Gore rejects idea of impeachment....

[laughingwillow]

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1100316

Al Gore against any attempt to impeach Bush
Thursday, May 31, 2007  20:43 IST


WASHINGTON: Former US vice president Al Gore, a staunch critic of George W Bush, has said he doesn't agree with calls for impeaching the president due to lack of "time" and "consensus."

Many democrats feel that Bush should be impeached for allegedly misleading the country deliberately in the lead up to the war in Iraq.

"With a year and a half to go in his term and with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition, any realistic analysis of that as a policy option would lead one to question the allocation of time and resources," Gore said during an interview with PBS.

Pressed on whether he believed that impeachment is a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful."

On being asked whether he threw the towel in too soon in the 2000 presidential elections, where he narrowly lost to Bush, Gore said he had taken the fight as far as he could, and the only other option left was a "violent revolution".

"I took it all the way to a final Supreme Court decision. And in our system, there is no intermediate step between a final Supreme Court decision and violent revolution. So, at that point, having taken it as far as one could, then the question becomes, are we going to be a nation of laws and not people?" Gore replied.

"Do I support the rule of law, even though I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision? I did disagree with it, and I think that those of us who disagreed with it will have the better of the argument in history," he added....................................

I disagree that the next step after the supreme court ruling Bush the winner of the election would necessarily be violent revolution. Imo, there are many levels of peaceful protest possible before violence becomes an issue. But even if it did, are we going to be "a nation of laws or people," as he asks above?

His comments concerning the "lack of time and consensus" for the possible impeachment of Bushco is another example of Gore's lack of connection with reality, imo. If we are a nation of laws, as Gore claims below, neither the timeconstraint nor lack of consensus should hinder the pursuit of justice.

lw

[cenacle]

Then what would you have advised him to do? I've wondered about this question myself. I don't see a clear recourse.

As for Gore's connect with reality, how does one judge this? Are you saying that he doesn't know the political realities that exist? Are you saying he isn't committed to his environmental priorities and progressive agenda?

I'd bet that he lives with the pain of 2000 every single day, especially those when the death count in the Occupation is high, or when the Bush-packed Supreme Court makes yet another decision in favor of the Corporate Overlords.

He made his choice, and he'll be defending it for the rest of his life, no matter what he does day to day. The fact that he doesn't take his wealth and crawl off to a far island, but instead gets on crowded airplanes day after day, year after year, to help others better understand their world, that bespeaks the kind of man he is. He is passionate, driven, and he cares. He served in public office for two decades, and he has never stopped serving since.

Many of us want him to run for President, to take what we believe was stolen from him, and all of us. I don't know if he will, but if he does, I'm going to man phone banks, I'm going to knock on doors, I'm going to do whatever I can to help him win. Clinton, Obama? Maybe. Depends how they are doing.

[laughingwillow]

I would have adivsed Gore to lead a peaceful protest demanding review of the facts and results. I would have taken to the street and been a peaceful  example to those wishing to follow. I would have shined my little light into the dark election process and produced facts and figures to bolster the arguement of foul play/voter irregularity/miscounts. Expose and educate.....


Of course, that action would probably ruin any chance Gore had of being embraced by mainstream corporate, bidness as usual political machine in the future, if'n his protest failed. So he closed his mouth and sat on his hands, imo. Played by "the rules," even when his opponent was cheating. Imo, Gore let his opponent get away with cheating.

And he's more than happy to leave Bushco in charge and not pursue  impeachment when its pretty clear from here that those questions are relavant regarding the issue of a pre-emptive strike against a soverign state under false pretense.

Why is Bushco gettint a pass for all of It's bad behavior as far as Gore is concerned? (remember that actions DO speak louder than words.)

lw

[Stonehenge]

I agree with cenacle. Gore did about as much as he could. I think he could have done a little more like pushing hard for a fraud investigation. But it's easy to be a monday morning quarterback.

I would love to see Bush impeached but it ain't gonna happen. The powers that be who control the media and indirectly our government, do not want him impeached. Has impeachment gotten any ink up to now? All I've seen are put downs of anyone who suggested it. He deserves it more than Clinton or Nixon did but the reality is that it won't happen.

I had an iffy view of Gore back then but he's shown that he is for real. As real as you get with politicians which are a special breed of fakers. If the election were today between him and Bush, he'd win in a landslide. I think he won in 00 but we'll never know.

Any updates on the cooked voting machines and Diebold's involvement?

[VajraPirate]

I was watching a charlie rose interview with Gore a few days ago, and I have to say I was more impressed with him than I thought I would have been. When Rose asked him what he thought of the Supreme court's ruling in favor of Bush in regards to miscounted and dissappearing votes, his response was basically, "Well, what do you expect me to do? It's either violent revolt, or acceptance of the Supreme courts ruling, there's not much option between those two..."

That was paraphrased, but still you get the jist of his response to the question. The fact that he even mentioned violent revolution as an option gave me a little more respect for him than I had previously.

At least he's not a complete moron. I do not normally condone the use of violence at all, but more and more everyday it seems that that may be the only option left to the american people.

I'm still voting for Ron Paul, however.

[cenacle]

Voting for Ron Paul for what? I doubt he'll even be on the Republican primary ballots in any states. If he is, go for it, I hope he gets a great showing. But the bastards in that party would gun him down on a sunny city street before they see him take any real control or make any real changes. He's a good gadfly at their debates. But I wonder if they will even let him in to anymore...

[laughingwillow]

Cen: You might forget that varj and I live in Iowa.  We don't have primaries but caucuses.  And an early one at that. So, in theory Ron Paul might still be running when the national circus hits our town. hehe

Shucks, I;m guessing varj could write in RP during the general election if he so desires. I also plan on voting my conscious, results be damned.

lw

[cenacle]

Sorry LW, I meant that comment for VPirate. I really wish this election process was fair, in any sense of the word. I wish it wasn't one corporate-sponsored millionaire against another.

I do see differences between the two parties, but that is due to the different party bases and the values they demand their candidates espouse. And sometimes a Jimmy Carter will work his way into the big boys' club for a time, and try to make a difference. Doesn't last.

I like Gore because his decades of public service indicate a real commitment to people of all classes and kinds. Is he ideal? Probably no person running is, or any person who would have a real chance.

But right now, Little King Lunatic is raising up fires with Russian leader Putin. One more fucking possible end to the world. How would we do with Gore? Clinton? Obama? Paul? Gravel? So much fucking better words can't say...can't come soon enough...