> I'd say Gore is the more consistent imperialist, but Bush is
> the more unstable one.
Maybe I'm a nutter. But if Gore's politics revolve around a humanitarian claim, then at least isn't it possible, in theory, to hold him to that claim? Should Bush bomb someplace then he isn't under any obligation to justify it other than saying, "We'll make money in the aftermath" whereas Gore, at least, is obligated to say, "we did it for moral reasons." The former is closed to any sort of dicussion about whether or not it is right and hinges entirely on profit or advantage. The latter at least is open to discussion about whether or not the US should be involved. In short: Gore is obligated, by his own standards, to listen to objections and weigh dissent and consent - whereas Bush is under no such obligation. To put it bluntly - Bush is claiming that the US can bomb whoever they want whenever they want (ie. "our military exists to win wars") whereas Gore is claiming that military intervention depends on the moral high ground. I'm reminded of Aquinas here. Gore at least assumes that the cause must be just, and so is obligated to engage in the Just War stuff - which coincides with at least some sort of reasoning. Bush simply assumes Divine Right in all circumstances.
ken