Andew Sullivan's bad Gore joke

In the latest edition of the Times London (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2199893,00.html), Andrew Sullivan has a piece explaining why 2008 may be the year of Gore. He gives us the all too familiar parallel between Gore and Richard Nixon, how they both lost close elections after being Vice President for administrations that served during robust periods in American histroy. And then he goes on to explain some of the other things that Gore has going for him: a Vietnam-esque war, the seemingly validity to man-made global warming and the belief that the American People are looking for a more "compitent" leader in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. But towards the end of the piece he gives this reason: "Then there’s the issue of karma. Gore won the popular vote in 2000. If a few old Jewish ladies in Palm Beach had not been confused by their ballots and voted for Patrick Buchanan, Gore would have won Florida as well — and the presidency. Everyone knows this — and that election still wounds America in ways that a Gore candidacy might assuage." After all of the reasons that Mr. Sullivan pointed to as to why Al Gore could become the next President of the United States, his ending note that he is due it via karma. Well how is this any different than Hillary Clinton being deserving of the Presidency because she had to put up with the sexcapades of Bill? Certainly there are other reasons why Gore should/could be President, and Mr. Sullivan gives them.

Mr. Sullivan explains that Gore has displayed a good deal of timing in releasing his new movie An Inconvenient Truth where man is blamed for the destruction of our beloved planet. Mr. Sullivan explains that "new data [has] persuaded even sceptics like me that global warming is real, man-made and potentially hazardous." And Gore has done a great human service to bring this to the world's attention. The only problem is the latest data does not prove that man is the main culprit nor does it prove that there is a potential hazard. In fact, one of the biggest points of "proof" that Gore looks to in his movie is the melting of the polar ice caps. However, in 2002 polar climate specialist at the University of Illinois in Chicago John Walsh said, "In Antarctica, there is not a strong heating or cooling trend either way." Walsh went on to say in a National Geographic piece from 2002 that about 60 to 70 percent of Antarctica is experiencing a cooling trend. This along with numerous other studies from the past few years--and when I say few I mean two to four years--has shown that the case of man-made global warming is not yet closed.

The second main reason Mr. Sullivan gives as to why Gore should/could be the next President is his "long track record of hawkishness, especially with respect to the Middle East." Well, first of all the last time that the United States embarked on a major military action, i.e. the use of ground troops, was in the First Gulf War when Al Gore was a Senator. This action during Bush 41 was even done under the banner of the United Nations, and yet, Al Gore, as a Senator, voted against using force against Saddam Hussein and exspelling his forces from Kuwait. Recently Gore was in Saudi Arabia where he commenced to explain how the United States has treated Islamofacists held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as less than human. (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNUKEO0.html)
Even though Gore made the best effort to explain to the members of the Jeddah Economic Forum that the majority of American People wish Muslims no harm, he gave no specifics to what he meant when he said, "Arabs had been 'indiscriminately rounded up' and held in 'unforgivable' conditions." Oh, and Gore said nothing of the way Americans have been treated at the hands of the terrorists. Does anyone remember the name Nick Berg?

Mr. Sullivan is wrong about Al Gore. Gore would not asuage centrists on the War on Terror and his policy solutions in regards to global warming would only serve to hurt the United States and do next to nothing to reverse the trends of global warming. His "hawkishness" on terrorism is not what I would call soothing. More than likely, Gore would revert back to the pre-9/11 methods for fighting the War on Terror; he would treat as a criminal matter, something that former US Attorney and National Review contributor Andy McCarthy has been railing against since the terror attacks from that beautiful September morning.