Gore on Iraq

Since we have such a high standard of living here, many people in the world are envious. So they point to us being these horrible consuming machines, devoid of morals and ethics.

There are problems with our global neighbors. For instance one of the biggest critics of action against Iraq is Germany. Germany has been noted as having sold centrifuge equipment to Iraq. The equipment sold by the Germans to Iraq is commonly used to prepare uranium for construction of nuclear warheads. Naturally they will defend their business partner. This causes the German government to lose their objectivity regarding Iraq.

 

First, on Gore's internal combustion engine thing, which you say makes him irrelevant: We are not using nuclear weapons every day. Yes, the danger is great, but it is not a foregone conclusion that they will be used to destroy the world. Gore's position is that our current environmental policy is on track to destroying the earth right now. And that if we don't change our ways, it is a foregone conclusion that we will destroy the earth. And in that very book you referenced, he proposes solutions. Your guy's solution is drilling in Alaska -- which is no solution at all. It ignores damage to the environment and only solves our reliance on the Middle East for a very short time. Does the recognition of threats to our environment, coupled with proposed, workable solutions, really constitute irrelevance?

The quote from you above is extraordinarily simple for you, Refman. You seem to be saying either we stay on the current track, ignoring assured, eventual environmental disaster, or we go back to riding horses. Carter proposed alternative energy sources as a solution to this problem. Reagan rolled back anything Carter had put in place in this regard. Gore has also proposed solutions. They will obviously never be enacted by the oilmen in office. The difference is that Gore actually thinks about these things and writes books in which he proposes solutions. You dismiss him on the grounds that he's passionate about it. On the same grounds, I applaud him.

As for Clinton's failure to rid the world of terrorism pre-9/11, two things:

Gore is not Clinton. Stop referring to the last eight years as Gore's administration. You might as well say Powell is against affirmative action.

Secondly, both parties and both administrations underestimated the threat of terrorism. I don't recall Bush criticizing the Clinton policy on terrorism during the campaign and I don't recall him lifting a finger to address the problem until after 9/11. Both parties and each of our intelligence agencies failed us here. There is a disagreement as to how to best fight the war on terrorism. That is as it should be. This is a democracy and we rely on our leading political figures to conduct a meaningful debate on matters of import.

Gore's position here is courageous. He has promised that if he is to run again, he will be guided strictly by principle, rather than politics. This is a good first step. If he continues on this track, I will enthusiastically support him (which I did not in 2000), and he will be a formidable candidate. He has a secret weapon: he's right. For all his approval ratings, Bush is vulnerable. The vast majority of the country believes we are heading in the wrong direction. It's the mirror image of responses to that question during the Clinton years. I wanted to kill Gore when he played apologist in 2000 rather than touting the accomplishments of the Clinton years. If he is finally willing to campaign proactively, comparing the Bush years to both the Clinton years and Gore's proposals (during the 00 campaign and now), it will be a very fun election year. And I like our chances.

 

By now I'm sure its obvious the effectiveness of the CIA is very debatable.

 

Gore said nothing about what is used everyday. He made the blanket statement that the combustion engine is more dangerous than any military threat we could ever face. That's just not reality. Is pollution dangerous? Yes. More dangerous than a nuclear arsenal pointed at us? Not even close. His assertion was ludicrous.

You misunderstand. I think drilling in Alaska (which will provide us with enough oil to be self sufficient for a century or so) will solve the problem by making us not be dependent on foreign oil while we develop alternate energy sources. That way if the alternate sources are ready in 20 years the scenario would be for the next 20 years use our own oil at a much lower cost to consumers and then phase it out as everybody acquires the new energy powered equipment. It's a nice middle step...but not a solution in a vaccuum.

 

Mr. Gore still bears some culpablity as the former Vice President. I believe Dick Morris sumed the past administration's objectives best and highlights a potential liberal return in the highest office of the land.

"Everything was more important than fighting terrorism. Political correctness, civil liberties concerns, fear of offending the administration's supporters, Janet Reno's objections, considerations of cost, worries about racial profiling and, in the second term, surviving impeachment, all came before fighting terrorism." -Dick Morris

I wouldn't gamble my country's very existence away for the consideration of an illegal immigrant's rights or the political correctness of racially profiling terrorists.

 

I wouldn't believe that hooker-chaser if he told me the sky was blue.

 

how about if the intern-chaser told you the sky was blue??

 

MadMax, I believe that was precisely RocketMan Tex's point.

Refman: You're either being disingenuous or you've got a bad case of hearing what you want to hear. You know what Gore MEANT. What he MEANT is anything but ludicrous. The internal combustion engine has done more damage to the planet today than nuclear weapons. That is true of every day since Chernobyl. You choose to focus instead on what he said, criticizing his syntax. Bad call for a Bush backer. I won't list the various Bush quotes which, by your logic, would be ludicrous and hence make him "irrelevant." I don't disagree it was an extreme statement, but pick a better reason to categorically blow him off. The one you've chosen is silly.

You could also maybe explain why the 20 year clock on alt energy sources hasn't even started yet. I guess we're too busy trying to persuade Alaska. So much for multi-tasking.

And to whomever it was that said Gore proved he was incapable of multi-tasking because he said we should focus on Al Qaeda before attacking Iraq... I know this will sound insulting and I don't mean it that way. But did you read the article? Did any of you? Or is Gore too irrelevant to listen to his basic point?

Gore says the attack on Iraq, if done without a coalition, will hamper the war on terrorism by further eroding international good will and by pissing off a lot of our allies. It's the same thing many senior Republicans have said. And no one has presented an argument against this argument.

It's not that Gore can't handle two things at once. It's that he recognizes that one thing affects another. It's that he realizes that we are squandering the good will the international community felt toward us after 9/11 -- that good will which marginalized terrorists and those who harbor them more than ever before. When we lose that good will, when we act like bullies, disregarding international opinion, other countries are less likely to cooperate in the war on terrorism. In fact, they become more likely to sympathize with terrorists. Bush's solution? Attack them, too. Gore's? Maintain international good will wherever possible. Be a humble superpower (like Bush used to say he wanted us to be -- he called Clinton's foreign policy arrogant -- ironic, no?). Capitalize on anti-terrorist opinion and do not spend ALL the capital so we can attack a (possible) enemy today instead of in six months.

Gore and many, many other senior politicians and military personnel in this country and others say there should be a debate. Bush says my way or I start bombing. Can anyone respond to the actual issues at hand? Bush isn't. The Dems in Congress aren't. What's happened to our democracy?

 

The funny thing about criticizing the Clinton Administrations policy on terrorism especially concerning Osama Bin Laden is fine, and perhaps justified, but remember that while Clinton didn't do enough Bush did even less.

Clinton left the Bush administration with an operative plan to take out Osama Bin Laden, and the Bush administration opted not to abandon the plan.

It's fine and I think just to say that the Clinton administration didn't do enough, but they still did more than the Bush administration did prior to 9/11.

 

If that's the case, I'm mistaken...I've told you before, I'm not real bright.

 

Im sure if Bush had eight years and five terror attacks to tend to such a plan it would had been carried out a long time ago not saved for the next administration to tend to. To say Bush did even less is a ridiculous statement. The evidence is there. And many are dangerously turning a blind eye to it. Even some of the Brits get it and have even started supporting Mr. Blair now after his dossier was released today. After the many attacks on the country it sent a message to radicals that "America is weak. America is indecisive. America is corrupt. America is ripe for an attack and America doesn?t have the moral fiber, nor the resources, nor the resolve to fight back." Even Russian President Putin expressed dismay in the lack of attention to terrorism. To put the blood of a thousand Americans on a President's hands who barely broke into office is wrong and two-faced. This a man who claims he was "obsessed" with tracking Bin Laden. If this is the case Mr. Clinton why did choose to deny Sudan's offer to turnover Bin Laden into American custody in 1996? Its never Clinton's fault is it? Even Admiral Thomas H. Moorer said the day after 9-11 "The catastrophe that struck America was the result of a decade of military cuts and the undermining of U.S. intelligence agencies." Both Gore and Clinton seemed to be more concerned with running from fund raiser to fund raiser rather than implement proposals against terrorism. They were also busy putting out the fire of the Clinton's scandal with Monica. They had 8 years to do what Bush is doing now. We are too concerned with getting it done quickly that we don't realize the real threat of the states and people that are arming these terrorists. That is the core of the problem. Im not saying the Bush administration is perfect. There are flaws in just about every president's term but to say Bush bears more responsibility to the failure of a past president is unjustified. I don't care for war but I believe there comes a time when one must protect his country.

 

Start the Nuclear war now if this is TRUE!!!

I am most certainly willing to die for my morals, if it helps show how wrong this view of the world is (may actually need to be renamed from world to USA)

 

I said that Clinton deserves some blame for not being more serious about terrorism. But Clinton did formulate a plan to go after Bin Laden. Bush inherited the plan and didn't use it. He did nothing with it. So it's not ridiculous to say Bush did less. Clinton at least formulated a plan, and handed it to Bush with the suggestion that Bush use it. Bush chose to ignore it and do nothing. Doing nothing is less than formulating a plan. Neither is enough.

The problem goes back farther than Clinton though. Sadly defense budgets the way they were wouldn't have mattered if they had been cut or not, because the defense budgets were spent on weapons systems and other things that serves to make money for defense contractors but don't really fight terrorism.

If the defense budget was geared toward paying informants, training people for surveilance, and hiring more field agents and infiltrators of terrorist organizations it would have helped. But that's not the way the defense budgets were being spent.

And mentioning those guys running from fund raiser to fund raiser is humorous considering even with the national crisis of 9/11 and looming war with Iraq, the current Pres. Bush set a new record for fundraising, including letting people who paid more than $100,000 sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. It sounds familiar.

 

not sure Clinton can take all the blame

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41793

 

FranchiseBlade I respectfully disagree but you bring up some valid points. I understand your stance. SmeggySmeg thank you for the link. I do not believe Clinton is the only person responsible for the lethargic attitude concerning terrorism. But I do believe there was a failure to act in any way by the Clinton team when Bin Laden and his network were most vulnerable. Respect to all viewpoints.

 

You're not honestly reducing everyone else's criticism of our problems with consumption/materialism/corruption etc. to camouflaged jealousy, are you?

 

Clinton/Gore: Faced several terrorist attacks, made a plan.

Bush/Cheney: Faced one terrorist attack, invaded Afghanistan and plan to invade Iraq. Instituted a zero-tolerance policy on terrorism.

Obviously Clinton/Gore did much more than Bush WRT terrorism.

 

Good Lord ! What an utterly stupid comment. Do you know anything about the issue at hand or do you just regurgitate what you hear from someone else ? I mean I may not agree with others opinions on attacking Iraq, but at least they have some decent and intelligent points of view, where as you make this seem like a debate on a football game or something.

 

stupidposter, there's slightly a different scale there, eh? Put elements of your military into a hostile zone, boom, soldiers die, sucks. Republicans say we're supposed to be isolationist, besides 'where the hell is Somalia'. Africans die in the embassy attacks, Clinton retaliates and he's doing it to 'cover up' for Monica Lewinsk(e?)y.

Stupid ****ing people have to see the World Trade Center get hit by ****ing aircraft and then all of a sudden, Bush, who ran on isolationist rhetoric, all of a sudden realizes that maybe he should 'be more involved in the world'.

Meanwhile, today, four honorable men all say the exact same thing about caution that Gore said yesterday and I don't see a single one of you hypocritical post hoc arguing morons addressing their statements. Why? Obviously it doesn't fit into your bigger plan of things 'you already know'.