/04): Interviews with focus groups just after the first 2000 debate showed Al Gore with a slight edge. Post-debate analysis should have widened that edge. After all, during the debate, Mr. Bush told one whopper after another—about his budget plans, about his prescription drug proposal and more. The fact-checking in the next day's papers should have been devastating.

Indeed, Bush did make a string of huge blunders in Debate I, as we’ve detailed in the past (links below) and as Krugman noted in real time. But how did the press review that debate? Krugman echoes Clymer’s critique of the corps’ woeful performance:

KRUGMAN (continuing directly): But as Adam Clymer pointed out yesterday on the Op-Ed page of The Times, front-page coverage of the 2000 debates emphasized not what the candidates said but their “body language.” After the debate, the lead stories said a lot about Mr. Gore's sighs, but nothing about Mr. Bush's lies. And even the fact-checking pieces ''buried inside the newspaper'' were, as Mr. Clymer delicately puts it, “'constrained by an effort to balance one candidate's big mistakes”—that is, Mr. Bush's lies—“against the other's minor errors.”

[jackthesprat]

115. Doesn't refute what I said.

[drummo]

123. Of course it does refute what you said.

You cherrypicked a few statements Gore said in the second debate.

But there were 3 debates, buddy? Can you count?

And after both the first and the third the spin was that he was too tough on poor Georgie boy.

But you think he should have just called him drunk and that would have worked. Why don't you ask the media about that? Get to know what they would have told the viewers and readers and listeners about Gore if he had told that to Bush?

[drummo]

122. Bullshit. He was bashed for being too agressive both in the first

and in the third debate. You apparently missed the post debate-spin.

As for you advise: yeah man that would have indeed helped Gore.

[drummo]

121. He beat him. Kerry couldn't. And since when is being drunk

stupid business failure a disadvantage in today's political culture?

If you are smarter-than-average, articulate, well-infromed, moral and cosmopolitan now that is a big minus. But being stupid and drunk and even being an a playboy like Clinton is just cool, man!

The rednecks love stupid people because they are like themselves.
The liberals hate moral people they like playboys.
As for drunk, the news came out short before election day and who cared?
As for business failure, not so fast. Bush got out of those failures pretty rich. Beside, they happened so long ago noone cared about it.
Similarly noone cared about Gore's pot smoking, either. Not even about his failure to get the nomination in 1988 even though it was not as old news as Bush's adventures with Harken and Arbusto.

[unlawflcombatnt]

116. Anti-Free Trade

I think Gore is the only possible contender who will oppose unrestricted free trade. I'd vote for him for that reason alone, though he has many other good qualities.

In addition to opposing Iraq, I think he clearly opposes tax cuts for the top 2%. I also think he fully understands the depth of pure greed and corruption that characterizes the Bush junta.

[doubleplusgood]

125. he's got MY vote if he runs

and in Oregon, MY vote WILL be counted !