Why Al Gore Will Never Be President

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
I saw a bit of his speech on one of the regular propoganda channels and what an idiot he is. "Rule of law", yeah Big Al, what about PL 105-235 passed during your administration when you and Bubba did nothing about it?
 

jimmy

Drunkard
All,

While Gore is surely not the one I'd like delivering this message (and Ken, I do see his hypocracy), I think he's bringing up a good point about how much international support we had post-September 11 and how, at this point, we seem to be telling the world to "F-off" as we merely look out for our own interests.

Certainly international "rule of law" is a bit of an overstatement to say the least but his point about other countries taking a cue from us and acting unilaterally when they percieve a threat, is to be well taken.

How would we respond if suddenly, China up and says "well, Taiwan is really an issue of PRC concern and we're gonna attack and take it back because it's within our national interests whether we have international backing or not!" ? We'd suddenly find ourselves, most likely, in some sort of military conflict with the second most powerful nation on earth all for following the Bush Doctrine of International Policy.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by jimmy
All,

While Gore is surely not the one I'd like delivering this message (and Ken, I do see his hypocracy), I think he's bringing up a good point about how much international support we had post-September 11 and how, at this point, we seem to be telling the world to "F-off" as we merely look out for our own interests.

Certainly international "rule of law" is a bit of an overstatement to say the least but his point about other countries taking a cue from us and acting unilaterally when they percieve a threat, is to be well taken.

How would we respond if suddenly, China up and says "well, Taiwan is really an issue of PRC concern and we're gonna attack and take it back because it's within our national interests whether we have international backing or not!" ? We'd suddenly find ourselves, most likely, in some sort of military conflict with the second most powerful nation on earth all for following the Bush Doctrine of International Policy.
Are we telling the world that? Seems that by pressing the case before the UN as we are doing we are getting some support and not simply giving an ultimatum. Furthermore it is becoming obvious that Hussein has already started reneging on the inspections and Annan is a little pissed at him and has reiterated that the inspections will be unconditional. This will give us greater world support in this endeavor.

As to how we would respond IF China did as you suggest, who knows, it would be a mess, but the question is would China seek the consent of the UN prior to acting? Probably not and that is the major difference in how we are acting versus your scenario.
 

pixiegirl

Cleopatra Jones
Our best interest ends up being the best interest of most of the world. The good ol' US of A is the "big brother" of the rest of the world. If we fall to terrorism what happens to all the countries we give aid/support/protection to? Going to war w/ Iraq is not a completely selfish thing IMHO.
 

jimmy

Drunkard
Pixie/Ken,

Yeah I agree to an extent. I DO think that the US has more than just their own interests in mind in regards to the pressure on Iraq. Or, at least, that's the idea. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that our interests work out for MOST of the world (it all depends on whose side you're on) but we certainly look out for our allies and the like when it comes to security.

But convining the world of that---that this war with Iraq isn't selfish---should be of primary concern to a country in the position ours is in.

I'm glad we're going to the UN for support here but don't think Bush isn't doing this kicking and screaming on the inside; remember--this was NOT his original plan and he's made it clear that he's gonna act with or WITHOUT UN approval...I don't think his mindset has been changed.

And, Ken, China has wanted to do something about Taiwan for years, yet, have managed to exercise a degree of restraint. You think this has nothing to do with our allegiance w/Taiwan or international pressure?
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Originally posted by jimmy
.. And, Ken, China has wanted to do something about Taiwan for years, yet, have managed to exercise a degree of restraint. You think this has nothing to do with our allegiance w/Taiwan or international pressure?
When China feels they are our equal in military might... Lookout Taiwan!
 
J

justhangn

Guest
Originally posted by jimmy
Pixie/Ken,

Yeah I agree to an extent. I DO think that the US has more than just their own interests in mind in regards to the pressure on Iraq. Or, at least, that's the idea. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that our interests work out for MOST of the world (it all depends on whose side you're on) but we certainly look out for our allies and the like when it comes to security.

But convining the world of that---that this war with Iraq isn't selfish---should be of primary concern to a country in the position ours is in.

I'm glad we're going to the UN for support here but don't think Bush isn't doing this kicking and screaming on the inside; remember--this was NOT his original plan and he's made it clear that he's gonna act with or WITHOUT UN approval...I don't think his mindset has been changed.

And, Ken, China has wanted to do something about Taiwan for years, yet, have managed to exercise a degree of restraint. You think this has nothing to do with our allegiance w/Taiwan or international pressure?


Jimmy,

I think the biggest reason Bush is making these accusations toward the UN is because they have become nothing more than a figurehead. The UN made sanctions against Iraq in ’91, but have done NOTHING to enforce them. Bush is making them take a long look at themselves in hopes that they will get a clue.

As far as China and Taiwan go, you’re damn skippy they haven’t attacked because of Taiwan’s alliance with us. They are using tactics of intimidation to try and make Taiwan succumb to their demands.

Just my 2 cents worth.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by jimmy
You think this has nothing to do with our allegiance w/Taiwan or international pressure?
I think it has to do with trade deals and China desiring to become a player in the economics of the world. I think our desire to keep Taiwan out of their control is only a very small factor.
 

Frank

Chairman of the Board
China has neither the airpower to invade Taiwan, and it has a pitiful Navy - it can't win an invasion yet. BUT, they consider Taiwan a rebellious part of their own country, just as if Alaska, Hawaii or even Puerto Rico went its own way, and consider the matter an internal one. It has nothing to do with world opinion and restraint - it's ability to invade.

As far as the U.N. -- it's a big debating club with virtually no will to enforce its decisions. When you can't or won't back up what you say, you're useless, and the references to Manchuria, Abyssinia and so on were spot on.

I don't know if Bush is pissed or kicking and screaming at having to be polite to a bunch of U.N. delegates famous for sitting on their hands and doing nothing. It is a formality - if they won't act, we won't stand by and let our people get killed everywhere. They have become irrelevant. I'd say it's a courtesy that costs little, but in the end won't make any difference. If they don't have the will to back up their words, they're a debating club.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Looking at that speech in purely political terms, which you should as it was strictly a political speech, Gore did little more than reaffirm what voters didn't like about him in 2000. He should have come out supporting Bush and backing an attack on Iraq. That would have put him inline with the majority of voters in the US and most of Congress, and it would have shown some consistency with his views in 1998.

Instead he has once again shown himself to be a man who's utterly devoid of any personal convictions. When it was politically expedient for him to support action against Iraq in 1998, he was all for it. Now he thinks it's politically expedient for him to be against it, but he loses twice on this. First, most Americans support taking action and support Bush. He should have supported Bush and then bashed him if anything goes wrong. He also loses because he once again shows that he bends whichever way the political winds are blowing.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Just did my weekly check of the DNC's website and noticed something unusual. There's no mention of Gore to be found, and his speech isn't mentioned in the headlines. There's a mention of every time that Terry McAuliffe or any other prominant Democrat farts in public, but nothing about Gore's speech.

Very Interesting.
 

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
Originally posted by justhangn



Jimmy,

I think the biggest reason Bush is making these accusations toward the UN is because they have become nothing more than a figurehead. The UN made sanctions against Iraq in ’91, but have done NOTHING to enforce them. Bush is making them take a long look at themselves in hopes that they will get a clue.

As far as China and Taiwan go, you’re damn skippy they haven’t attacked because of Taiwan’s alliance with us. They are using tactics of intimidation to try and make Taiwan succumb to their demands.

Just my 2 cents worth.
:biggrin: You're darned right on the money, justhangn. Could not have said it any better! And at the moment,(the U.N. can and does change it's mind), opinion does seem to find favor with the U.S.

penncam
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Bruzilla brings up a great point. Notice that Gore made those comments in San Francisco? Curious what he'd have said in, say, Lincoln, NE. One of Gore's biggest problems is that he forgets that reporters actually print the things he says and it goes all over the country, if not the world. He's famous for making comments that play to the particular audience he's talking to, but that have no basis in fact.

He makes little comments ("I'm responsible for the development of the Internet" "I discovered Love Canal" "Tipper and I were the basis for 'Love Story'") that are completely untrue and easily disputed. He thinks nobody but his immediate audience will ever hear the comment, forgetting that everything he says gets printed in a newspaper.

:duh:
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
You gotta wonder who's pulling Gore's strings these days. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no original thoughts (think executing prenant women), so someone's feeding him this stuff. And since he's going 180 from his party's leadership, you have to wonder what the deal is. Is he trying to make Daschle, Gephardt, etc., look bad?
 

Oz

You're all F'in Mad...
I thought that the answer to the question "Why Al Gore will never be president?" is because he's Al Gore... Are you telling me there's more to it?
 

jimmy

Drunkard
One thing I find interesting is that you all seem to be chiding Gore for NOT siding with the president right now, as is in fitting with the majority opinon at this time. And, at the same time, you accuse him of politiking and cowtowing to what he thinks public opinion is.

So which is it? I see...you WANT him to play politics, just so long as he agrees with you...Ok, well, I can see why you all don't like him then.

Gore's messages, while ill-timed in my opinion and certainly political in nature, have been consistantly against BUSH'S war in Iraq and in opposition to the current administration. You all laud Bush when HE sticks to his guns, however unpopular, as a man of principle. Gore sends out a consistant message and you all lambast him for not siding with public opinion.

Jesus...I don't even LIKE Gore and you've all got me in here defending his tired, wooden ass...hope you're happy!!
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Admirable words Jimmy, but you seemed to have glossed over Gore's support for attacking Iraq back in 1998. Why did you do that? How can you see a man who is 100% behind a premise when he's in power, and 100% against it when someone else is in power, as a man of priciple? He's either for or against attacking Iraq, so was the 1998 Gore the real Al or is today's Gore the real Al? Enquiring minds want to know.

I think that if Gore wants a chance of being elected in 2004 he should have, for political purposes, supported Bush. I don't think that people would see that as a weakness, in fact, quite the opposite. I think people would have looked at Al as a noble figure who puts the nation's interests above his own. Instead, he does exactly the wrong thing and makes himself look like he's still the world's sorest loser. There's still plenty of issues for Gore to challenge Bush on, but on this issue he would have been better advised to be supportive. If the war goes well, give Bush some credit than attack him on domestic issues. If the war falters, attack Bush on handling the war poorly AND domestic issues.
 
Top