Gore: 'A drive for global domination has put us in greater danger' »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 1 year, 4 months ago in NewsThe pursuit of 'dominance' in foreign policy led the Bush administration to ignore the UN, to do serious damage to our most important alliances, to violate international law, and to cultivate the hatred and contempt of many in the rest of the world.
Read Full Story at guardian.co.uk »
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 227
-
0%
TechnologyExpert1 year, 4 months ago
The seductive appeal of exercising unconstrained unilateral power led this president to interpret his powers under the constitution in a way that brought to life the worst nightmare of the founders. Any policy based on domination of the rest of the world not only creates enemies for the US and recruits for al-Qaida, but also undermines the international cooperation that is essential to defeating terrorists who wish to harm and intimidate America.
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Of course, Bush followed the Constitution and the Congress authorized the actions he took (several times, actually) and in reality, the UN did too, even though they now deny it......however Clinton did get us into a war based on lies and falsehoods and without the Congressional or UN approval and we are still stuck there.....
Reply-
0%
Twistoflex1 year, 4 months ago
Bush defrauded Congress and the UN with completely contrived, cooked intelligence "fixing the facts". When the "intelligence" was debunked, the Dumbya dictatorship blew the cover of CIA agents and a key CIA proprietary, which resulted in the torture and deaths of additional agents.
Congress has the cover of saying it granted authorization ("as a last resort", btw) on the basis of these lies: i.e., they were misinformed and "knowing what they do now ... they "would not have approved it". The reality, however, is that everyone on the Intelligence Committee knew the Dumbya dictatorship was lying - but did nothing to stop it. The corporate media knew the regime was lying but did nothing to expose it, instead, they promoted the misadventure and lies. Those who did speak out were marginalized - including millions of Americans who got out on the streets: their protests weren't even given coverage.
Dumbya's war criminal.
Reply -
100%
djn3nunez31 year, 4 months ago
By not allowing the full implementation of SCR 1441, which the US voted for, this Administration has willfully undermined the the precedent of international response to aggression the UN was establish to prevent. In fact many people throughout the world believe the the US is the aggressor, and used false pretenses to invade and occupy oil rich Iraq.
Both parties have contributed to our interventionist policies and certainly Congress gets no free ride.
At least Clinton was smart enought to know who to fight and actually listen to a number of experts and make a rational decision based on that advice. (Okay no cracks about the advise he gets from his other head).
To me Clintons biggest failure was not going after al Queda and the Taliban after the USS Cole was hit. (He should have use the oppertuntiy to tell Arafat that if his Palsestinians kill Americans this is what happens, now are you ready to bargain?)
Reply -
100%
Silverghost1 year, 4 months ago
This is, after all, a blog from Al Gore, excerpted from his book, published by the by the UK blog site & designed to undermine the Prez. It serves only to weaken our stance as a nation endeavoring to protect itself from the attempt at world domination by the militant Islamic terrorist front.
Gore's accusation is close to treasonous, aside from him bringing charges in court to prove this position. Many of his colleagues voted in favor of the war. Were they more or less knowledgeable than the Prez? -Rev. S
Reply -
100%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 4 months ago
Clinton again??
You are truly obsessed..
Bosnia is a NATO action and we have all of 1,200 troops there,
and 2,000 in North Korea. How many US troops died there in the past 18 months?? Was it 4, or 5??
More died here in car accidents..
Once you get over Bill it will be just in time to skip 8 full years and get on to blaming the next president (but only if he's a Democrat),..How "truthful" of you.
I'd expect a lot more honesty from my king!
King of the apologists is more like it!
Reply -
0%
geoffinak1 year, 4 months ago
OH MY GOD Clinton is Not President any more. He has been gone for 7 years, the new president is George Bush and your blaming Clinton. Get over it. We had the least number of Americans killed under Clinton then any other president in the 20th Century. Bush should be IMPEACHED for lies that cost Americans lives.
Just cause Dubya does not get any he has to look tough, put money in his friends pockets and Pump that oil 2 million barrels a day. It's fools like you who watch Fox news and think it's the best thing since sliced bread. You are foolish look at your country. No constitution, we have the Patriotic Act 2. No economy we owe China 2 trillion dollar. We the USA owe China, now h how in blue blazes can that happen. China could hardly feed it's self. Now we owe them money. Plus the make the chips are missiles use, our jets use, our communications use. No way to tell there installed. Until China flips the switch and the missiles fall into the ocean and the planes stop flying. Wake UP
Reply
-
100%
pc251 year, 4 months ago
to see the phrase moral authority in a article written by the Goracle......a little bit of a contradiction there
Reply -
100%
BDABRock1 year, 4 months ago
What would an alternate plan for us now be that we are there? We all want to win...and finish what needs to be done. How do we do that? How many times can we rotate people? We're into the same scenario that Russia was into in Afghanistan...what is the solution?....since neither the Sunnis nor Shiits want us there.
Reply -
50%
questionseverything1 year, 4 months ago
i watched al gore being interviewed on cspan concerning his new book, assalt on reason, which asks the basic question, why in american policy r we looking at the facts and doing the opposite of what reason would demand?
examples: bush cut the money to rebuild the levees and then is "surprised" when the 9th ward is flooded
cia director breifs bush in mid august that bin laden determined to attack and does nothing
current admin oks torture and disreguards geneva convention and wonders why the world disrespects us
the evidence of who attacked the cole came within days of bushs inaugration but when bush took office he did nothing to revenge the cole
saudi pilots hi jack planes and run them into buildings and we attack iraq after letting bin laden get away in afganistan
i think vp gore hit the nail on the head that reason seems to play no part in the current admins thinking
Reply -
100%
GoldRush1 year, 4 months ago
This President is neither unrestrained nor operating under a policy of world domination. That is a lib view only!
Reply -
100%
Blackacereturn1 year, 4 months ago
Well said techno! It's sad that our friends on the RIGHT can't see pass their silly little egoes. To whom much is given much is expected, we are a nation that once led the world...today we are a nation without that respect to lead.
President Bush was handed our nation in what one would say the best foreigh shape it had been in over 50 years. The worlds economy had growwn to such heights under the guise of president clinton and Mr. Greenspan. Our nation for the first time in fifty years were solvent out of debth, today we are at the mercy of China, our surplus is gone and we have gone from one of the most loved and respected nations in the world to the most hated. It only took less than 8 years for this man to undo what we as a nation had given our lives and worked hard to attain in over 400 years...how sad.
Run Al Run
Reply -
-
0%
Plain-0071 year, 4 months ago
I just read the first few paragraphs of Mr. Gore article due to lack of time. His concepts seem very good, very intelligent and that is what we want to hear in people that take public office. Obviously we want very decent, very honest people, but at the same time people with practical approach and common sense to be installed in public office. But I want to make a correction to his article. I do not mean to offend anybody in the very least, and I understand that in these days of confusion and fear (for many, but not all) the ward may have different meanings. I t seems to me that the USA is not at war. The USA is illegally invading a small foreign country. The situation is complex, and it is difficult to talk about this in few wards. And I didn't like the situation in Iraq. But that is another line of thought. What I want to point at is that it seems to me we can not properly say the USA is at war.
Reply
-
-
0%
Macondo1 year, 4 months ago
The principles proposed by the paper are mostly good.
However coming from Gore we have to take them with a grain of salt.
Gore did not attend an international meeting about the environment arguing concerns with human rights in Colombia.
By the same token he should not deal with most of the international comunity including the US.
Gore is just a posture for his own political gain.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 4 months ago
So good ideas can only come from your pre-approved list of good people. Makes no difference what the idea might be. A guy who attended the right conference can spout absolute lunacy, and it's a good idea, cause he's on the approved thinker list you maintain. A guy who missed the right conference can invent cold fusion and the fountain of youth, but we should just ignore his rantings. He's not on your approved list.
Me, I'll take good ideas wherever they come from.
Reply -
100%
jordan111 year, 4 months ago
However coming from Gore we have to take them with a grain of salt.>>>>
No, "we" don't. You're free to try and deflect from the fact that he's correct, however.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 4 months ago
Classical strategy. When you have no argument against an idea, but want something inarguably stupid instead, then attack the messenger.
Reply
-
-
100%
scriblerus11 year, 4 months ago
Yea, that's it, attack the messenger: "coming from Gore we have to take them with a grain of salt." Of course as a rank-and-file corn-servative you wouldn't have the learning or talent to recognize this obvious fallacy.
Try googling "argumentum ad hominem."
Reply
-
-
90%
not2needy1 year, 4 months ago
While i agree with everything he said, the very fact that it came from Gore will be enough to make a lot of people ignore these facts.
Reply
