Of all the god awful history you regurgitate in here every once in awhile you trip on a bit of truth. This is one of those very rare moments. Well put. (I cant believe I said that)
Craig is wrong about this, but it happens.
The corruption is far deeper then Craig lets on, he holds on to a few idealouges in DC as if they can save us. Really they are more of a abberation then our system balancing itself. (the US has ALWAYS been a dysfunctional mess)
Good people just do not make good politicians. The system itself is top heavy and cannot adapt as it is a relic of centuries past unable to resist mass media and the influence from inside of huge corporations that rival the size of whole countries back in the day.
You are taking a truth too far. Gore wasn't perfect, and I don't agree with everything he did as VP. I'm critical of the sanctions in Iraq.
I do think the US had a legitimate interest in opposing Saddam as a terrible dictator on human rights grounds, in addition to his history having invaded Kuwait.
However, opposing Saddam doesn't mean going to war - something the Republicans asked Clinton to do, in a letter from PNAC, which Clinton declined to do.
However, Clinton did support the sanctions aimed at Saddam that caused mass misery and killing primarily of children. I'm not sure what Gore's position was but he supported Clinton.
Was it an act of war? Technically, no - it was a policy IIRC that was passed by the UN. It wasn't the same as a blockade, and a blockade isn't the same thing as an invasion.
But I can see it being called an act of war morally - but not the same as an invasion.
I suspect Gore evolved as well from when he was VP to after - and maybe more over time, as his politics such as reflected in his Current TV programming shows.
I think we can get a very good idea of Gore's views on invading Iraq from a speech he gave as the party's most recent nominee, September 23, 2002 specifically on the topic of war with Iraq, discussing Bush's demand for Congress to pass a bill authorizing force even if Bush promised not to use it to go to war without more approval.
The timing was sensitive - two weeks before mid-terms, which is why Bush put it up to a vote so he could use it against any Democrat who voted no in the election.
There was plenty of pressure on Democrats to support the bill. Gore opposed it.
In the speech, Gore laid out many reasons for opposing war with Iraq. He said that while he had voted for the first Gulf War as one of the few Democrats to do so, the same justification did not exist for the Bush war; it was a violaton of the UN charter, it would hurt our reputation, it would hurt the war on Al Queda, for a few reasons.
It clearly shows his views that while he very much opposed Saddam, he also very much opposed an aggressive war as the policy to address the issue.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
Whatever your views of the 'few good people who are elected', it's appropriate to be fair in evaluating them and to support them over the alternative.
I'm not unaware that progressives are a minority - but supporting them is the right thing to do IMO.
By the way, I don't consider Gore a progressive in the 2000 election - he was a member of the DLC, like Clinton, and wanted to be a 'moderate Democrat' - what I call corporatist.
Like I said, it seems to me he changed.
because Al Gore was another one of those pro-business, pro-war, pro-Federal Reserve Democrats. In fact, Clinton chose him as his running mate because of Gore being one of the most hawkish Democrats and more precisely because he voted for what lead to the Iraq War.
Facebook
Twitter