Thursday, October 13, 2005

Al Gore Gone Wild!

Al Gore was giving a talk in Sweden yesterday, and offered up some interesting comments about what would be different had he been elected.

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. H

e must have been referring to Iraq, because clearly Bosnia wouldn't apply. This is the same Al Gore who blamed Bush I for not finishing the job in Iraq back in 1991. Or is it the same Al Gore? I suppose it depends upon whether he's cheeking his medications again. Shortly after Bush II went after Iraq, I read a book written prior to that occasion that argued war was inevitable; it was written by a Middle East expert in the Clinton administration. He painted Gore and Albright as the Iraq hawks in the administration, trying to prod Clinton to pull the trigger and take out Saddam. Do you remember when they were seriously considering that? They had a town hall meeting in Ohio that was a disaster, with Albright taking the heat from the loony left, and the option was dropped like a hot potato. Yeah, foreign policy by town hall meeting ... were they serious?

"We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

This always cracks me up. Tax cuts, which favor the rich, who themselves receive no direct welfare payments from the government, and who bear an overwhelmingly dispropotionately high share of the total income tax burden per person even after the tax cuts, are equivalent to taking the money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Because it's the government's money, and therefore it should all go working families.

Do you remember in the 2000 election, when it was revealed that Al Gore had donated a couple hundred dollars in total to charity? He justified his paltry givings on the basis that it is a significant financial burden sending your children to Harvard. Kerry and Edwards were perhaps the richest presidential ticket in history, and these guys complain that the tax cuts are coming to them, as if they are therefore obliged to buy more yachts with the tax savings. Have these people ever heard of private charities? I'd venture to guess that most fabulously rich people are liberal Democrats - why do they live so lavishly? Is it that they don't care about poor people? I'd say so. It's more important that your kids go to Harvard.

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media."

I'll venture tow guesses as to what he might be alluding to here: poor Dan Rather, and the imprisoning of reporters who refused to testify in the Plame investigation. So, in the first instance, when a major news organization gets fed made up evidence that is clearly fraudulent, and people point this out, it amounts to control and intimidation. In the second instance, it turns out that the testimony of the two reporters in question could be damaging to a key aid of the President and a key aid of the Vice President. So the prosecutorial zeal in this case serves this administration in what way?

"We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said.

No, instead we'd just standby and watch that happen in other countries. Now this is a statement, over and above anything one could imagine him saying, that proves we made the right choice in 2000. His fragile ego apparently is so in need of being assuaged that he makes a gross, unfair, and despicable comment that can only steel the will of our enemies. We have punished those responsible for Abu Ghraib, and a bipartisan commission has said that the administration was not responsible, and yet Al Gore wants to pretend and give credence to the notion that we are running our own version of the Gulags. And he makes in Sweden, where he knows he might be thanked with a Nobel Prize, following the equally despicable example of Carter. I have very few good things to say about Clinton, as most of you know, but even in his criticisms of the administration, he's expressed opinions that I don't share, but not in a way that equates us unfairly with who and what we're fighting. Gore should be ashamed of himself, and we should all breathe a sigh of relief that he's reduced to pandering to a bunch of Northern European socialists.

11 Comments:

Anonymous Jim O said...

It kinda surprises me that you would bother analyzing what he said - as far as I can tell, he is out of Presidential politics forever, having lost to GWB in what should have been (to me, at least) a cakewalk.
He has shown himself to be less than visionary, with his campaign based on locking things in boxes.
In my opinion, anything he says is grandstanding in an attempt to get back into the spotlight. But nowadays, politics is one of the few areas where second chances are extremely rare, so he is relegated to the dustbin of history.
What does Barack Obama have to say? Or any of the not-brain-damaged democrats? What does John McCain have to say? He's a little intense, but he seems to be relatively moderate.
Who cares what an ex-Vice-President with the personality of a wet cardboard box has to say about anything? He had his shot to speak during his campaign, and decided to keep quiet. He can keep on keeping quiet now - he doesn't matter.

9:54 AM  
Blogger Incredible Dirigible said...

Agreed. He doesn't matter anymore.

He used to be an environmentalist wacko. Now he's just a wacko.

I mean, it's good that Hatch points out the comments made by the man the Left nearly succeeded in electing President. As if to say, "Ladies & gentleman, this is the output of the man you almost elected President! Here's your boy! Got anyone else you wanna elect to lead the free world??"

Too bad he didn't show his true colors like that during the 2000 campaign...if he did, it might not've taken a month to pick the winner!

11:25 AM  
Blogger pbryon said...

When in doubt for a topic, you can always break out the Gore punching bag. Gore appears to be the Quayle or Gingrich of the other side. Though Al certainly helps with his comments these days.

Has anyone seen his TV channel (Current TV)? I don't have digital cable or the dish...

12:18 PM  
Blogger Pulvarizer said...

All right, Hatcher, you asked for it. I'm as mad at Al Gore and John Kerry for being such weak contenders as I am at Dubba-yah for being such a boob of a president, but you want to talk about saying one thing and doing another? Here's a partial list of Dubba-yah's more important flip flops.

#1 - From "Osama you so bad," to "Osama who?"
"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" 9/17/01 *** "I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." 3/13/02. Bush should be run out of office just for this one!!!!

#2 - The gays are OK, to "No WAY!"
"The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on gay marriage, "Larry King Live," 2/15/00] *** "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [Bush, 2/24/04]

#3 - From "Nation buidling is for chumps," to "Here Iraq, boy Iraq is a dump, let's the US rebuild it for you." "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00] *** "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

#4 - From "Builder of peace and democracy," to "What a hypocracy." President Bush delivered an unapologetic defense of his decision to invade Iraq, telling the United Nations Tuesday that his decision “helped to deliver the Iraqi people from an outlaw dictator.” 9/21/04 *** Bush lifted not a finger to help the suffering people in Sudan oppose murdering militias supported by the government, where tens of thousands died, and millions are not displaced.

#5 Gas Prices - From "I'm from Texas, where gas is cheap," to "$3 bucks a gallon seems reasonable to me." Bush was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of “the administration that's been in charge” while the “price of gasoline has gone steadily upward.” In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton “must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”

As gas topped a record level of $60 a barrel, Mr. Bush has shown no propensity to personally pressure, or “jawbone,” Mideast oil producers to increase output.


Yeah, Al Gore is an idiot, but he's not the idiot that got elected.

12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really liked Hatch's posting this time. Gore is a boob. His big issue has always been the Koyoto Proticals. It doesn't take a Phd to know that giving the third world the power to limit our Co2 emissions is an economic disater.

I do think Hatch should give him a break. He is has been hack that has delevoped a destructive Chartreuse habit. That's the only acceptible excuse I can think of for his stupid, innane ramblings.

I also agreed with Pulvarizer's post. Bush was clearly a better choice for this country than Kerry or Gore. With that said, what bothers me is his seemless ability to flip flop and deficit spend. Does anyone know it those European Monks that make Chartreuse have been making deliveries to the White House?

4:40 AM  
Anonymous Jim O said...

Oh, good lord!!

Who would have thought that commenters and an author of a Blogger site would have uncovered such a huge conspiracy?

The New World Order, in conjunction with the Tri-Lateral Commision, the Masons, and Christian monks of an order I forget at the moment have banded together to take over the world, through the increased production, promotion, and unconsented application of Chartreuse!!

Things started to get really whacky RIGHT AROUND THE TIME HATCHER WAS INTRODUCED TO CHARTREUSE, supposedly by a "friend" (operative) who enticed him by saying something along the lines of "Hey, you gotta try this."

What are the odds that EVERY MAJOR POLITICAL FIGURE FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS HAS HAD A SIMILAR "FRIEND" INTRODUCE THEM TO A PARTICULAR YELLOW-GREEN HERBAL-INFUSED LIQUER?

This...This is the smoking gun we've all been looking for...

6:02 AM  
Blogger Pulvarizer said...

Whoa, whoa, WHOOAAA Anonymous, I still think Kerry, with all his short comings, would have been mildly better. I mean, the guy has great hair at a minimum, and likes to ski and wind surf in his spare time. Bush likes to cut out stumps on a ranch in the middle of no-wheres-ville for fun. Bush is an absolute disaster of a president in my mind. History will not be kind to him.

6:40 AM  
Blogger Hatcher said...

How history treats him will depend exclusively upon what Iraq looks like in ten years. It is likely that other nations in the middle east will be similar, for better or for worse. I think it is too early to tell. But in the end, if he gets through his term without another terrorist attack, no one can argue that he hasn't protected the country adquately. Recall September 12th - where would you have placed the odds that we'd go this long without any successful attack on US soil?

6:45 AM  
Blogger Pulvarizer said...

Well Hatcher, you, and the gang of Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Pearle better not hold your breath for a truly reformed and democratic Iraq, because democracies don't form well in such a religiously divided environment. Democracy depends on a willingness to accept opposing views, and some form of concensus (The Federalist Papers and opposing views held therein are a prime example.) Iraq won't be able to foster that type of political environment, the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds are too pitted against each other, and it will take more than 10 years to heal that wound. Britain, France, and the US were composed of fairly homogenous cultures/religions when their democracies were formed. When we forced democracy on Japan/South Korea, same thing, a homogenous society of similar religious backgrounds. Not true in Iraq, or across many Middle East nations. As an opposing example, take Pakistan/India and their fight over Kashmir, large populations of opposing cultures/religions creates instability. A truly stable and democratic Iraq that will one day thank us for invading in 2002 is a pipe dream, but I have a feeling 10 years from now neo-cons will still be saying, "Give it another 10 years, these things take time." Boy, I wish I could use that excuse for my failures.

Ultimately, the neo-con theory that we can forcefully export democracy will be put next to the failed Domino theory of the Cold War (both of which have remarkable similarities, which the neo-cons fail to recognize.) The U.S. #1 goal is to promote STABILITY, not democracy (Realpolitik). If we can help nuture democracies along the way, great, but forcing it down a society that isn't suited for it, nor asked for it, is destined for failure. The post 9/11 world has changed the focus, but NOT the fundamental calculus of world politics. Let's talk again in 10 years.

9:56 AM  
Blogger Bill Clinton said...

HAR HAR

Gore has a blog! Funny stuff!

12:06 AM  
Blogger Professor Vic said...

My only two comments would be that as of October 17, 2005, there are 1,976 differences between Bush's invasion of Iraq and Clinton's (can we even call it an invasion) of Bosnia and Kosovo.

Second, according to the polls, most Americans wish someone else were President right now. Now whether that mean they would be happier right now with President Gore is a different issue, but the last poll I saw was 39% approve and 58% disapprove. In most elections they call any margin greater than 40-60 a landslide.

Again, it is entirely possible that President Kerry or President Gore would be mired in equally poor poll numbers, but it's hard not to argue that there are a lot of folks out there with voter's remorse (or non-voter's or Nader voter's remorse).

6:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

email:
powered by
NotifyList.com