From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: WHAT GORE REALLY SAYS in his book
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:45:11 GMT

From article <1bk6njINNn6g@fido.asd.sgi.com>, by aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer):
> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) said..
>>aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer):
>>> 
>>> Here's what Brooks Jackson of CNN said:
>>> 
>>> 	"Nowhere in the book does Gore propose $100 billion of foreign
>>> 	aid for environmental projects." "Gore writes that the money the
>>> 	United States spent on the Marshall Plan to rescue post-World War II
>>> 	Europe would equal $100 billion a year today, but he does not urge
>>> 	spending that much now."
>>
>>That is not the statement that I heard on CNN immediately after the 
>>debate.  Immediately after the debate they made a statement that there 
>>was nothing at all about what Quayle was talking about on page 304.  That
>>was simply not correct.  
> 
> Hilarious -- you criticize me for not quoting a statement that was wrong.

Of course.  I'm making two points here:

	1. Although Dan Quayle's numbers were wrong, Al Gore advocates
           spending US tax money on environmental projects in other 
           countries.

	2. It was unfair of CNN to claim that there was nothing at all
           about what Quayle was talking about on page 304.  

If their first statement was wrong and they later corrected it with
the statement you quoted, that's fine.  The fact remains that their 
initial statment was wrong and therefore unfair.  Even though Quayle's 
numbers were wrong, the book most certainly contains something about 
what he was talking about.

> Dan Quayle said, "Senator Gore has suggested to have the taxpayers of
> America spend $100 billion a year on environmental projects in foreign 
> countries."  That is what Brooks Jackson is referring to above.  The
> assertion is false.

Why do you insist on pretending that I care whether the specifics of
Dan Quayles statement are true or false?  That's not my point.  I probably 
don't like Dan Quayle any more than you do.  The question is whether Al 
Gore advocates spending US tax dollars on environmental projects in other 
countries.  

>>> Amazingly enough, I've actually seen people asserting in this newsgroup
>>> that Quayle was correct.  
>>
>>I have never said that Quayle was correct.  Amazingly enough, you seem 
>>determined to dodge the real issue here.  
> 
> The issue was:  Was Quayle correct about Gore's book when he said, "Gore 
> has suggested to [...] spend $100 billion on environmental projects in 
> foreign countries".  

That's the issue for you because all you care about is trying to score
technical points for Gore in the debate.  I could care less about
that.  I want to know how much of my tax dollars Al Gore wants to ship
overseas for his environmental agenda.

> Now, since the facts show with absolute certainty 
> that Quayle was incorrect, and since you seem eager to change the subject,

I'm not "eager to change that subject," I was raising a different
subject from the very start, you've simply been dodging it.  Go back
to my first repsonse to your post about "Quayle lied."  You'll see
that the issues I've been talking about are the one's I've pointed out
above.  Why would I be "eager to change the subject when I agreed in
the very first post that Quayle's facts were not accurate?

> I'll oblige.

Are you tired of dodging or did I just pin you in a corner?

>>Does Gore advocate spending US 
>>funds on foreign aid for environmental projects or not?  
> 
> I'm sure he advocates it, 

Thanks.  All that effort to pry that out of you.  You could have saved
us a lot of bandwitdh.  Now let's talk about this.  

Gore is wrong.  We do not owe the world a cleanup for their
environmental problems or any part of payment for it.  We owe the
world a cleanup of the mess we've made ourselves and that's it.  We're
going to be paying more to clean up the mess we've made than they will
to do things right in the first place.

All we hear about from environmentalists is how it makes sense to do
things in an environmentally sensitive way from the very start. 
When it comes down to applying that logic to other countries it's 
forget it, just pay them to do it.

> but realizes that with the country suffering
> so badly from the Bush recession that it's not feasible to do now.

The portions of the book that have been sited seem to be saying that 
we should be doing this now.  Where has Gore specifically retracted that
position?  The portion that has been quoted here doesn't say that it's
not feasible to do now, it says that what _is_ politically feasible
falls well short of what is needed.

> Instead, he says, (and listen closely, this is his "politically feasible
> now" alternative) we should concentrate on the environment here in the US
> by, for example, retraining defense industry technicians for work in
> civilian fields such as biotechnology, renewable energy, and environmental 
> cleanup.

Does the Clinton plan specifically put off aid to other countries or
are you merely assuming that it does because it's not mentioned?
Wasn't Gore among those that admonished Bush for rejecting an Earth
Summit plan that would have included just such payments?


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16936 alt.politics.bush:9261 alt.politics.clinton:10558 alt.politics.perot:2195