Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGore Blasts Bush in 'The Assault on Reason'
When former Vice President Al Gore hosted "Saturday Night Live" in December 2002 he appeared in a skit that compared his vice presidential selection process from two years before to the dating reality TV show "The Bachelor." In one scene Gore appeared in a hot tub with a faux Joe Lieberman, both of them shirtless, drinking champagne, arms locked, romance in the air.
Anyone then looking for clues to see if Gore would run for president in 2004 probably had no trouble discerning that an exploratory committee was not in the cards.Almost five years later, Gore still says he has no plans to run for president, but his latest book, "The Assault On Reason," is so searingly critical of the Bush administration it's hard to discern what his plans may be.
On the one hand, Gore has written an un-nostalgic look back at the previous six years that lays out his case as to how the world might look today had the chads fallen another way -- a world where U.S. troops would not be fighting in Iraq, Abu Ghraib would just be a town's name and the nation would have been better prepared for Hurricane Katrina, global warming, and, yes, perhaps even Sept. 11.
But on the other hand, "The Assault On Reason" is an assault on President Bush, 308 pages of professorially rendered, liberal red meat that shuns the cautious language employed by any politician standing to the right of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and the left of Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
Gore: 'I'm Not a Candidate'
"I'm not a candidate and this is not a political book, this is not a candidate book," Gore told Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America" Monday. "It's about that there are cracks in the foundation of American democracy that have to be fixed."
In the book, Gore is accusatory, passionate, and angry. He begins discussing the president by accusing him of sharing President Richard Nixon's unprincipled hunger for power -- and the book proceeds to get less complimentary from there. While Gore stops short of flatly calling for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, he certainly gives the impression that in his view such a move would be well deserved. He calls the president a lawbreaker, a liar and a man with the blood of thousands of innocent lives on his hands.
Most of Gore's ire stems from, not surprisingly, the war in Iraq, a war that Gore opposed from the beginning. Bush, he writes, "has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack because of his arrogance and willfulness."
"History will surely judge America's decision to invade and occupy (Iraq)&as a decision that was not only tragic but absurd," Gore writes.
The Democratic Conversation
"The Assault On Reason" begins as an academic discourse about the one-sided, corporate-controlled television medium with no interactivity.
Gore argues that television not only creates a dynamic that runs contrary to Thomas Jefferson's desire for a "well-informed citizenry" but lulls viewers in a partially immobilized state and allows unreasoned communicators to sell false bills of goods, such as, say, that there was a connection between the Sept. 11 hijackers and Saddam Hussein.
As an example of the failed democratic conversation, Gore said Monday that prior to the war in Iraq, "if we had a full debate and a full airing of the pros and cons of the invasion that brought out the fact that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us on 9/11 then we would have been much less likely to have these troops trapped over there now in the midst of a civil war."
Sept. 11, Iraq and al Qaeda
But in the book Gore sheds his inner Marshall McLuhan for his inner Michael Moore, saying that if "Bush and Cheney actually believed in the linkage (between Iraq and al Qaeda) that they asserted -- in spite of all the evidence to the contrary presented to them contemporaneously -- that would by itself in light of the available evidence, make them genuinely unfit to lead our nation. On the other hand, if they knew the truth and lied, massively and repeatedly, isn't that worse? Are they too gullible or too dishonest?"
(Gore said Monday that the 2006 midterm successes of the Democrats were not an example of democracy's conversation failing, but "a belated response to some of the perceived mistakes of the current administration. But I think the threshold for change was way too high.")
Gore writes that since "Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack&then that means the president took us to war when he didn't have to and that over 3,000 American service members have been killed&unnecessarily."
When asked if that meant U.S. troops had died in vain, Gore said Monday that "those who serve our country are honored in memory" but that the issue is "there is hardly anybody left in America&who doesn't believe that it was a terrible mistake to invade a country that didn't attack us. But all of the evidence necessary to make that judgment before we invaded was available&We have been making a series of really important, really big mistakes, and the question is how can we reinvigorate the role of 'We the People' in American democracy so that we're part of the conversation and so that those (in power)&are listening to reason, are looking at the facts and not brushing past them."
It seems likely that even if Gore opts not to run for president in 2008, this book may serve to drive presidential candidates, including Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former Sen. John Edwards, even further to the left, both in rhetoric and substance. The former Tennessee congressman and senator accuses his former colleagues on Capitol Hill of complicity with what he sees as nefarious deeds committed by the Bush administration. The book opens with Gore wondering why Senate Democrats were so silent during the debate before going to war in Iraq and toward the end faults them for being so silent about the administration's warrantless surveillance program.
Naming Names
He doesn't assail any Democrats by name. Bush, however, he names. Over and over.
"President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years," Gore charges, regarding the warrantless surveillance program. He argues that the president does not need the enhanced domestic surveillance powers he has sought and received, often in secret, but that the competent use of the information already available would have been sufficient. Such as, for instance, the fact that Sept. 11 terrorists Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar were already on a State Department/INS watch list.
He does not flatly state that Sept. 11 would not have occurred during a Gore administration. But, he writes, "Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable, it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes."
Then, using a study from the Markle Foundation, Gore shows how better and quicker analysis -- not the increased data sought by the Bush administration -- would have led to other hijackers. Salem Alhazmi, then Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi. And so on.
But instead, Gore writes, incompetence rules the day and Bush has pushed for Orwellian powers a la "1984."
What might cause some to speculate that Gore isn't ruling out a third White House run (he also campaigned as a centrist "New Democrat" in 1988) is the cautious wording he uses about two claims against the administration, sensitive ones regarding Bush's religious views and whether or not the war in Iraq was a war for oil. Gore raises them, but even among his many incendiary charges, doesn't claim them as his own.
Gore's Charge to the Nation
As for what now? Gore says the nation, indeed the world, is at a fork in the road. Gore calls for the United States to rejoin the international community and lead the war on crises involving global warming, water, terrorism and pandemics such as HIV/AIDS. He calls for a repeal of the Patriot Act, and for the Bush administration to disclose all of its interrogation policies. He wants more transparency in political TV commercials and an expediting of the shift from television toward the Internet as a method of communication.
Gore told ABC News Monday he's focused not on running for president but on solving the climate crisis, but "in order to solve the climate crisis, I'm convinced that we're going to have to address these cracks in the foundation of democracy, these basic problems with the way we're approaching decision-making."
After Random House published 200,000 copies of "Putting People First: How We Can All Change America" -- the soporific campaign tome purportedly written by then-Gov. Bill Clinton and then-Sen. Al Gore -- the ill-fated re-election campaign of then-President George H.W. Bush filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. Republicans alleged that the book deal constituted an illegal corporate contribution to the Democratic ticket, which didn't directly profit financially from the book though the publicity certainly didn't hurt. How quaint that book must now seem to those Republicans.
Click here to read an excerpt from "Assault on Reason."
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures
68 Comments so far
Show AllGOOD BOOK, GOOD MAN FOR THE COUNTRY. I HOPE HE WINS THE NOBEL PRIZE. THAT WOULD REALLY ANGER THE REPUBLICANS.
Gore/Nader, Gore/Gravel or Gore/Kucinich on the Green Party ticket!
Hi kivals,
Thanks for your response. Before signing off I'll say that I believe that some of what is needed is an extended definition of what it means to be a sociopath. (Even in obvious cases and in long term psychotherapy, the prognosis for these people is quite poor. Yet, some lucky and hardworking individuals actually do move beyond this cold, cynical state of being --- and learn to re-inhabit their caring hearts).
I'd guess the same will be true of some folks who today would be called the "ruling elite." As Peck has said, if a human being's mysterious "will to growth" can be activated, then healing and positive change are certainly possible. And, it's Alot of work and not very comfortable work at that. So, a person has to "want it," badly.
As far as addictions (and "character defects") go, AA has shown quite clearly, that in most cases this can only happen after a human being has truly hit "their bottom."
Anyway, all this gets to the huge topic of how a much more evolved/compassionate society would deal with individuals whose hearts have been so broken in early life that conscience and empathic feeling seem to have gone on permanent vacation...and have been replaced by what is left to compensate: profound and utterable inner emptiness, apparently filled by an overwhelming "will to power."
As far as your vision of "unlimited conflict" goes, I would say buckle up! The next 40 years are looking to be a highly dramatic roller coaster ride. Nonviolence (in thought and deed) will be key for any of us who hope to spiritually survive and enjoy the ride!
But no surprise here. Birth ain't hardly ever comfortable or easy. And life on our fragile homeland Earth ain't for sissies!
I just read this entire thread...wow!
There are several opinions that I would have to agree with. Unfortunately, I agree that there are a great deal of people who support Bush and his mindset.
I agree that there is a higher spiritual change taking place in the world. I believe there are people who feel threatened by this change; so much so that I believe Gore could be seen as a threat and I believe he is aware of it.
I believe the thing people need to do is keep striving to perfect one's life, beautify all things in one's life and love one's life. I believe one needs to make the purpose of life serving one another.
We know that abuse of any sort robs the spirit of it's freedom and vision. We need to keep on keeping on being a positive example in order to reach out to those who have not yet awakened.
What I learned in this thread is what a "scumbag" is. I have heard the term used quite a great deal but clearly never understood what the term referred to. I giggled to myself when I read it.
PowerofLove,
I am probably being an unrealistic dreamer here, but I do hope that you are mistaken about the future actions of the elites and that many of them do merge with the group, possibly through the Internet, as they are lured into the interaction through the promise of anonymity and minimal risk. If that happens, then their interests would merge with the interests of the large group and when they act in their own interests they will also be acting in the interests of the larger group, the human race.
I think your "new humans" could develop a more harmonious society, but it seems that the elites would have to become "new humans" too or there would still be the possibility of unlimited conflict.
So, like it or not, the simple reality seems to be that it's, "Grow or Die Time." So, let's get on with the stretchin.'
It's clear that Nature has its seasons and cycles. Is it so hard to believe that humanity, and the cosmos as a Whole are embedded in cycles? The elites will become irrelevant should a deeper, more expansive consciousness prevail.
While the internet is a positive factor in all this, I would guess that the elites will do everything in their power to hold off the implications of the radical expansion of human consciousness already underway. For example, they already have --- think, "Oil companies vs. Global warming" as Gore has shown with great clarity in his movie.
If you are concerned that the elites are themselves moving toward a neo-fascist approach to the future, check out the books I mentioned in my first response to Tapper's blog (this one) "Gore blasts Bush" above.
Anyway, as I see it "group consciousness" can only be as conscious as the people who make it up. (think: lynch mobs). So, it's up to each one of us to do our inner growth work. Then we'll see if our joint awareness can reach "a critical mass" in time to transform our troubled world --- in the direction of Love.
the very best thing that al gore could do for democracy in the u.s is to spearhead a drive for the appropiate immediate IMPEACHMENT of george bush and darth cheney.
THIS IS ENTIRELY FEASABLE, ESP WITH OVER 80% OF THE POPULATION IN SUPPORT OF IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT.
AS LONG AS NO ONE PAYS A PRICE FOR TRASHING THE CONSTITUITION, ABROGATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND LYING FOR NEFARIOUS MYSTERIOUS REASONS TO PROMOTE AN UNJUST WAR, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER IN LINE TO DO THE SAME THING.. LEADING US DOWN THE FAITH STREWN SLOPE TO FASCISM.. IS THIS WHAT WE WANT ??
SOMETIMES I AM AFRAID THAT WE ARE ALL WILLING TO SACRIFICE OUR LIBERTY JUST AS LONG AS WE GET A LOOK SMART, GOD SUPPORTED, FEEL NOTHING MESSAGE, BROUGHT TO US BY THE SAME ONES THAT ARE LINING THIER POCKETS ON THE MISERY OF OTHERS.
BESIDES IF GORE WERE TO LEAD A SERIOUS EFFORT TO IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY HE COULD ACCOMPLISH TWO THINGS. ONE. RE ALIGN THE NATIONAL DEBATE TO WHERE IT OUGHT TO BE, THUS BRINGING IN THE MEDIA TO MAKE AMENDS FOR SUPPORTING THE,WARBY SUPPORTING THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
TWO; PUT IN THE WHITE HOUSE THE ONLY WOMAN WHO HAS A SHOT A BEING A PRESIDENT IN THIS DECADE ,NANCY PELOSI
ALSO HE COULD MAYBE SAVE THE DEMOCRAT PARTY A NUMBING DEFEAT IN 08
WHICH WOULD PUT ANOTHER BAD REPUBLICAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE, THEREFOR SAVING THE COUNTRY AND PUTTING IT ON A TRACK TO MOVE AWAY FROM REACTIONARY POLICIES WE STILL HAVE THE STUFF TO DO GOOD IN THE WORLD BUT BUSH AND CHENEY NEED TO PAY A PRICE FOR THIER LIES INCOMPETANCE AND HIGH CRIMES [YES HIGH CRIMES] AND MISDEMEANOURS
LET'S START A REAL DISCUSSION
kivals,
I have to disagree with your comments. I do not think the elites now or in any conceivable future will have any desire to interact or even entertain, alternative points of view. Those actions would not be in their interests. And one thing we know is that self-interest, self-centeredness, selfishness (call it by any name) is their prevailing paradigm.
Instead, I was suggesting that humans - as we know ourselves today, will - quite soon - either evolve to a higher level of awareness and living our lives...or we may well kill ourselves off. As an example: although it is being given no air time by the media, the U. S. alone is hard at work developing bio-pathogens. What if....?? In other words, DUH!
On the plus side there are already a significant number of people consciously working on transcending attachment = the "I, me, mine; I, me, mine; I, me, mine" factor --- as George Harrison once put it.
By definition the "new human" would be characterized by the capacity to synthesize a keenly discerning awareness with an open, caring, compassionate heart. Yes, love often hurts. But if we are unwilling to experience other's suffering as our own, and seek to relieve it, we may as well throw in the towel now.
Visionaries such as Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), Gandhi, and Dr. King were very clear on this.
CRNA26,
I have never watched any Spiderman movies (I am a middle-aged attorney not into childish fantasies), but try a search of the Internet using search terms of "merge" and "brain" and "electronic devices" or similar searches and see what you get. There are some serious researchers doing work in this area. I find it frightening.
With regard to interactive communication between individuals on the Internet or in any setting allowing for the interchange of information, the brains involved could be represented as nodes in a circuit, or a sort of feedback loop, with energy coming from one set of neurons in one brain into the set of neurons within another brain, and that one sending energy back, just as neurons within a brain can communicate by sending energy back and forth to each other and setting up internal feedback loops. And I would think that the feedback process would work much more efficiently with similar brains, e.g. both brains are human.
Very cerebral comments. Merging brains with electronic devices? Forgive me but that semms like out of the movie Spiderman?
As for transending thoughts through the internet. I think the full extent of blogs on society is still not proven but it is pleasant to imagine semi respectfully exchanging thoughts but don't confuse blogs with personal familiarity. Your mama told you that. I do think our neurons do share pathways as with most living creatures. Sharing personal thought certainly is better than coercing thought.
PowerofLove,
I think I understand what you are getting at to some extent. To me, every time we communicate with others, especially with other human beings who have similar neuronal structures and similar models of the universe in their brains, we create a sort of group consciousness, consisting of a sort of circuit involving more than one brain, usually a positive feedback loop of some kind.
And, over time, as we communicate with these elites, possibly through the Internet, we make them part of these group circuits, part of this group consciousness, and their interests and values merge with ours, and then they will have goals compatible with ours. But that will require them to interact with us.
And it would be critical that we succeed in developing such interaction before they engage in some sort of genetic engineering to separate themselves or their children from the rest of the human race, and before they try to merge their brains with electronic devices, such as those that could be implanted in the brain to improve or supplement brain function. Once they do that, they will be fundamentally different and it will be that much harder to interact in a way to form some sort of group consciousness with group values and interests.
I surrender.
(Praise the Lord for moments when computers hold on to data!)
OK, here's the rest from above:
That is, I try to see the right>
"That is, I try to see the right>
Oops, lost some of the above. I'll see what I can do...
Hello, kivals, and thanks for your response. Very much agree with you. I can just add a few things that I see as relevant.
The social reality of "elites" appears to have been around since humanity created city-states, standing armies, slaves, and top-down bureaucracies to manage all this. That is, aristocracies have run the show for approximately the last 5,000; recall the "divine-kings" etc.
(non sequitur of the moment: I loved the very raunchy comedy movie titled The Aristocrats).
Anyway, from a deeper perspective this nano-second in historical time appears to be a pivot-point.
Now before I go on I want to say that when it comes to classifying where I might fall on the political spectrum - although some of my thoughts might be considered "on the left side" of the line - in other ways I make an attempt to stay below the line. That is, I try to see the right>
Gore is a threat to the military/industrial/congressional complex/establishment in the US; in the same way Robert Kennedy was in 1968. A major change in the US will most probably only occur through revolutionary upheaval. RFK was a threat to these forces in 1968 and was consequently assassinated. When RFK went to West Virginia addressing the needs of the underclass and his opposition to what was transpiring in South East Asia; thereby trying to awake average Jo-american from an ignorant sleep; a sizable number of individuals in the above mentioned establishment most probably decided that RFK had to go.... Now, Gore is a threat to this same cabal and knows of course about the risks involved if he would run.
Any rational person in the country - indeed, in the world - knows that people in the Bush administration, along with the many neoconservatives and neofascists who support them, have have long been engaged in a no-holds-barred war against reason and democratic principles. To a large extent, most Americans have remained silent and allowed those criminals to have their way, almost without opposition. That so few people to date have spoken out against this devastation is stunning. Give Al Gore (and Jimmy Carter)the credit they deserve for calling our attention once again to the obvious.
Since, raising animals for food has a higher environmental footprint than plants/grains, does anyone know if Al Gore has gone vegetarian or vegan? If so, it would indicate that he his willing to make a personal change in his lifestyle to address the issue of global climate change.
Those of you who place such faith in any politician, including Al Gore, to save us from our current mess are sadly deluded. I give Gore credit for having grown in wisdom since 2000, having grown enormously since 1988. But if he runs as a Democrat, his handlers will restrict his rhetoric to that narrow, centrist path to get elected, and once he's elected, only a mandate as huge as FDR's in 1932 would allow him to govern effectively from a progressive posture.
Only an uprising of the people can rescue the nation and world from this continuing disaster--through democratic means if possible (I certainly hope so!), through less peaceful means if necessary.
I hope that when he was taking Senate Democrats to task he remembered Byrd from West Virginia. No one showed more courage (and probably no Dem showed less than Hillary, Kerry and Edwards).
Gore didn't pull punches in his speeches before or since the invasion. He has one more speech to make -- announcing he's running. NOW. Not only would I vote for him -- as should everyone who opposed the war -- I would work for him.
ThoughtShaman,
I do not believe there is any chance that Limbaugh and Coulter believe much of what they say. They are the paid sophists for the low-brow Republicans, while economists like Friedman have been the paid sophists for the middle-brow Republicans.
And I doubt that since the beginning of the Reagan era have many Republican politicians in Washington believed their own rhetoric. The Reagan gang began the practice of concocting nonsensical rhetoric for the low brows and superficially reasonable economic sophistry, such as that of Friedman, for the middle brows, while winking at the wealthy elite high brow Republicans that they would actually be working for. And the Bush criminal gang has taken that to new extremes.
Ron Paul, one of the few sincere (though misguided on domestic policy issues) Republican politicians left, actually put a scare into the rightwing sophists the other night. Giuliani had to immediately respond to Paul's little episode of truth telling about 9/11 at the Republican debate with a rant meant only for the lowest of the low brows. And of course Fox News, which caters to the lowest of the low brows, did all it could to validate Giuliani's response.
Prophet, do you think that any right wingers are reading this discussion?
It behooves the elite to keep control of the planet's resources and control the masses.
Capitalism in its present form and the lifestyle its adherents push is unsustainable in terms of resources. Capitalistic forces push the american lifestyle as the standard. At the current level of consumption, our planet can sustain only about 2 billion people.
As long as a few elites continue to be able to sell the "vision of riches" to the majority of the people, they will continue to accumulate wealth (resources) and power (control over others). As long as the majority of the people buy the idea that they too can be "rich" and "powerful" they will continue to be squeezed.
Even the rhetoric about wealth is designed to mislead. For instance, republocrats talking about lowering taxes so that "people can have more of their *own* money." It is never "my" or "your" money. The money one gets is what the system *allows* one to have. Repeat, the money one gets its what the system allows one to have.
The current state of big money politics is a direct result of the selling and buying of the pipe dream economics designed and manipulated by a small group of elites. Diverting attention to irrelevant social issues such as abortion and homosexuality further solidifies the control of elite.
I do not think that people like Limbaugh, Coulter, and other right wing pundits believe most of the nonsense they spew. They are, quite simply, the spokespeople for the elite.
Tell me the truth Red Staters, you never even read the book
because you were high on Hate Radio, cheerleading death and destruction of non-Christian "Sand Niggers" and couldn't stop drinking your Kool-Aid long enough to learn how to read in night school.
People like you should be air dropped into an Iraq, naked.
Bush was coronated by rednecks and psychobillies who have nothing to offer
America but hatred, intolerence and fascism.
Isn't it a bitch that the best man for the job starting in '08 chooses not to run. Of course he has that right for whatever reason. Still, to me, it is just another in a list of bad breaks for this country, and maybe the one that will signal the failure for the U.S. and the world to recover from the damage that has been visited on us for the last two terms
PowerofLove,
The problem is that a few powerful elites, including those controlling the Republican Party (such as those running the major oil and defense companies) are playing the game in such a way that they benefit while most Americans and the human race as a whole becomes worse off. They would rather have a situation where they have a quality of life of, say, 12 (picking a number randomly), with the rest of us having a quality of life of 2, instead of a situation where they have a quality of life of 11 and we have a quality of life of 10. It is up to us to make them pay a penalty for that choice.
We need to remember that when others accumulate great wealth they also accumulate great power and it is not only possible but likely that they will use that power to improve their position at our expense. We need to force the elites to have the same interests we do, and that will never happen as long as the elites have so much more wealth and power than the rest of us.
5/22 2:25 am (cont)
A number of massive "adversity factors" are being predicted to bear fruit at approximately the same time. These include: the results of global climate change (which would include the spread of infectious diseases and financial/ political upheaval); world population growth, mass extinction of species; extraordinary depletion of natural resources (such as the current hotly debated phenomenon known as "peak oil").
Around the world people will be faced with a question that, when George Bush asked it, I thought was both ignorant and highly destructive: "You're either for or against us." Only now the "us" will involve our entire species…and the question will be both wise and essential..
As Elgin writes:
"If the human family drifts into the future half-awake, then we are assured of a future with immense hardship and suffering for ourselves and our children. Because our power to devastate our planet has become so great, the process of evolution must now become conscious of itself.
"It is imperative that we begin to deliberately choose our pathway into the future as a human family. If we do not muster the will and creativity to choose our future more consciously, we will become one of the unfortunate "cosmic seeds" that has taken root, but is so crippled by self-destructive actions that it never flowers into the fullness of its potential."
Al Gore, whatever he decides to do politically, is just one of a growing number of people putting out the call for us to Wake Up and Grow Up. To drop the denial game, and face the reality that we urgently need to relinquish many of our childish, dysfunctional, ways of thinking and behaving. The clock is ticking… what with the aristo-pluto-kleptocrats beginning to feel the heat, proto-fascist measures already being put in place, and our own technology leaping far ahead of both our insight and our social/moral courage.
Thom Hartmann's "We the People," offers other profound reminders of what is at stake...and what is possible – both positive and drearily negative futures. Mike Ruppert's book, "Crossing the Rubicon," (should its analysis prove accurate, and the facts finally surface in the public domain) may turn out to be a critical link in motivating the kinds of serious political change that seem so necessary.
But are we, as a people, ready, willing, and able to become humble enough to admit our cherished follies, to let them go with a bittersweet smile, and to mature?
dear iolellefyt if that's your real name
what do you mean by pathetic - sympathetic, empathetic, i dont get it - i do however get that you have misread just about the entirety of the comment on which you are commenting - no one is for the draft and everyone is welcome to express hier or his opinion on this website - so why not quit calling people scumbags which by the way in case you didnt learn in grammar school means used condom. just so you know.
Enjoying this very lively exchange! Thanks to everyone for your passion.
It is my sense that the earliest days of the Republic were like this, with the distribution of radical pamphlets, deeply moral, courageous folks like Thomas Paine writing them, and citizens all across the 13 states debating ideas on the streets and in town meetings.
I'd like to put in a word for dispassion as well, which I see as a stance that brings together passionate involvement, detached awareness and a deep compassion based in the human heart.
A person cultivating this sort of thoughtful awareness is motivated above all by a desire to "see things clearly" --- whether or not these realities challenge ideas to which I've gotten attached. Gandhi suggested this way of being in his statement, "Truth is God." Now that's deep!
In my opinion we desperately need people who are willing to speak their truth - loudly, clearly, and with respect. That is, with an ongoing sense that, as smart as they think they are: They Could Be Wrong! And, that our "opponent" may have something Very Valuable to contribute. Easier said than done, I realize.
OK, with this said, my own view is that there is a stirring beginning to bubble up from deep within the human species. Deep down, perhaps still unconsciously for many, is a growing sense that in fact: nothing less than our species' survival is at stake. This is not histrionics or drama. It appears to be as real as the ground we are standing upon. That's right: Bye Bye --- Homo Sapiens Sapiens ---(nothing in particular to do with being gay here! Our species has named itself "the human who is 'doubly wise'").
A great many scholars from many disciplines are beginning to realize the same thing: that we humans are speeding our way towards an "evolutionary wall;" that we are on an inescapable collision course with Nature… and with our own nature. Elgin in his book "Promise Ahead" has argued that by 2020 at the latest, humanity, as a whole will be "up against the wall."
The draft has no place in a free society, and the military has no place in a humane one; period. The military is a disgusting, pathetic institution that deserves to be spit upon and then banished to the annals of history forever. If your generation can't see that, and wishes to kill, enslave, and steal freedom of choice from the male youth of today, then that is where you belong to; certainly not on this website when you agree with that scumbag mcain about reinstating the draft.
"The draft was inhumane, and ending it was a great thing. You are scum if you willingly allow yourself to be turned into a disgusting killing machine."
I will reciprocate with infinitely more politeness than you displayed toward Windward.
I'll accept your call of inhumane which means of course that a volunteer army is humane or compassionate.Is it compassionate for military recruiters to set up shop and sell their snake-oil in the poorest neighbourhoods in the country? Is it compassionate for those recruiters to EXPLAIN in glowing terms the lofty role of American military to 11-yr.-olds and above ( 6th. graders )?
Is it compassionate for the Pentagon to demand 2nd.,3rd.,4th.,...deployment for the same soldier when the recruitment lines are dwindling?
Why do you think that the draft has NOT been reinstated ? With a volunteer army at present there are less than one hundred war registers in Canada . In 1972 there were in Canada alone an estimated 50,000 American draught-dodgers or deserters.
I personally helped some of them , then and now.The Canadian gov't officially welcomed them in 1972. Our present PM,a poodle like Blair would send them home.
The draft does not create killers as you say any more than smooth-talking recruiters create killers but apart from five deferrments, it does level the playing field.
If the draught was to be reinstated tomorrow there would be one mad rush for the Canadian border that would make the 1972 rush look like a trickle .
Well, there is one good thing about Bush. He has helped to improve the image of Richard Nixon. Nixon was the most hated president, and Bush has exceeded that honor exponentially. Way to go, President Gore; yes, you did win in 2000. We could surely use your greatness in 2008.
i am outraged at bush and cheney for their assualt on our constitution as much as the next guy, but lets not forget he could not have gotten anywhere without a complicit congress, the congress of a hundred years ago would not have tolerated such abuse
CRNA26:
The immediate achievable thing regarding the political process is to lobby for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). This will allow "fringe" candidates to become main stream over time. Progressive voters would not have had to choose between Nader and Gore in 2000.
Any other concrete ideas, folks?
Poet:
Much of the american electorate does not appear to vote based on issues. Appearances do matter. In this age, a candidate's every move is scrutinized and every word is used against him/her. I'm not certain that Abe Lincoln could win in the current political environment. A gawky, progressive "is an elite snob," while a frat boy is "just like us."
On Kucinich being vegan: does anyone think a vegan has a realistic chance to win in current day America? I think not (and, before anyone goes off - I am a vegan).
PT man is right. There is no reason to berate Al Gore. Remember that period of uncertainty during the 2000 elections when the media was spreading fear that the country would fall into riots and stock market crashes because the presidential race was undecided. Looking at Florida with Brother Bush as the governor, Gore probably thought that he couldn't win, and that any attempts would be bad for the country. I don't understand all the derision; if you care about the environment and getting out of Iraq then Al is your dream candidate.
Even Gore fails to identify the one policy that might have headed off 9/11: an even-handed approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
This puts him in bed with all of the announced candidates (and on his knees before AIPAC).
It seems like some on this thread haven't gotten the point of the article. This is not about Al Gore for president. It's about us taking responsibility for the process as much as we can. Gore certainly should have been president. He is trying to save what's left of the U.S. from another catastrophy. Newsflash! We own the consequences much more than he does. Whining about Nafta, and him (Gore) conceeding in 2000, does us no good now. He appears to be truely trying to inform us of the magnitude of error of our previous thinking and is attempting to wake us up. Read the book, discuss it. Read other literature about how to choose a president. Give it 5 minutes of time, once a week starting now. Those who voted based on sound bites and three word propaganda slogans have put the whole earth in jeopardy and it may be too late to save it. If for some reason it is not, This election is hugely important. We must step up and take resonsibility to try to save what's left from Shrub's extensive and long term damage. Be angry at yourself more than Gore.
"Bush and Cheney actually believed in the linkage (between Iraq and al Qaeda) that they asserted — in spite of all the evidence to the contrary presented to them contemporaneously — that would by itself in light of the available evidence, make them genuinely unfit to lead our nation."
The most important statement of the article.
This is the growing wave of dissent against the Bush/Cheney administration. We can only hope that the wave will grow in strength.
So, is Al Gore the Champion of Reason? He talks good sense of the problem of Global Warming. Here he talks good sense on the failure of our media and the anti-democratic nature of the Shrubbery. He is sounding damn good to me.
Windward, what a disgusting scumbag thing to say. The draft was inhumane, and ending it was a great thing. You are scum if you willingly allow yourself to be turned into a disgusting killing machine.
Al Gore for designated attack dog for whoever wins the Democratic presidential nod. This would give him a chance to redeem the years the locusts have eaten away at the country.
(Of course neither Hillary Barak O, John Edwards, nor any of the other establishment approved "front runers" would dare do it because his ridicule of Dubya would fit most (if not all) of them.)
For those of you who forgot (or never knew) Al Gore as President of the Senate had the chance to entertain motions submitted by several democratic congressional representatives to deny the submitted electoral counts from various states and he flat out refused to do so. It was legal, it was constitutional, and Al just looked the other way! It might have turned out the same anyway, but we will never know because good ol' Al just wimped out.
Denigrating Kucinich for being too short, vegan, or any one of a hundred irrelevant things reminds me of how Abraham Lincoln was denigrated as an awkward, gawky, ugly baboon or ape man (the beard thing). I wonder how many of our Gore supporters are really trolls for Bushco.
If Al Gore doesn't run for and win the presidentcy, i'm afraid that all is lost in so many ways.I believe he's honest and he is for real and if he knew then what he knows now, i think he would have fought to retiane the presidentcy.All these people running for president act like they are afraid say the hard things like get out,impeach,illegal and lies.When Bush tock the presidentcy its like somthing broke in this goverment,WHAT HAPPENED?
Come on, Gore detractiors! It's time to let him off the hook for the 2000 election. He has already publicly said that if he had known then what he knows now, he would have fought for the presidency. It's 6 1/2 years later and he is speaking very clearly and boldly. Good people learn and change!
So back him. He is saying what most politicains are too afraid to say and what many of us ache to say outselves. Knocking him around helps only the Bushies!
Al Gore is right about "unchecked and unaccountable power". He should know, since he belongs to the only trade union in the country whose members are beyond the law - lawyers.
Mike Gravel claims that his proudest accomplishment was ending the draft. The end of the draft marked the end of the American Republic.
If you want it back, you must begin by serving your country. You can't call yourself a citizen otherwise. Just think of it. All of you morally refined readers who rightly oppose everything Bush stands for, serving in an armed force that refuses to carry out illegal orders. That is the way to put an end to the criminals who are rapidly destroying what we have left of this country.
And the Republican response to Gore is?
a. "sour grapes"
b. "disguntled former employee"
c. "conspiracy theorist"
d. "isn't it just... sad... that a former vice president is reduced making stuff up just to sell his books?"
e. all of the above.
If you guessed "e" you win! (and we all keep losing...)
It seems this topic has had several Swift Boaters visits to us already. Telling us about Al Gore's supposily failings.
Just a thought Those SwiftBoaters actually REelected Resident Bush. It is their fault this country is in the trouble it is today.
Now they want us to listen to them again so another Corporate puppet can steal the White House and what is left of our Freedoms.
AL GORE running for President? I believe Citizen Al Gore would help all of us more.
But if he runs I will support him.
"drive the candidates to the LEFT" did you write.
In the USA there is no left. The candidates are either very right or extreme right. The only moderate is Dennis Kucinik there is no left .
What do you expect from a plutocracy where the mighty dollar is adored all day and all night.
Problem is since the rich pay no tax ,the middle class is disappearing ,and the poor have no money ,with an annual deficit over 450 billion a year(wars cost a lot),how is this going to play out as more people slip into poverty.
Go figure you are much brighter than me.
It's way past time for the timid Congress to impeach Bush. Where was he last weekend? Back in Crawford Texas. How much avaiaton fuel has been spent flying this dunce around? If he doesn't want to spend time in the White House doing his job, then resign. Draft Gore!
Gore messed up in 2000. He should have called for a statewide recount but only called for recounts in two counties. Regardless, we all know that he won the 2000 election, especially if you factor in that Pat Buchanan got 3000 odd votes in a democratic/jewish neighborhood.
We ought to institute changes in election procedures and call for Instant Run-off voting (IRV). If that were the case, Gore would have won hands down.
In any case, even if Gore runs and wins in 2008, we'd better hope for Kennedy to retire from the supreme court to swing the court back to the left. The Robert-Alito appointments will cause more damage to this country in the long run.
Hmmm, the Gore/Nader ticket sounds like fun, almost as much as a Stewart-Colbert ticket and has about as much chance for success.
people on this thread talk as if anyone who is a Democrat and not tainted by scandal will be the next President. The is a HUGE percentage of people in the U.S. that, while they don't agree with everything about the war, think that being a "Conservative" is how they see themselves. Two days ago I got sick of seeing the damn stupid questions and answer thing headlined at the yahoo website asking shit like "does salt water cure mouth sores?". I thought I might as well ask something stupid so I asked " what good has come from the occupation of Iraq?" quoting things as no WMDs, civil war, death of thousands of Iraqis etc. to back-up my question. I've received about 20 answers so far and only two of them would appeal to the common dreams crowd. One was a long 10 paragraph email detailing how wrong I was. Several stated that WMDs had been found in the form of Seratin(sp) and mustard gas, some cited school attendance up in schools built by our troops, momst sited the removal of the evil Sadam. The list of rebuttals to my statement is too long to put here BUT my point is "we in this thread are an isolated group, listening to each other". The real America will put another Republican in the White House should they ever find a candidate with a little charisma-especially now that they have had some time to look at the new leaderships in Congress.
uh...
gore didnt wimp out in 2000. kerry wimped out in 2004. but i seem to recall gore took his case to the supreme court, i.e. the highest court of law in the US.
turns out the supreme court is corrupt, blame them if you'd like, or perhaps blame us for not taking to the street to protest en masse ala ukraine. but i dont see how that blame falls on gore - when the the supreme court of the united states rules against you, your further options are limited.
"We the people" are hearing you in Australia, Mr Gore. This is not just about American politics ... it is about democracy around the world and "we the people", hear you. Join us at A Year In A Day www.stoplaughing.com.au/wordpress and make a stand for democracy and for our children's futures. I'm sorry that I was asleep for such a long time, but now we're all starting to wake up and are nudging each other furiously ...
i agree with rebel farmer. we need you badly to run and i think lots of people will support you , especially now that people are finding out you actually won the election in 2000 at least in popular votes so i feel you deserve another shot at it....go ahead Al, run baby run....and if it doesn`t feel right to be on the democrats ticket, go independent or green...it`s high time we had a strong third party in this country anyways....how about a Gore/Nader ticket? You both deserve to have your voice heard in these declining times.
Al Gore graduated cum laude from Harvard in 1969. He recognized the magnitude of the environmental crisis we face decades ago. His prescience and intelligence have been demonstrated over and over. The voting public however doesn't look kindly upon intellectuals for some resason. We prefered the "good old boy" Junior with his "my daddy was a rancher" talk. I don't know why Americans are so easily fooled.
If Mr. Gore ran this time, he would win. I hope he realizes that he can affect change much more readily as President than he can as film producer.
It's a shame he didn't speak with this kind of passion during the campaign in 2000. If Florida wasn't so close, thanks to the Republican morons and misguided Greens, we'd all be better off.
Nader4prez,
I don't know which Supreme Court you could be refering to, because the one here in the USA does have the "standing to call off the re-count"
He "folded" because he exhausted every possible "legal" means he could.
Except for a revolution, the fight was over.
Why do so many people on this site fail to see grey areas. Your just like the right, it's black or white. You did this wrong, so you'll never be forgiven.
Your never happy, and from what I read everyday, you'll never be happy until everyone agrees with you 100% each and every time.
ceti, you posted much of what I have been thinking the past couple weeks. I was also a Nader supporter in 2000.
As for the first poster, while I have issues with Gore and still get frustrated when I think about the way he rolled over in 2000, I think you need to check on some of the things you posted as some of what you wrote is misguided, while other pieces are just tired and old attacks against Gore that really don't display the full and complete picture. Gore, as far as I know, is not a supporter of the whole idea of carbon credits and stresses that people need to reduce their CO2 emmissions, not compensate for them to make themselves feel better about living an evironmentally-irresponsible lifestyle. Also, as far as the oil thing goes, as far as I know, he has divested himself of the oil industry. People learn and change their old habits. That applies to everyone, not just politicians. Gore talks about this to some extent in An Inconvenient Truth, when he discusses his family's tobacco farming and how his thinking and practices changed when his sister died of lung cancer. People change and when they change for the better because they learn and see things differently and come to a better understanding of how their own behavior has a negative effect on the world around them, we should applaud that, not vilify them for not doing right all along. Who here can say they've been perfect their whole life? Who here can say they're perfect? You're a liar if you do.
Aah! Kucinich is not going to get elected either. If he was 6 inches taller and better looking he might stand a chance.
Currently, I don't see many americans voting based on issues. However, we ought to support someone like Kucinich and Gravel help frame the issues for the next election.
I like what he has been saying lately, but where were his balls in 2000. He let us all down when he didn't fight for what was rightfully his. The Supreme Court had no standing to call off the re-count and he folded. It's easy to say we wouldn't have been in this mess if he was President. Well he was but he gave it away.
I don't think I can forgive him for that.
If Gore were running, i'd vote for him and encourage him to run with Kucinich as his VP
Apparently Gore isn't going to run, so it will behoove us to support the sanest, most decent candidate who's thrown his hat into the ring:
http://kucinich.us/
Al Gore for President!!!!!
Gore is not going to get elected in the present American political climate. The excerpts of his new book "Assault on reason" pretty much tell us why. Furthermore, he has accumulated enough baggage by listening to the "political pundits" in the past, passing the horrendous NAFTA policy, and others such as neutering the Kyoto protocol. I do not think he believes that he can overcome his baggage at this time. Maybe in a few more years he may be able to do so.
The best he can do now is run as an independent candidate allied with the greens just to change the political rhetoric in this country, and sadly for him, that would be a complete waste of accumulated political capital.
And oh! his choice of Lieberman as the VP was horrendous. Lieberman had the temerity to call for stifling debate and unquestioningly following the messianic GWB's misguided lead.
As a Nader supporter in 2000, I believe many of us bought into the media antipathy towards Al Gore. Even now, Gore is being pummeled in the media more than any other personality. Is this man so dangerous and dislikeable? Sure he "went out like a punk" (as put by Huey Freeman of the Boondocks) in 2000, and backed misguided free trade policies under Clinton as well as enlisted Lieberman as his VP, but still he is judged harsher for some reason. Also, no one would have forseen how much the country has declined in the last seven years.
Objectively, there was much that was undesireable in the old American Republic with its imperial foreign policy and less than stellar record on social justice at home. Yet, it is preferable to an American Empire with all its moral rot, brutality abroad, and bread and circuses domestic politics.
I now believe that Gore is the single politician that can save and restore the Republic and meet the earth endangering challenges of the present before the US, like empires before it, marches towards an oblivion of its own making.
Can there be any doubt that Al Gore is the only logical choice for the next president of the United States. The democracy that we hold so dear is failing. Our present 'leadership' is nothing of the sort. We are being herded over a cliff by a corrupt and fraudulent regime so hungry for wealth and power that they would sacrifice anything, even the very people that they claim to represent, to get it. Fair trade is being sacrificed for a few more dollars in the pockets of the wealthy and the common man is merely a stepping stone on which the elite will stand to reach it. Fear now governs the populus, fear of reprisal, fear that they will be branded a supporter of terrorism, be rounded up and sent off to an Abu Garaib, or Guantanimo Bay and be subjugated to the very torture practices that they protest. The American people need someone to rally around, someone that speaks the truth loud enough for all to hear and will not back away from that truth. The American people need a reasonable man who will put for the effort to redeem us in the eyes of the rest of the world, and to restore our faith in our own leaders.
At least Gore's found some balls to speak the truth, like Carter. That's probably because he isn't an office-seeker anymore. I don't see any other politicians, except maybe Kucinich, and no Democratic front runners, nearly as harsh or clear in their criticism.
Message to Gore: You can do more from the bully pulpit of the Presidency than anywhere else to get moving on climate change. If that is truely your passion, please put yourself up as a candidate. Maybe for the Green Party or as an independent.
PLEASE Al. We need you now more than ever!
That's right Al, you are no candidate-either now or back in 2000 when you wimped out and conceded the Presidency to the Supreme Court. Go back to your plush DC power palace or your ancestral millionaire's playpen in Tennessee and clip your carbon credit coupons, go to your oil company board meetings, and reminisce on what never was and never will be.
Everybody now! Place your tongues between your lips and blow vigorously to show soidarity with the newest assault on global warming, Mr. Hot Air himself, Al Gore!