Al Gore: What's Wrong With This Guy?

The discrepancies between the SF speech and the message he delivered in February are not the least bit surprising. Gore always has sang whatever song he thought his audience would like to hear. He gave a roaring, left-wing attack on Bush to a SF audience that probably wanted to hear that. He's really not much different from Clinton in that respect. You'll never be able to tell what he actually believes in because his beliefs will depend on whatever audience he's addressing.

 

George Bush during the campaign: We should act humbly on the international stage

George Bush as president: We'll do what we want, international approval or not



George Bush during the campaign: Clinton/Gore wasted time with "nation-building"

George Bush as president: Nation-building galore in Afghanistan and, if he gets his way, Iraq.



Who's confused?

 

???

He gives an opinion and then six months later says it was a mistake.

What's so confused about that?

 

Yeah, you're right. I've decided to pull a Chief Joseph on Gore's ass:

"From where the sun now stands, I will defend Gore no more forever."

 

Why should we care what Al Gore says? According to the White House, the man who garnered 500,000 more votes than Bush is "irrelevant."

 

I do believe Bush has had to change his tacticts about a year ago. I forget what the reason was. Something about planes flying into building and getting back at the people that did it.

 

So it's ok for Bush to change his tune based on changing circumstances but not Gore? Just wanted to clear that up.

 

Right, so he decides to topple the Middle East regime that the terrorists hated most. Makes perfect sense.

 

and I'm still waiting to hear what "getting back at" the terrorists has to do with nation-building in Iraq

 

And what does that have to do with Iraq?

What the right-wingers are forgetting is the "containment" part of "containment until regime change" which was the policy of the Clinton Administration.

Neither article quoted said anything about a full-scale invasion. For comparative purposes, I believe every government since Eisenhower was committed to regime change in Cuba. Only JFK was dumb enough to try, and at least he was smart enough to cut his losses. Go figure, though, that Fox News and the conservative marching society is going to try the same trick they tried with the Internet, Love Story and Love Canal "issues."

This was a terrific, and necessary speech, that the country badly needed. It's proof positive that the Bush administration has done a hideous job of making its case to invade Iraq. I mean, he lost Al Freaking Gore, one of the few Democrats who voted for the first War To Liberate Kuwait's Oil.

So if this war is so vital to defend this nation, then the administration is going to have to do a much better job of convincing the country, and the world.

And what does it mean, when Gore thinks that this is a winning issue for him? That he's crazy? That he's gone completely to the far left wing? I think those are very comforting myths to the rightists, and I think they're delusional. Either Gore genuinely believes that Dubya is doing a piss-poor job in justifying and preparing for Gulf War II, or he thinks it's a political winner for him. What does that say about the policy, in either case?

If the only thing this speech does is force the administration to make its case better, then Gore has done a public service. If the only thing the administration has in response is to spin speeches, then they can presumably do that without killing a few hundred thousand Iraqi civilians and running the country into bankruptcy.

 

You are. Bush said that we should be less involved, not humble. We got attacked and now we are more involved.

Gore on the other hand is a blatant liar. I was once a huge fan of his but if don't realize what an insincere self centered SOB he is you have your blinders on and might as well baaaaing.

There is reason the guy lost his home state.

 

He said "act humbly" in the third presidential debate.

Bush is a blatant liar. His famous "trifecta" joke is based on a speech he never gave.

 

http://www.sptimes.com/News/040601/Columns/Bush_s__humble__forei.shtml

 

That's quite a different statement than "We should act humblely on the international stage".

I am not sure what Bush's honesty has to do with anything I said. Unless you are just trying to identify yourself as one of those party sheep who only sees in two colors to save me from having to read your further posts.

 

Good job taking half the quote, Rush.

You questioned Gore's honesty. I questioned Bush's honesty.

 

Rush?

I have never voted for a Republican in anything other than a local election in my life. Al Gore isn't any better a person because Bush has problems.

If you would like to get nit picky about quoting perhaps you should include the question posed when quoting an answer from a debate. That would be proper form.

I saw the debates. Either way you want to interpret the quote it was made in the context of peacetime. With all that has changed I am not sure I want a leader shackled by a vague comment at a debate before he got elected.

Regardless of GW's problems, Gore's insincerity is of such grand proportions that he is the worst thing for American politics in a long time. One exmaple would be growing up in a family that owned tobacco farms, and giving a speech against about how the tobacco industry killed his sister, while at the time of the speech collecting profits from tobacco land he still owned. Not only is that knowingly insincere but it also hints at the fact that he was using his sisters death for political gains. That was the day I turned on Gore.

 

That's a fair point re: Gore and tobacco money.

I disagree, that his insincerity reaches grander proportions than Bush.

For reference see: Harken Energy, where Bush's actions then would be considered illegal under his very own guidelines in the wake of the Enron scandal.

That's just a start. I'll bring you some quotes in a bit.

 

This is the last time I let you draw me into the unfamiliar and awkward position of defending GW.

The Harken deal was legit. Bush checked ad nauseum with the company lawyers before he did it. It has been investigated twice.

If on one side of the scale you have

insincere rant about tobacco/using sister's death for personal gain

vs.

making a legal business transaction that was years later prohibited by a regulation, that you made a law, to prevent others' further abuse of their financial freedoms


I find the first horrific and the second understandable. Now, I don't have anything particularly nice to say about GW other than I think he gets a bad rap in the media on certain issues. I am not going to defend him anymore but just because a lot of the Republicans suck doesn't make every Democrat a saint. There are very few guys out there that don't through and through suck in all of politics.

 

He lied about that too. The letter he loved to wave from the SEC that he said cleared of wrongdoing specifically said that it was not meant to imply absence of wrongdoing

You and I disagree on this. I'm not going to defend Gore on this, because I think he was wrong, but since Bush is so keen to see the world in black & white, right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, how could he possibly condone signing a bill into law that would make his own previous conduct illegal?

They've been going remarkably easy on him lately. Guess they're all drinking the Kool-aid.

I agree with that. I just think it's a shame that a man who campaigned on bringing a new tone to Washington, campaigned on personal responsibility, campaigned on compassionate conservatism (remember when there would be enough money for both a tax cut and prescription benefits?), has fallen so woefully short on all counts.

 

What does Bush's polar view of things have to do with whether or not it is ethical to do something and later make that action illegal? You have got to get over your hang up about Bush and stop wildy swinging at already easy target. Also, it seems to be impairing your ability to discuss whether or not banning actions such as the Harken deal is ethical or honest for Bush.

I say it is. Bush isn't trying to prevent what he did, he is trying to prevent what Enron and others did. For example if you find out that people are using mouthwash to make a deadly illegal drug and there is another way to make mouthwash and you ban the critical ingredient in mouthwash, then you certainly aren't dishonest or unethical for having used mouthwash in the past.

What do you expect in the stagnant "damned if you do damned if you don't" 2 party system? Sure doesn't feel like freedom to choose. Its one choice away from having no choice at all.

 

1. It's honest, because the laws weren't in place when he did what he did. He clearly agrees with me that it's unethical because he signed the laws making it illegal

2. How about if you used cocaine in the past while pushing harder drug sentences for current cocaine users?