http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=49860 [rquoter]What Gore Doesn't Say BY ELI LAKE March 6, 2007 Mark what Vice President Gore is not saying. At a moment when embracing the retreat from Iraq appears a prerequisite for attaining his party's presidential nomination, the Tennessean so many in his party are now drafting as a nominee has stayed mum on the question of withdrawal. As the rest of the Democratic field dares itself to embrace an American betrayal at ever sooner deadlines, Mr. Gore barnstorms the country to raise the alarum about the weather. When asked about withdrawing troops from the war he urged his party to vote against in 2002, he dodges the question. In an interview December 6 with Matthew Lauer, the former vice president was asked whether, were he president, he would favor a withdrawal. Mr. Gore made sure to say that the war was a "car-wreck" and that military victory was impossible. But as for whether he would cut and run, he said, "Well if I were president I would have the full flow of information and have and test each of these options." So why is it that Hollywood's favorite Democrat would need more information to make a choice everyone in his party seems to have already accepted? Look no further than Mr. Gore's September 23, 2002, address to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, a speech that launched his transformation from goofy Columbia professor to anti-war hero. In it he said that one of the reasons he opposed the intervention, was because he did not trust President Bush to stay in Iraq once the Baathist state was dismantled. "If we go in there and dismantle them — and they deserve to be dismantled — but then we wash our hands of it and walk away and leave it in a situation of chaos, and say, ‘That's for y'all to decide how to put things back together now,' that hurts us," Mr. Gore said. This, incidentally, is the inverse of how Senator Obama advertises today on the stump his early Iraq war opposition. Mr. Obama says today, "I believed that giving this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq would lead to the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today." This may sound hard to believe in light of Mr. Gore's subsequent moveon.org speeches, in which he played to the passions of his camp's national security Sistah Souljahs, but Mr. Gore has long had some of the feathers of a hawk. That's right, Mr. Gore is a tag 'em and bag 'em tough guy, a former vice president who endorsed the rendition of terrorists for interrogation, not to mention the bombing of Serbia and Iraq. When Mr. Gore was a senator, he asked his colleagues to demand the State Department hold Yasser Arafat accountable for ordering the murder of America's ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel, in 1973. When he signed these letters to his colleagues, already some American Jews were beginning the secret negotiations in Norway that led to rehabilitation of Arafat's international reputation, a reputation enhanced by the Clinton administration's fixation with the Oslo process. Certainly, Mr. Gore has a record that falls far short of perfect. On May 26, 2004, in his shrillest speech to moveon.org, he laced into Ahmad Chalabi, bringing up the outstanding conviction by a Jordanian military court for embezzling $70 million and the anonymously sourced stories at the time alleging the former Iraqi exile leader had passed secrets to the Iranians. Mr. Gore had to have known of Mr. Chalabi's connections with Tehran and the Jordanian charges in 2000, when, as a presidential candidate, he promised, in a letter to Mr. Chalabi, to help protect the democratic forces of Iraq. It was Mr. Gore who in 1996 was sent to smooth the Iraqi opposition's feathers when the Clinton administration infamously failed to respond to Saddam's invasion of their northern Iraqi sanctuary. More often than not, at least throughout Mr. Gore's career, he has been closer than most modern Democrats to the Scoop Jackson and Harry Truman tradition. Mr. Gore has been an idealist, a defender of Israel, and unafraid to deploy American force in the interest of noble American values. He voted for the first Gulf War, when there were far more leaders in his party who opposed it. Today Mr. Gore basks in the adoring love of the activists who tried and failed to knock off his running mate in 2000, Senator Lieberman. Strategically it cannot be stressed enough that Mr. Gore's 30-year war against carbon emissions will end when we discover the alternative energies to bankrupt the Persian Gulf 's kings and ayatollahs. Mr. Gore's record in public life aside, he is also a far shrewder politician than many are willing to admit. This Nobel Peace Prize nominee and Oscar winner must know that Americans — when faced in a presidential election with a choice between a dove and a hawk — have chosen the hawk every time since Johnson beat Goldwater. Even in 1976, Jimmy Carter, who became America's most supine commander in chief, won an easy contest against a president who at the time was afraid to meet publicly with Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn. And at the end of the day, this may be the most inconvenient truth of all for those frantically trying to draft Mr. Gore to run for the White House.[/rquoter]
Gore said, "Well if I were president I would have the full flow of information and have and test each of these options." How dare Gore say th right thing!!!! especially when poitical posturing would be so easy.
why does it matter what he says or doesn't say? he's not runnning for president and all indications are that he won't do so this in 08 either. This article might just as well have been titled "what Oprah doesn't say"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Sun Good read. I won't bother to point out the machinations in the text. Woopdedoo. He voted to bomb Iraq, Serbia and enter the first Gulf War. Word associations time: responsible foreign policy : not-Bush irresponsible foreign policy : ???
What'd you expect? The man served 8 years as Clinton's VP. He's a tried and true Clintonista -- knows exactly how not to get himself in trouble by making sweeping rhetoric on the eve of a possible nomination. You taking notes, Kerry? (Who cares. I'm glad that flip-flopping loudmouth didn't make it to the White House anyway.)
As a side note I love how the label has stuck to Kerry when we know the biggest flip flopper there is is in the WH. gotta love politics
guys. as much as i would have preferred gore to have become president lets remember that his VP would have been lieberman who could potentially make dick cheney look like dovish.
Do you really think so? I appreciate that in relation to the current Democratic party he is much more warlike, but I wouldn't place him anywhere more than slightly off center of middle of the pack relative to the current Republicans. From my perspective, Dick Cheney is almost unique among top level American politicians for his combination of real experience and extreme hawkishness. I can't think of anybody off the top of my head who I would describe as 'more hawkish'. Without trying to impugn his character, he really seems almost like a throwback to the 1960’s-1970’s.
LOL @ the good people in this thread. Any way, "Strategically it cannot be stressed enough that Mr. Gore's 30-year war against carbon emissions will end when we discover the alternative energies to bankrupt the Persian Gulf 's kings and ayatollahs........" Perish the thought, apparnently. Foreign oil control is great to this crew. Joy to the world.
what, you don't believe me, or believe my sources? personally, i've never heard of either of these places, but google news search is my friend. http://thereporter.com/letters/ci_5359360 http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=60708
that would explain why the current administration loves to try to resurrect the McCarthy era thinking. If I hear "anti-american" and "treasonous" when used in regard to valid criticism of the administration's policies one more time, Im going postal. or moving to Australia, Im not sure which.
Well, you gave us two quotes without sources. It's a generally accepted practice to provide sources for your quotes. I see the first one is from a Letter to the Editor published in the Vacaville, CA newspaper and that the letter writer doesn't offer a source other than a mention of NOAA. Do you and Google have anything better? I should say I don't doubt the info on its face, but I suspect that it is probably taken out of context or key data is missing. The second link takes you to a site that has stories like "Fix Global Warming with UFO Technology" and "Koalas Engage in Lesbian Sex Orgies." (By the way, I want to party with those Koalas!) Furthermore, they only have a few excerpts from the original story. To their credit though, they do provide a link to the original, one which is authored byOne Lawrence Soloman. Here's his bio from Capitalism Magazine, where he contributes stories... Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute. He is an authority on public utilities, public private partnerships, and regulation in Canada. He is a proponent of competition in municipal services through deregulation and privatization... http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=306 Regarding Allegre, here's Georg Hoffman's response (Hoffman's CV can be found here: http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/GLACIO/hoffmann/hoffmannengl.html)
Wouldn't it be funny/interesting/sad if Gore did become a serious candidate later in the primary cycle and watch the Clinton political machine start to chew him up? Their own VP...
A lot of Co2 in the atmosphere is produced by other organisms besides man. But that is not a problem since it is part of the Carbon-chain, were the Carbon is emitted by certain organisms and used by others. the problem with the Co2 we produce is that it was not part of the Carbon-chain. so it is extra therefor it can produce problems. however i'm not sure if it is only 3%.
lol no it is not. The IPCC report specifically rules out natural sources as the primary driver for CO2 increases. The NOAA NCDC itself labels anthropogenic sources as a major factor: It would appear that there is no mention of this mythical 3% number your source pulled out of his ass on the NOAA website, but there are a great deal of links that seem to suggest the opposite. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/about/dedication/dedication_tans.pdf http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_carbon.html and on and on and on and on and on.... But hey, don't let me rain on your parade, rodrick98. If there is one thing D&D has taught me, it's that most people won't change their views, no matter how often the cold, hard data is put in front of them. /cynical.
i really do think that lieberman is way to the right of hagel or other moderate reps interms of war hawking.
