Good Summary of Gore's speech on Bush by Bob Herbert
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Roger R. - 28 May 2004 14:18 GMT A Speech That's No Joke By BOB HERBERT
It has always been easy to make fun of Al Gore. But if there's any truth to the thunderous criticism he's turned loose on the Bush administration this week, it's time to dispense with the jokes and listen seriously to what the man is saying.
If Mr. Gore is right, the nation is faced with a crisis of leadership that is perilously close to an emergency.
If he's wrong, then all the folks who have made the easy jokes at his expense can consider themselves vindicated.
The war in Iraq, said Mr. Gore, in an interview on Wednesday, "is the worst strategic fiasco in the history of the United States. It is an unfolding catastrophe without any comparison."
In an echo of the growing chorus of criticism here and around the world, he said the war has not only damaged "our strategic interests" and isolated the U.S. from its allies, it has also made the country more - not less - vulnerable to terror.
In a widely covered speech earlier in the day, Mr. Gore said that Iraq had not become, as President Bush has asserted, " `the central front in the war on terror.' " But he said it has become, unfortunately, "the central recruiting office for terrorists."
The speech was extraordinary - blunt, colorful and delivered with the kind of passion you seldom see in politics anymore. The former vice president described Mr. Bush as incompetent and untrustworthy, and said his policies had endangered the nation.
The president, said Mr. Gore, had "planted the seeds of war, and harvested a whirlwind."
In the view of Mr. Gore (and many others), the essential problem has been the triumph in the Bush crowd of ideology over reality. The true believers knew everything better than everybody else, and the arrogance born of that certainty led, step by tragic step, to the war with no exit doors that we are locked in today.
That arrogance gave rise to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, the contempt for international agreements like the Geneva Conventions, the dismissal of concerns by some of the highest-ranking military professionals about the way a war in Iraq should be fought and the willingness of top administration figures to blow smoke in the eyes of ordinary Americans who were traumatized by Sept. 11 and worried about the possibility of further terrorist attacks.
"The same preference for ideology over reality has turned trillion-dollar surpluses into multitrillion-dollar deficits," said Mr. Gore. "And that same approach has led to the locking up of American citizens without recourse to lawyers or access to courts or even a right of their families to know they're being held in secret."
These and other matters are transforming the United States into a country that is more warlike, more brutal, less free, less just, less admirable and much less appealing than the nation that existed when Mr. Bush stepped into the presidency in January 2001.
Those who disagree with Mr. Gore should challenge him on his facts. Those who agree must look for ways to defend the honor and perhaps the very identity of the United States as we've known it.
The least serious part of Mr. Gore's speech was the part that got the most attention, his call for top officials of the Bush administration to resign. As an attention-getter, it worked.
But this was a speech in which the former vice president said: "What makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Our natural distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and democracy are what have led us as a people to consistently choose good over evil in our collective aspirations, more than the people of any other nation."
This is a time to remember the principles that made this a great nation, and to reaffirm them. I don't know what will happen in the election in November. What I know is that the nation is facing a crisis now. The Bush administration needs to step back from the abyss its ideology has dragged us to.
It may be that the president never understood what made the U.S. great. In that case, he'd be among those who could benefit most from a reading of Mr. Gore's speech. If he followed that up with a look at the Bill of Rights (it would only take a few minutes), he'd have a better understanding of what this country, at its best, is about.
Ty - 28 May 2004 15:16 GMT "Roger R." <jayray21remove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> The war in Iraq, said Mr. Gore, in an interview on Wednesday, "is the worst > strategic fiasco in the history of the United States. It is an unfolding > catastrophe without any comparison." Gee, and I thought that honor went to Vietnam -- a war started and escalated by Democrats IIRC. Let's see...16,000 American dead in the worst year of Vietnam, 700 dead in the first year of Iraq. Sounds like Algore's been smoking something. And I'll be he inhaled...
> In an echo of the growing chorus of criticism here and around the world, he > said the war has not only damaged "our strategic interests" and isolated the > U.S. from its allies What kind of moron -- other than Algore and John Kerry Hines -- would call the French our "allies"?
> , it has also made the country more - not less - > vulnerable to terror. A common charge sputtered by the lefty appeasenijs. But they never seem to be able to tell us *how* taking Saddam down has made us more vulnerable?
Unless you count the ridiculous assertion that we've now made the terrorists *really* mad at us. Yeah, I worry a lot about angering a bunch of gibbering fanatics who want us dead. Why, they might kill 3000 Americans in a suicide attack on New York City! Oh wait, they already did that, didn't they?
> The speech was extraordinary - blunt, colorful and delivered with the kind > of passion you seldom see in politics anymore. The former vice president > described Mr. Bush as incompetent and untrustworthy, and said his policies > had endangered the nation... It is also absurd to an unprecedented level -- which is really saying something when you consider some of the ridiculous things Gore has said in the past.
Gore -- who was part of a feckless adminstration that did *nothing* to stop the terrorists and whose hand-slaps merely emboldened the terrorists and led to 9-11 -- now has the arrogance to criticize *anyone* about the war on terror? That's even worse than Clinton supporters whining about liars in the White House.
If Gore is such a genius on these matters, why did his task force on airline terrorist in the late 1990s ignore the possibility of suicide attacks? I mean, Tom Clancy had them in one of his novels in the early 1990s for cripes sake.
If Gore is such a genius on these matters, why did the Clinton administration do nothing to stop OBL other than to bomb a baby milk factory? And what about Operation Desert Fox, Clinton's week long military campaign against Iraq (launched during his impeachment I recall)? Gore had no problem with that...
Sorry, but Gore proved that he is a feckless, inept appeasenik who's about as well suited to lead the nation in wartime as Pee Wee Herman. After 8 years of the "Al and Bill Let's-Coddle-Terrorists-And-Emote" show, what sane man would take *anything* he says seriously now? His grousing has about the same credibility that a WWII French Army critique of General Patton's strategies would have...
On second thought, comparing Gore to Pee Wee Herman is rather harsh and out of line. My apologies to Mr. Herman.
> It may be that the president never understood what made the U.S. great. In > that case, he'd be among those who could benefit most from a reading of Mr. > Gore's speech. If he followed that up with a look at the Bill of Rights (it > would only take a few minutes), he'd have a better understanding of what > this country, at its best, is about. Wow -- comparing a sour grapes speech made by Al "I Shoulda Won" Gore with the Bill of Rights. What color did you say the sky was in your world?
--Ty
Ty - 28 May 2004 15:54 GMT > A Speech That's No Joke Among some of the more entertaining snippets from Gore's jeremiad was his claim that Bush "has ... built a durable reputation as the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon."
My jaw dropped when I read this. I really only have two words to say about presidential dishonesty -- BILL CLINTON. You lefties remember him, don't you? He was Algore's boss -- and Algore defended him every step of the way. Once memorable quote -- "a man who I believe will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest presidents."
<shrug>
Are you lefties *sure* you want to embrace Algore?
--Ty
Bill - 28 May 2004 18:17 GMT > Among some of the more entertaining snippets from Gore's jeremiad was his > claim that Bush "has ... built a durable reputation as the most dishonest [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > history books as one of our greatest presidents." > --Ty If you count the number of lies that Bush has told about Weapons of Mass Destruction, about Nuclear Weapons, about Mobil Chemical Vans, about the reasons for invading Iraq, about turning the Taliban into the enemy when he failed to capture the al Qaeda leaders, about his coke habit, about his National Guard service, about the cost of the drug addition to Medicare, about the cost of a tax cut, about the benefits of letting corporate America do away with overtime pay, about his relationship with the energy companies that bought the office for him, and about how he is simply a puppet of Dick Cheney.
When Spiro Agnew got caught taking a bribe for $50,000, it was only money and it didn't hurt any of us. Nixon tried to steal an election and that hurt all of us. Clinton lied his a.s off to cover up a personal relationship. It might have hurt his wife and daughter but it did not hurt any of the rest us. Bush has lied and lied to protect his relationship with the energy conglomerates and has hurt us all. He has just about bankrupted this country, he has cost many many lives with his adventurisms and lack of planning, he has lost us all our international support other than the UK. He has been the single worst thing that ever happened to this country. Is there anyone in American not sucking the government teat that can say they are better off now than before Bush took office.
Ty - 28 May 2004 20:44 GMT > > Among some of the more entertaining snippets from Gore's jeremiad was his > > claim that Bush "has ... built a durable reputation as the most dishonest [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you count the number of lies that Bush has told about Weapons of Mass > Destruction Do you agree that there is a difference between lying about something and being mistaken? And if not, do you equally condemn all of the leading lefties who claimed that Saddam had WMDs, such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry Hines, Madeline Albright, Ted Kennedy, etc.?
Or is lying something you only object to when it's done by non-lefties?
Go ahead -- explain to us all why you lefties are *so* forgiving when lies are told by your people...
--Ty
Bill - 28 May 2004 21:36 GMT > Do you agree that there is a difference between lying about something and > being mistaken? And if not, do you equally condemn all of the leading > lefties who claimed that Saddam had WMDs, such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, > John Kerry Hines, Madeline Albright, Ted Kennedy, etc.? No I do not agree. Bush is the biggest liar on the face of the earth. Is now and always has been.
And Ty you are hearing this from a former Repulican and still a conservative, just not ultra right like you. B
Ty - 29 May 2004 01:42 GMT > > Do you agree that there is a difference between lying about something and > > being mistaken? And if not, do you equally condemn all of the leading [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No I do not agree. Bush is the biggest liar on the face of the earth. > Is now and always has been. Riiighhht. So tell me -- how can you excuse all these other liars? Is it merely because they're lefties?
> And Ty you are hearing this from a former Repulican and still a > conservative, just not ultra right like you. Sorry, but I just don't believe you.
--Ty
Bill - 29 May 2004 01:50 GMT > Riiighhht. So tell me -- how can you excuse all these other liars? Is it > merely because they're lefties?
>>And Ty you are hearing this from a former Repulican and still a >>conservative, just not ultra right like you. I don't excuse any of them. Not Lyndon Johnson for his Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, not Richard Nixon, not Ronald Reagans for Iran Contra, and certainly not Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica and everyone else but most of all Dubya for all the lies that have cost American lives, for all the lies that have just about bankrupted this country, for all the lies that have put so many people out of work, for all the lies that have brought our economy to its knees.
Ty - 29 May 2004 02:12 GMT > > Riiighhht. So tell me -- how can you excuse all these other liars? Is it > > merely because they're lefties? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > else but most of all Dubya for all the lies that have cost American > lives Well, the funny thing about your purported outrage at the liberal "liars" (who said the *same* thing Bush did -- that Saddam had WMDs) is that you had to be beaten into even addressing the matter. Then, all you did was mouth some vagarities then commence the Bush-hating spiel all over again.
I think you're a hypocrite. I think that you hate Bush for partisan political reasons and are trying to hide it by shedding crocodile tears for the troops. A tiresome lefty tactic that fools no one, by the way.
> ...for all the lies that have just about bankrupted this country, > for all the lies that have put so many people out of work, for all the > lies that have brought our economy to its knees. Um, I'm still working and drawing a paycheck. Last I checked, the electricity is still on. The air conditioning still works. There are no despots who are torturing my children or feeding my friends into woodchippers. I appear to live in a relatively peaceful, consensual secular democracy that guarantees its citizens legal protections unheard of throughout most of history and in most of the world today. The economy, after going through one of its cyclical slowdowns, is coming back strong. And it outperforms the economies of France, Germany and a whole lot of other nations lefties admire.
Perhaps you should reconsider your hysteria...
--Ty
Bill - 29 May 2004 14:36 GMT > Well, the funny thing about your purported outrage at the liberal "liars" > (who said the *same* thing Bush did -- that Saddam had WMDs) is that you had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > political reasons and are trying to hide it by shedding crocodile tears for > the troops. A tiresome lefty tactic that fools no one, by the way. That is so like you Ty. All the threads that you participate in go the same way. You fail to defend your point so you attack the person not the ideas. I thought your best strategy was to demand proof when you ran out of facts.
Ty - 29 May 2004 16:24 GMT > > Well, the funny thing about your purported outrage at the liberal "liars" > > (who said the *same* thing Bush did -- that Saddam had WMDs) is that you had [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > same way. You fail to defend your point so you attack the person not the > ideas. On the contrary -- I have attacked both the person and his absurd ideas.
The problem is that you seem strangely unwilling to hold lefties to the same standard that you hold Bush to. In the absence of any legitimate reason for this, I have no choice but to conclude that you are a hypocrite. I also think that your reasoning -- if such emotional appeals can be so characterized -- is rather dubious. It seems clear to me that there is a significant difference between lying and being mistaken. Nor am I persuaded by your hysterical characterization of the US as "bankrupt". Particularly when compared to the French and other nations lefties admire so much...
--Ty
Roger R. - 30 May 2004 00:18 GMT > > > Well, the funny thing about your purported outrage at the liberal > "liars" [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > --Ty Strange that Bush can still find gutterslime like you to defend his serial lying. You utterly lack any moral standing to call someone else a hypocrite, and you lack the intellect for your conclusions to be of any value to honest and moral people.
In short, you are a right-wing shill for Bush, very similar to one of Hitler's brownshirts. I'm sure that the free beer and camaraderie is all you ask - and you are overpaid at that rate.
Ty - 30 May 2004 00:34 GMT > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
> > On the contrary -- I have attacked both the person and his absurd ideas. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > by your hysterical characterization of the US as "bankrupt". Particularly > > when compared to the French and other nations lefties admire so much...
> Strange that Bush can still find gutterslime like you to defend his serial > lying. Yet feckless crapweasels like you continue to give lying perjurors like Clinton a handwave, while whining incessantly about liars in the White House. I can't decide if you are (a) too stupid to recognize your own hypocrisy; or (b) too arrogant to realize that everyone else sees what an intellectually bankrupt idiot you are.
> You utterly lack any moral standing to call someone else a hypocrite, > and you lack the intellect for your conclusions to be of any value to honest > and moral people. <yawn>
Please tell us again, why you lefties aren't calling for the heads of all those "lying" lefties who claimed Saddam had WMDs?
> In short, you are a right-wing shill for Bush, very similar to one of > Hitler's brownshirts. Oh look, a nazi comparison from a liberal hypocrite (a redundant term, like "wet water"). How predictable. <sigh> Is that the best you can do?
If so, I hereby invoke Godwin's Law and declare myself the winner.
--Ty
Roger R. - 30 May 2004 14:16 GMT > > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > hypocrisy; or (b) too arrogant to realize that everyone else sees what an > intellectually bankrupt idiot you are. Still attacking Clinton and you claim that ~I~ am intellectually bankrupt?
Thanks for the laugh.
> > You utterly lack any moral standing to call someone else a hypocrite, > > and you lack the intellect for your conclusions to be of any value to > honest > > and moral people. > > <yawn> I know. Since Bush took offiice, morality no lpnger matters to you. But it never did, did it?
> Please tell us again, why you lefties aren't calling for the heads of all > those "lying" lefties who claimed Saddam had WMDs? None of them instigated a preemptive war against a nation which was not threatening the US, causing (so far) at least 6,000 casualites including 800 american dead. None of them tried to do it on the cheap, so that the occupation could not be handled. And none of them were conned by an Iraqi crook in the pay of the Iranian secret serice.
But of course your God has told you that he has chosen Bush to deal a blow to our enemies, and you don't question your God, do you?
Wouldn't matter if you did, because you haven't the intelligence to question any reasonable man or God. Your defense of Bush clearly demonstrates that.
> > In short, you are a right-wing shill for Bush, very similar to one of > > Hitler's brownshirts. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > --Ty Since Bush is President and Ashcroft got the mis-named Patriot Act passed, Godwin is Dead.
You lose.
Ty - 30 May 2004 15:40 GMT > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
> > Yet feckless crapweasels like you continue to give lying perjurors like > > Clinton a handwave, while whining incessantly about liars in the White [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Still attacking Clinton and you claim that ~I~ am intellectually bankrupt? Actually, I am attacking your shameless hypocrisy -- and your cowardice in not explaining why you give Bill such a handwave.
> Thanks for the laugh. They say the mentally often laugh at things that aren't funny. <shrug>
> > <yawn> > > I know. Since Bush took offiice, morality no lpnger matters to you. But it > never did, did it? This from a Clinton supporter? Hahahahahahaha!
> > Please tell us again, why you lefties aren't calling for the heads of all > > those "lying" lefties who claimed Saddam had WMDs? > > None of them instigated a preemptive war against a nation which was not > threatening the US Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
Besides, all of your pissing and moaning was about "liars". Well, the lefties are "liars" as well, assuming you hold them to the same standard as Bush. The fact that they lacked the courage to do anything about the WMDs makes them look even worse. In essence, you're saying "I don't hold liberals accountable for lying because they were too gutless and cowardly to actually do anything." Yeah, real nice. Let's hold liberals to a lower standard because they are feckless, gutless weasels who won't actually do anything. Unless of course, the French give permission. Or, if a Democrat is being impeached for committing perjury...
Your hypocrisy is now obvious to all, I think. My work is done.
> > Oh look, a nazi comparison from a liberal hypocrite (a redundant term, > > like [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You lose. I refer you to a recent psychological survey that shows that stupid people like you tend to greatly overestimate their competence. http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/overestimate.html .
It is time for your medication. If you've taken your medication, then you might want to get a different prescription.
--Ty
Ty - 30 May 2004 15:57 GMT > I refer you to a recent psychological survey that shows that stupid people > like you tend to greatly overestimate their competence. > http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/overestimate.html . Wrong link, though it's about the same topic. The correct link is http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html .
The title of the article is " Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" .
Gee, I didn't know that Roger R. participated in any psychological studies!
--Ty
Les Cargill - 28 May 2004 20:06 GMT >>A Speech That's No Joke > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > --Ty Looks to me like the Bushies mainly have a PR problem. They don't do PR. At all.
This leaves the opposition free to make up anything they want to make up.
When FDR was running WWII, he did the Fireside Chats. What we get from Bush is bales of bumper stickers.
Being able to communicate the agenda clearly to the publc is a critical skill - one that Clinton mastered beyond expectation. Bush is vague, halting and sometimes downright impossible to understand. This is a simple fact, and one which is causing problems.
Clinton was largely transparent about everything except his ... escapades. And I figgered youse guys were over that by now :)
-- Les Cargill
|
|
|