Former Vice President Al Gore is not the President of the United States. He did nothing this week to make anyone weep over that fact.
Mr. Gore still WANTS to be President of the United States and is prepared to do or say whatever he thinks will move that process ahead, notwithstanding what the National Democrats in Washington want him to do (go away), or say (nothing).
According to a NY Times report by Dean Murphy, Gore was specifically asked whether this speech was "out of step" with the National Democrats. Gore said, "I don't know and I don't really care." He views this independent stance as being Alpha Male-esque and, we assume, a good thing.
A major part of Gore's remarks centered on his analysis of the Bush Doctrine: The UN should act, but if it doesn't the US and its allies will. Gore characterized the Bush Doctrine as a "go-it-alone, cowboy-type approach to international affairs." Gore, therefore views Bush's independent stance as, we assume, a bad thing.
In the words of that great political scholar, Bart Simpson, "Huh?"
The National Democratic response was summed up by the LA Times' Mark Barabak, "Afterward, leading Democrats declined to comment on Gore's speech." Gore's speech came about four days after Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle went to the floor to deliver a speech complete with charts and graphs in an effort to change the nature of the national debate.
This is further evidence that there are two major wings of the Democratic party in the US: The National wing and the Gore wing.
Watch this space as this gap widens into a chasm over the next six months.
Meanwhile, 18 hours, a continent, an ocean and a world-view away, British Prime Minister Tony Blair indicated very strongly that President Bush is not "going it alone." His speech to Parliament left no doubt that the governments of Great Britain and the United States could not possibly be more closely aligned on the issue of Iraq.
Blair, as you know by now, released a 55-page "dossier" titled: "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government." Not a report. Not an account. Not a description. A dossier.
The Prime Minister detailed, in a 30 minute speech, the reasons why the method he and President Bush have outlined is not just the best approach - it is the only approach to avoid "placing at risk the lives and prosperity of our own people."
The London Times reported that Blair "secured an important boost on the eve of today's Commons emergency debate by persuading ministers to accept that military action would be needed if the United Nations route to a solution failed."
If you don't think anyone thought the dossier and the Blair speech had any currency, here's what the Iraqi Culture Minister said about them: "Mr. Blair is acting as part of the Zionist campaign against Iraq and all his claims are baseless."
Uh huh. Dig a hole, Sparky.
Last night, at a fundraiser for GOP Senate candidate in South Dakota, John Thune, President Bush indicated he was still undecided on the Gore speech by saying:
"I'm willing to work with nations in the United Nations to not only strengthen that institution, but to hold Saddam Hussein to account. But if the United Nations won't act, if they won't disarm Saddam Hussein, if they won't expose this liar for what he is, then the United States and other friends of ours around the world will do just that."
While all this was going on, Gerhart Schroeder, who barely won a majority in the German parliament, decided to high-tail it to Britain to see if Prime Minister Blair might be interested in brokering a peace settlement following Shroeder's blatantly anti-American rhetoric during the campaign.
So the battle lines are drawn. Al Gore and Gerhart Schoeder v. George Bush and Tony Blair.
Let's see. How ... should ... I ... bet?
On the Secret Decoder Ring page: A link to an AP piece on Dem reaction to Gore's speech, the British dossier, and the usual things.
� 
