| QUOTE |
| Gore's leadership would be welcome in White House 10/26/2007 It's inspiring to see someone rise from defeat to reach the purified air of high achievement. Al Gore was in the ashes of despair when the Supreme Court pulled the presidency out from under him in the 2000 election. Now, after winning an Oscar for his documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth," he has capped his career with the Nobel Peace Prize, an achievement and honor that few can claim and none better deserve. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations scientific group that mainly gathers and disseminates information (it's technically not a research group) is co-recipient of this year's coveted prize. The prize to Gore makes it interesting to take yet another look at Bush's years in the White House and imagine what Gore might have done or not done in Bush's place. Of course it's all speculative, but Gore's probable actions can be inferred by taking into account some of his major policy statements. One thing is certain — he would not have drawn the country into war with Iraq, a conflict that has no end yet in sight and has claimed 4,000 lives and 30,000 casualties to date. In a speech on May 26, 2004, in New York City sponsored by MoveOn.org, Gore said, "From its earliest days in power, this administration sought to ... destroy foreign policy consensus. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the strategy of 'preemption.' And what they meant by 'preemption' was a unilateral right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take military action against any nation even ... where there was no imminent threat. ... The mere assertion of a possible future threat need be made by only one person, the president." In the same speech, Gore called for the resignation of six members of the Bush team, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. He also cited abuses in Abu Ghraib prison and flaws in Bush's Iraq policy. Speaking of the prison abuses, Gore asked how we got from Sept. 12, 2001 — when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline saying 'We Are All Americans Now' — to the horror of the torture photos in Abu Ghraib. Now we're told that such torture was indirectly permitted in some of Bush's signing statements, which negate the need of a presidential veto and of which there are many. These, together with "executive privilege," to which Bush has resorted time and time again, have enabled the president to change the balance of power in America to the extent that some no longer consider us a democracy. Would Gore have been as heavy-handed and contemptuous of criticism? Of course not. Remember, he's a man who looks for balance. But it's true that we've suffered no serious terrorist activity since 9/11 — a plus for Bush? In the area of ecology there's no contest between the two men. Bush has consistently refused to sign the Kyoto protocol, claiming it requires harsher carbon dioxide emissions reductions of the West than it does of developing countries. What he ignores is that the poorer countries, such as India and China, have masses of people who use almost no energy at all while the U.S. is responsible for one fourth of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Gore on the other hand has made protection against global warming his mission in life. Besides writing two books on the subject and promoting his hit documentary film, he's worked tirelessly in the cause of public awareness by giving non-stop talks on circuit tours and in international political spheres. Most of us think of ourselves only in the here and now of everyday occurrence, claiming that future problems will be solved by others. But Gore perceives daily life on a global scale while realizing that each individual has and has had a part to play in the planet's past, present and future. He's an ecological philosopher or a philosophical ecologist, however you want to put it. Some speak of him as a hero. In his book, "Earth in the Balance," published in 1992, he writes, "We each need to assess our own relationship to the natural world and renew, at the deepest level of personal integrity, a connection to it." Rajenda Pachauri, IPCC chairman, has been loudly vocal about the need for policy changes on global warming. According to Newsweek, this year's IPCC releases have pretty much put an end to denial of this need. In an interview with columnist Fareed Zacharia, Pachauri said that the current U.S. administration has been showing a shift toward awareness of the problem, but that "the next administration will have to be far more proactive on climate change than we have seen so far." He also explained that containing the impact of global warming is essential to the preservation of peace since competition for agriculture and other resources can lead to violent conflict. Hence, the Nobel Peace Prize. It isn't too late for Gore to pick up the presidential torch and run with it again. One group of grass roots supporters writes, "Al Gore must run for president ... please." I wish he would. loretta@arczip.com Loretta Keller is an artist and a freelance writer. |
| QUOTE (jharri1992 @ Oct 27 2007, 12:49 AM) |
| Great post AlGore fan! I am going to bed with my fingers crossed and full of prayer that he will answer the call. I believe that 11/01/07 is the latest -- I am not a big believer in the third party option, the VP option or a draft movement without the explicit assent of the person being drafted -- that he can enter the race and allow enough time to build the infrastructure, get his message out and fend off the attacks that his opponents have been preparing in anticipation of his running. 11/01/07. I think we could be staring at a stark reality -- game set match -- if 11/01/07 comes and goes and we have heard nothing positive from Big Al that we can sink our teeth into. What are your and others' thoughts? My ship may have to sail in resignation and heartache if 11/02 arrives with nothing but defeaning silence. |