Gore was very much a war hawk and no different than any other candidate that either party had fielded for president. He is on record for supporting US foreign policy prior to and after 9/11 including the invasion and regime change in Iraq. He indeed would have done the exact same as Bush.
https://www2.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
Well documented.
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...spv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gore+would+have+invaded+Iraq
"The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized," Gore said. "I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted."
Gore was very much a war hawk and no different than any other candidate that either party had fielded for president. He is on record for supporting US foreign policy prior to and after 9/11 including the invasion and regime change in Iraq. He indeed would have done the exact same as Bush.
https://www2.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
Well documented.
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...spv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gore+would+have+invaded+Iraq
How In the Hell you reached that conclusion from your linked piece is beyond comprehension.
Except Gore opposed the war in Iraq.
While backing Bush's overall goal of ousting Saddam and eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Gore questioned the timing of a military strike, as envisioned in the proposed resolution he's sent to Capitol Hill.
"President Bush now asserts that we will take pre-emptive action even if we think the threat we perceive is not imminent. If other nations assert the same right then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear -- any nation that perceives circumstances that could eventually lead to an imminent threat would be justified under this approach in taking military action against another nation," Gore said.
"An unspoken part of this new doctrine appears to be that we claim this right for ourselves -- and only for ourselves," he said.
I don't think that's entirely true. He opposed "going it alone" and would have sought a bigger coalition but there doesn't appear to be any evidence he said "we shouldn't invade Iraq" without qualifiers. Now in practice that might have meant no war if he couldn't find enough coalition partners, etc. but that is a counterfactual argument.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/gore.iraq/
I don't think that's entirely true. He opposed "going it alone" and would have sought a bigger coalition but there doesn't appear to be any evidence he said "we shouldn't invade Iraq" without qualifiers. Now in practice that might have meant no war if he couldn't find enough coalition partners, etc. but that is a counterfactual argument.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/gore.iraq/
I don't think that's entirely true. He opposed "going it alone" and would have sought a bigger coalition but there doesn't appear to be any evidence he said "we shouldn't invade Iraq" without qualifiers. Now in practice that might have meant no war if he couldn't find enough coalition partners, etc. but that is a counterfactual argument.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/gore.iraq/
I believe, therefore, that the resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants, and needs to be narrowed.
Trump will win because America is sick of all the lies and deception of bought politicians on both sides of the Aisle.
. They then upped the magical percentage to get into their closed party debate format to 15% for 3rd party candidates.
And that is why you don't have Johnson or Stein in these "debates", either of which could easily shred to pieces these two sleazy individuals and the interests they represent. Instead we are talking about beauty pageants and their weights in presidential debates. What a laughing stock we have made of ourselves.
can Johnson even remember his own name? The guy should put down the bong and read a newspaper. Stein is pro-Putin but anti vaccines. She is nuttier than a can of peanuts. Clinton is the most qualified. Omigod, they don't agree with me completely .... the grass is greener. I am tired of the news stories begging young people to put down their phones and vote. If they can't see the stakes this election, that is on them. Information on all the candidates is widely avaliable.You're working awfully hard to fool yourself. If Stein or Johnson actually made sense & had coherent platforms they'd have more support, but they don't, so here we are.
C;mon Jhnn, you did not address his point. Clinton has indicated she wants to take down Assad EVEN if it brings America into conflict with Russia. She makes no secret of this and is a fundamental foundation of her foreign policy plan.
You're working awfully hard to fool yourself. If Stein or Johnson actually made sense & had coherent platforms they'd have more support, but they don't, so here we are.
There are a lot of ways to caution against war, which was what Gore was doing. He covered the subject with qualifiers that, if observed, would have ruled out the invasion of Iraq.
From the "What Congress should do" section-
Had that been done & had the rest of that paragraph been observed, there would have been no invasion.
When Shinseki offered that he'd need 600,000 troops to pacify Iraq, he was scorned & discredited. The Bushistas figured that Freedumb! would be enough.
We know what happened under Bush though. 3000 Americans dead on 9/11 and 5000 in Iraq.
Thanks for that useful tidbit. I'll be sure not to vote for Bush.
Oh and BTW 2004 called and wants its argument back. Now that we have that ritual denunciation out of the way let's return to 2016 and the actual thread topic.
I'll be sure not to vote for BushWe know what happened under Bush though. 3000 Americans dead on 9/11 and 5000 in Iraq.
Trump should be held to the same standards as Hillary when judging his scandals while he was serving the people of the United States as a public servant, all we need is someone to make a list of them.
Why should he call for Trump to release his last 4 years of emails? How would that make them equal? Clinton deleted (or had deleted) emails from when she was Secretary of State so she could circumvent FOIA rules in order to hide what she was doing from us the voting public. The optics are that she doesn't want us to see the peddling of influence and access in exchange for Clinton Foundation that took place, but currently this is more in the speculative territory. Trumpnever served as SoS however or any other public office that would fall under it, so he has no obligation nor expectation to release anything.
Trump will win because America is sick of all the lies and deception of bought politicians on both sides of the Aisle.
I'll be sure not to vote for Bush
Or, maybe, held to any standard! Maybe instead of judging him as a public servant we can judge him as a person, as a businessman, or on his charity work, or any numerous things people not in public service are judged upon. How about that?
He certainly is obligated to release his tax returns as has every presidential candidate for the last first years did before him.
Your claim about avoiding FOIA requests is also bullshit as she would have had the same opportunity to do so if she had used a government email account as the standard at the time was that the SoS was the person who was allowed to decide what emails from the SoS were government related.
So instead of a lying politician they will vote for a psychological lying business man who uses his charity to pay off politicians? Hilarious!
WRT the bolded he's obviously not obligated as otherwise we'd already have them or he would have been prevented from running had he not provided them. You're looking for the word "customary" or "expected" instead.