Surrrrrrriously. I'd like to tap my drill into that reserve, if you know what I mean (and how could you not)
I was watching the speech last night and while Gore was giving his endorsement, I was thinking how different would our country be if he was elected back in 2000.
if Gore was president, and 9-11 would have still happen (I don't assume it would have because maybe another admin would have prevented it) but had it happened on a democrats watch, there would have been carnage ont he party that is supposedly weak on defense. absolute carnage
I disagree. I strongly disagree! Do you honestly think Gore wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and crushed the Taliban? Heck, if anything, I think Gore would have done a better job there. He sure as hell wouldn't have pulled assets out of that country when Osama and company were still at large, to use them to invade and occupy Iraq. I could say a lot more, but I'll control myself. Impeach Bush. Hurry!
Wasn't the statement made here that the Administration in 1998 (Clinton's not Bush's State Department) had made a commitment toward regime change in Iraq? Was not Al Gore part of that Administration-- even moreso than Bush? Other than 20/20 hindsight (Gore's and your's both), what makes you think Al Gore could have prevailed on a different course of action?
With gas at $4/gallon, Gore's approval rating would be similar to Bush's. That's if he were re-elected to begin with.
A policy of regime change doesn't mean invading a nation that isn't a threat. The policy towards Cuba has been regime change for decades, and yet we haven't invaded them. We've taken various other steps, and enacted various other policies geared toward that end, but invasion was not a step we've taken.
Of course the Repubs would have come after Gore with a vengeance had 9-11 happened on his watch. They would have put forward completely different argument from the one they've made with Bush in power. But then again, Gore would not have ignored an NIE titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." And Gore would not have started a war in Iraq.
Libya certainly did, and were far bigger supporters of terrorism than Iraq ever was. But again that is a red herring. That wasn't the point you were trying to make earlier. You were trying to make it appear that Gore was really in favor of an invasion and changed his mind based on a stated policy of regime change. Besides the arguments you are making trying to justify the war, actually are reasons why there WAS NO NEED TO INVADE EVEN WITH KNOWLEDGE IN OUR POSSESSION AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq and were certifying that there was WMD, no Nuke program etc. The Iraqis were hemmed in and 2/3 of the nation were under no fly zones with U.S. forces monitoring those. Iraq was no threat to invade anyone.
Speaking of Mr. Gore, I find this hilarious and sad. Al Gore's home uses 10% more electricity than the year before Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.” In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month. In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household. After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul. Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria. “Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.” The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.
I actually agree with the assertions of the article, but this is a bizarre way to report the statistics. Why not just say that he uses more electricity than 19 average households?
