|
|
If A Tree-Hugger Screams At NYU, But Nobody Covers It, Did It Really Happen?
Posted by Will Collier · 27 May 2004
It's interesting this morning to look around at the non-reaction to the frothing-at-the-mouth speech Al Gore gave yesterday. Flipping through the home pages of the Washington Post, New York Times, and LA Times, you'll see hardly a mention of the speech, in which Gore called for the resignations of virtually every Bush Administration cabinet secretary (the Post has a small blurb well below the main headlines; the others don't mention Gore on the front page at all). Why the silence? We're talking about the last vice president of the United States, and a guy who was just 548 votes shy of being the president right now. This ought to be a big story, particularly for papers that had been very supportive of Gore in the past. Is he now considered irrelevant? Does the media think he's become a nutbag, and thus unworthy of coverage? Could they be embarrassed by Gore's descent into MoveOn.org moonbattery? Heck if I know; maybe the answer is "all of the above," but the coverage of Gore's rant, or rather the lack therof, is more than a little curious. UPDATE: Well, Gore isn't being ignored by everybody... Comments
I am actually a bit concerned over the Gore rant. Even if he hasn't intended it (which I think he has), he has over-liberaled John Kerry, which in turn makes Kerry look more moderate to the average voter. It's the same phenomena that happened during the nomination process for the Dems: Dean made everyone including Kerry look moderate, when in fact Kerry is the most liberal voter in the Senate. Possibly some maneuvering on the part of DNC higher ups? I report, you decide :) Posted by: Topher at May 27, 2004 06:58 AMInsanity usually pulls pretty good ratings in the news...makes you wonder what the media's interest is in not going there. I think the answer is Kerry envy. How can the media cover Gore firestorming around the country without overshadowing Kerry's comatose campaign? Aside from ABC taking a few digs about vietnam medals, Kerry has gotten royal treatment from the media. Makes you wonder how those poll numbers are going to hold up when he has to start answering tough questions... Posted by: Mike M at May 27, 2004 07:06 AMThe Media may be giving him a pass because he is now one of them - the owner of a news network. Compare the reaction to Gore's virtiol with the reaction the media reserves for the worst moonbast remarks of Ted Turner. Of the raving creep-fest that rolls off of Ted's tongue, only a few manage to stick to tape. Posted by: Laurence Simon at May 27, 2004 07:11 AMAmong quite a few Dems, and some disenchanted Reps, there's been the meme that regardless of who was President, they would have done the same thing after 9-11 (including invade Afghanistan). One has to wonder, watching Gore's speech, if that's really true. Posted by: Dean at May 27, 2004 08:22 AMThis is Kerry's Iraq's Strategy? http://www.livefromdc.com Posted by: Adam Khan at May 27, 2004 08:48 AMThey're embarrassed that the immediate past-Vice-President is yelling at the current Administration. Bad form. I think it's pretty simple. They see Gore's track record in endorsement and advocacy and are worried that covering him will lead to further decreases in circulation. Posted by: Steve in Houston at May 27, 2004 09:25 AMMaybe it's being ignored because the administrations little adventure in Iraq is crumbling so fast and furiously that there's much other things to report. I love how there's so much whining here about the supposed liberal media ignoring this and that, and yet there's not one word about Judith Miller, the biggest flagbearer for the war in the media, being discredited by her own employer and by the crumbling of Chalabi's credibility--not to mention that the darling Chalabi was the chief source of WMD information for the administration itself. Lots of focus on Jayson Blair in the past, lots of fun with Micah Wright, but when it comes to your own boy, silence. Typical conservate bait-and-switch tactic. Posted by: Captain America at May 27, 2004 11:25 AMTO: All It's rather curious that he should decry President Bush as the most 'dishonest' president since Richard M. Nixon. I get the impression that Gore must have slept through most of the Clinton years. Especially that part in the Senate over the impeachment for lying under oath, i.e., perjury, as in a felony that if any of us did such a thing we'd be doing time as a guest of the United States, with little ability to change living arrangements. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 27, 2004 12:05 PMAl Gore has gone off the deep end once again. Perhaps he forgot his medication, perhaps this is the effect of a new medication. No matter. The man is hurting John Kerry's electability through his delusional ideas. Thankfully, Gore can't keep Kerry from getting the democratic nomination in Boston. And Gore is not nearly as devious or intelligent as Clinton, so there can't be very many levels of obfuscation behind the kooky things Gore says. Occam's razor says the man is a loon, and probably has been a loon for many years. Posted by: General America at May 27, 2004 12:08 PMCaptain America, "the administrations little adventure in Iraq is crumbling so fast and furiously" Really? Seems to me we're winning over there, albeit slowly and somewhat messily. Do you ever talk with people who don't share your conclusions? "darling Chalabi was the chief source of WMD information for the administration itself." No he wasn't. It's not a questionable assertion, it's flat wrong. Besides, was he also the chief source for the UK, France, Germany--you know, all the countries that agreed Iraq had 'em, even as they differed on the proper response? Posted by: JPS at May 27, 2004 12:10 PMI can't believe there's a single sane person of any political persuasion who isn't relieved that Gore isn't in the White House. They may hate Bush, but they don't want to trade him for Gore or Gore would be the presumptive nominee, not Kerry. Heard on the radio in the car that 41 leftwing organizations are joining forces to defeat Bush. Does anyone know who they are? Posted by: erp at May 27, 2004 12:32 PMJPS, "Chalabi is an expert manipulator who knows how to work the press as well as congressmen, lobbyists and think-tankers. He began coming up with Iraqi defectors who told reporters stories of Saddam's allying with terrorists and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. After lurid stories appeared in the press (and softened up bureaucratic skepticism in the government), Chalabi would pass on the defectors to American intelligence agencies. Thus, in December 2001, Chalabi produced a defector who told The New York Times that he had seen biological- and nuclear-weapons labs hidden around Baghdad, including one underneath a hospital. The defector later became a source for the Defense Intelligence Agency. To Vanity Fair, Chalabi peddled another defector, a supposed former general in the Iraqi secret police, who told of terrorists-in-training practicing to hijack passenger aircraft at a secret base near Baghdad. (The defector, Abu Zeinab, was dismissed by the CIA as a "bullsh----er," according to an intelligence source; newly coached by the INC, he went back to the CIA and was again rejected.) When American spooks proved resistant, Chalabi cozied up to their counterparts in foreign intelligence services. To the Germans, Chalabi provided a source code named "Curveball" (appropriately, as it turned out), who told of Saddam's building mobile bioweapons labs. Another defector sent to the DIA by Chalabi supported Curveball's tale. DIA labeled this defector a "fabricator" and attached a warning notice to his report, but the notice was so highly restricted that other intelligence officials never saw it. Both defectors' reports—apparently pure fiction—worked their way into official pronouncements and became part of the Bush administration's building case for war. Months later, when Colin Powell was feeling burned for having dramatically presented "facts" to the United Nations Security Council that turned out to be shaky at best, the secretary of State privately, but bitterly, blamed Chalabi. Powell also faults the neocons in the Bush administration who swallowed Chalabi's phony stories and pushed them into speeches by the president and vice president. With his clever sense for bureaucratic gamesmanship, Chalabi fed the neocons' hunger for raw intelligence. If the CIA and other spy services weren't going to come up with the goods on Saddam, then Chalabi would. He found a receptive audience in the office of the vice president and at the Pentagon. I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the veep's chief of staff, and Wolfowitz were eagerly looking for links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. With his media friends, Chalabi hyped a story, often cited by the neocons, about a secret meeting in Prague between Muhammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, and a high-level Iraqi intelligence officer. (After months of investigation, the CIA and FBI determined that the meeting had never taken place.) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040846/site/newsweek/ None of you can grasp the simple fact that 20% of the population really are socialist America haters. Posted by: Truth at May 27, 2004 01:36 PMBush looks like a chimp and is dumber than that idiot Regan, he is also a pawn of corporations, rich people, Jews and diabolical neocons. Posted by: what 20% really believe at May 27, 2004 01:38 PMWSJ's Blog 'best of the web' has some entertaining tidbits pertaining to the current topic: "Gore, in our view, has cracked under a crushing burden of guilt." Posted by: Manfred at May 27, 2004 03:16 PMWhy cover whats basically John Kerry's position? What every newspaper in America has already mentioned? What every blogger who dislikes the failings of Bush and company has already beaten into the ground? Seems like old news by now folks. Shaving that beard didn't catch him up on current events now did it? Posted by: IXLNXS at May 27, 2004 04:31 PMI think Gore actually helps Kerry. Gore does the dirty work firing up the base while Kerry keeps his hands clean. Neatly solves the problem of how a Dem candidate can tack to the right for the general election while still keeping his base behind him. Posted by: Jody at May 27, 2004 05:37 PMI wonder if Jody hasn't lurched uncontrollably into the truth. Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosi functioning as stalking horses making wildly hyperbolic attacks on GWB and Republicans, generally, does enable Mr. Kerry to keep his hands clean while the attacks continue to draw blood. Posted by: Dave Schuler at May 27, 2004 06:20 PMThe idea of Gore as an over-the-top, possiblly certifiable, stalking horse doesn't really work though. The Dems should have been smart enough to understand the implosion of the Dean campaign when it became apparent that Dean, while the darling of the far left and the media, was way too radical for the masses, even the Democratic masses. He failed miserably with his rants. Gore is further to the left now that Dean was, and is likely to scare even more Dems than Dean did. Support for Kerry to look more moderate? Doubtful, it will just make all Dems look more out of touch, and Kerry cannot disassociate himself from the last Dem Vice-President and previous candidate, no matter how much he tries. When Dean failed miserably with his rants, who benefited? Kerry. Instead of being viewed as Mr. Lib, Kerry came out of the primary as Mr Respectable. Specifically, the narrative coming out of the Dem primary was Dean was the raving nut job, Sharpton, Clark, and Kucinich were nuts that didn't rave so much (I think anyone who advertises an endorsement from Grandfather Twilight is the biggest nut of the bunch), Lieberman represented the conservative wing, and Kerry and Edwards competed for the mantle of traditional Dem nominee. Also recall that during the primaries Gore gave his global warming speech on the coldest day in a decade and his frothing "HE BETRAYED US" speech. If anyone was going to think the Dem party was full of nuts, it would have already happened. By not being the nut, Kerry comes off as respectful - even Presidential. If he Sister Souljahs the nuts in his party sometime later ("That is no way to talk to a war time President"), this effect will be further magnified. I also think this stalking horse plan is further borne out by Kerry's relative reticence on Iraq and his statements to the effect that "Bush should have a little wiggle room." To be more specific, by having an establishment Dem like Gore doing the nut job act, come November the anti-war moonbat brigade will be more amenable to voting for Kerry instead of Nader (the true moonbat standard bearer). Also the moonbats are pretty politically dedicated so they won't need constant feeding to keep them happy. So the "All the Dems are nuts" can be mitigated by only letting Gore do his thing every now and then. Posted by: Jody at May 27, 2004 08:51 PMThe person who said this "The United States is committed to getting rid of Saddam [Husayn] and, in the interim, to blocking his efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction…we support the Iraqi opposition and will work with them toward the day when Iraq has a government that is worth of its people and trusted by its neighbors." in October 1999 and this There can be no peace in the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalize his people and threaten his neighbors" AL Gore, Meeting a delegation from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), he also reiterated the administration's view that the Iraqi leader should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. June, 2000 and this "I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam." He said, "We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone." Interesting, if he had meant what he said we might not be where we are today (or he/they didn't really have the balls to do what they said) yet, FLIPPED (literally) and said this "In any case, what we now know to have been false impressions include the following: (1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power. (2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again. (3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones and ourselves against a grave threat. (4) Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left. Therefore it seemed imperative during last Fall's election campaign to set aside less urgent issues like the economy and instead focus on the congressional resolution approving war against Iraq. "
"The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning" Posted by: amy at May 27, 2004 09:37 PMPer Bob Woodward it seems it was Geroge Tenet of the CIA who told a sceptical President Bush that the WMD issue was a slam-dunk. If the oh-so-clever spooks were getting their info from someone other than Chalabi, since that they dismissed him as a fraud, it seems that their other sources gave them substantially the same information. According to Kay Saddam's WMD programs were set to resume as soon as the heat of the inspections was off, and Blix and his chums were eagar to give Saddam a clean bill of health. Saddam was so reckless and greedy that he started two wars, even without having nukes, for the purpose of stealing other people's oil. What he would have done if he got nukes is a horrifying thought. That will never now happen. In addition to the many other reasons for taking out Saddam's Iraq, that was a satisfactory reason. Posted by: Michael Lonie at May 27, 2004 10:41 PMJPS - you got served. Don't you have a comeback or something? TKO goes to Captain America. Well done. Posted by: felixrayman at May 28, 2004 02:05 AMUmmm, what about the NYT story about this: American officials say sensitive equipment is, in fact, closely monitored and much of the rest that is leaving is legitimate removal and sale from a shattered country. But many experts say that much of what is going on amounts to a vast looting operation. In the past several months, the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, has been closely monitoring satellite photographs of hundreds of military-industrial sites in Iraq. Initial results from that analysis are jarring, said Jacques Baute, director of the agency's Iraq nuclear verification office: entire buildings and complexes of as many as a dozen buildings have been vanishing from the photographs. "We see sites that have totally been cleaned out," Mr. Baute said. And the WSJ story about the Iraqi who was in contact w/OBL, at this point in time can't figure out rogue or go-between? Millions of documents, takes a long time to go thru, translate and organize. Don't count your chickens. Posted by: Sandy P at May 28, 2004 08:37 AMI thought Gore died last year when the tidal wave destroyed Manhattan. How did he escape the ice age, that old dinosaur? Posted by: Helen at May 28, 2004 12:03 PMFelix: Didn't see it til now. Work must sometimes intrude. But thanks for being a twit. Captain America: Interesting article. I believe Chalabi was *a* source, possibly an important one and now a questionable one. But he's been viewed as questionable all along; a lot of people in our govt have been against him from the start. If he were our "chief" source, the govt as a whole never would have believed there was a WMD threat, because there never was a consensus to trust him. Tenet told Bush the WMD case was "a slam dunk"; and the CIA has been among the agencies least inclined to take Chalabi seriously. And nothing in that article you cut and pasted really contradicts that. We had a lot of intelligence that pointed to a WMD threat that never could have been tainted by Chalabi, no matter how big a con artist he may have been. Posted by: JPS at May 28, 2004 12:31 PMAl Gore, Burden, Responsibility, and Wisdom I won't bother to dispute the falsehoods or expose the hypocrisy of Al Gore's speech from yesterday. Others have done that already (see the articles from Front Page Magazine and Power Line Blog, as well as the articles they link to). What I want to ask is why he's saying what he's saying. Really. He's saying things which are directly contradicted by the facts, his own personal experience, and his own past statements. Why? Posted by: David Schneider-Joseph at May 28, 2004 01:07 PM... the administrations little adventure in Iraq is crumbling so fast and furiously that there's much other things to report. Um...you must be talking about a different war, country, and, er, planet from the one the rest of us are discussing. Posted by: Anne Haight at May 28, 2004 01:36 PMThe press didn't cover Gore's speech because of not wanting to demonstrate that the "intellectual" candidate that they whooped for in 2000 is a roaring lunatic. They don't want average folks reflecting "Jaysus! this nut case came within a few votes of living in the White House when 9/11/2001 rolled around". Posted by: Person of Choler at May 28, 2004 01:59 PMAnd what sources do you have for your assertions, JPS? I find it interesting that one can now say that Chalabi was "viewed as questionable all along," when the primary groups that were questioning him were the State Department and CIA, and were largely dismissed by Cheney and company. But now that the Admin is distancing itself from Chalabi, they viewed him as "questionable all along." Nice. Posted by: Captain America at May 28, 2004 02:49 PMWhy the silence?It's the "mainstream" media's fallback position: cover for the Democrats whenever possible. Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at May 28, 2004 03:26 PM hello all - here's al Gore's terrorism policy: Not bad huh? Czech intelligence stands by the claim that Atta met with an Iraqi spy. Reports that the FBI disproved it are wrong: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091354 Posted by: Jim Burdo at May 29, 2004 03:49 PMI would have voted for Gore in 2000 but for my belief (now solidified) that he nothing but a couple of minutes away from full mental melt-down. After seeing his recent speeches - including his backing of Howard "AARRG!" Dean, I am so thankful that 1) I voted for Bush in 2000, and that 2) Gore will never be anywhere near the Oval Office to be in a position of power ever again. The media should just ignore Al Gore. He is a nut. Posted by: Harv Rosen at May 30, 2004 01:44 AMRobert: And judging from your appellations you're asserting that reserving judgement until more facts are in (which is what Glenn did in your comment) makes you Your reasoning eludes me on the first two points, and the last one I normally reserve for those who call people names for no reason and think nonsequitir arguments are particulalry clever. Posted by: Jody at May 30, 2004 01:22 PMVery clever. Did any of you actually see the video or are you relying on Rush, Ann, Glenn, James, Andrew, and the Warbloggers (tm) (or is it Wardrinkers?) for all of your information? You need to see the video and view it in context. Just like the notorious Dean video, he was shouting to be heard over the crowd. As for the content, bring it on. All of those scumbags should be fired and/or impeached. Maybe we can jail them in Iraq just for fun. Personally, I think there should be a lot more yelling in politics. Screaming, shouting, interrupting, face-making, bird-flipping, and spitting would make things more exciting. Where is Jesse Ventura when you need him? Anyway, this is part of a blogosphere-wide smear on a random Democrat that You People (tm) do so well. If you try it again, you are unlikely to succeed. Posted by: SixFootPole at May 30, 2004 02:03 PMSixFootPole: My question to you is: Did you see/read the Gore speech? Cause your comments sure don't indicate that you did. Now I haven't seen the Gore speech (have read the text), but did see the Dean speech live, and dude, Dean was indeed a nutball and not just yelling over the crowd ("I was yelling "YEEEEAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH over the crowd so they could better understand that we were going to win the election." Sure, if you say so ). To his credit, Dean was not committing the sins of Gore - I actually think a lot of the collapse of the Dean campaign isn't attributable to that speech, but rather, in my opinion, that Dean only wanted to stir the pot and didn't know what to do when he got the lead. Of course some of these can be absolved if you admit that Gore was just out looking for political gain. But rather than just saying these things, let's look at first five paragraphs of Gore's speech. "George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world." True. Bush did run on a very different foreign policy than the current one. However, something happened nine months in that I just can't quite recall. Do you remember? "He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon." Not what was Gore's boss impeached for? Again I can't seem to remember. "Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention." Putting aside the sarcasm for a moment, Geneva conventions are not being ignored. If Gore had said something like "basic human rights' then I could only quibble with him instead of him stupid, partisan, or both. "Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." UN - You mean like how we didn't get UN approval for Kosovo? Treaties - like how Clinton publically declared his disdain for Kyoto and that he would not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification? Opinions of our allies - If Gore is calling France an ally, then he's a fool. If he's referring to countries like the U.K. then he's a fool, because the only reason we went back for a second resolution was to give Blair cover. Oh and we bent over backwards for the French as they were actively campaigning against us, only for them to decline to even use Vaseline when they announced that under no circumstances would they authorize a war. The role of Congress - Does Gore not recall the war authorization vote that occured in the fall leading up to the war or is he just being partisan or stupid? The role of the courts - this may be more valid, but it comes down to a distinction not previously established - What legal rights do unlawful enemy combattants merit? Rather than waiting on an definitive ruling (which would take years), Bush has pushed ahead (which in my eyes is a good thing, but I can see where reasonable people can disagree). "decent opinion" - Sure, I'll concede Gore this (partially because I think it's meaningless), but don't fool yourself into thinking that the French haven't been actively campaigning for the end of US hyper-puissance since the end of the Cold War. "He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq. And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins." Invasion - that went insanely well. What is Gore referring to? The aftermath? Ahh, but then that belie the claim that there was no plan... Attending funerals - Never been done in any war. Photos - Are allowed but not at Dover. This was not allowed during the Clinton admin as well. Something about respecting the wishes of the families. Just maybe this is what is considered a "Good Thing" in most circles. Maybe this line of thought had something to do with the networks not showing the pictures of people jumping to their deaths on 9/11 and not showing the decapitation of Danny Pearl. "How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we had the good will and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib." "All Americans" - As numerous people have documented (Merde in France for example), before we went into Afghanistan, the French had already turned on us. Why? Because we didn't blame ourselves and wouldn't not be withdrawing from the world to facilitate French ascendancy. "Abu Ghraib" - How did we get there? Well, hey, it's war and sh*t happens. Like accidentally bombing the Chinese embassy. "To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption." And what they meant by preemption was not the inherent right of any nation to act preemptively against an imminent threat to its national security, but rather an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take military action against any nation, even in circumstances where there was no imminent threat. All that is required, in the view of Bush's team is the mere assertion of a possible, future threat - and the assertion need be made by only one person, the President." Foreign policy consensus - Well, yes foreign policy did change when there was some unplanned rezoning occurred. Staying the same course seemed kinda foolish, and still does. Success of containment - Did Gore mean the success in Khobar, and Lebanon, and Somalia, and Tanzania, and oh yeah that bit of rezoning I mentioned? Perhaps we differ on what the definition of "success" is. Side note: mutually assured destruction - the linchpin of Coldwar policy, which libs derided throughout the war, only works when the other side doesn't actively desire their own destruction. I could go on, but I prefer not to waste Stephen's bandwidth any more than I already have. As to the benefit of yelling, interrupting, bird-flipping and what not - do you believe that this would help the country or merely entertain you? I posit that irrational loudmouthed personal invectives damage the country as it serves to polarize the country and makes people not already in your camp less receptive to your point. If you believe that you are right, the other fella is wrong, and you want to change his mind, yelling, finger-pointing and the like won't help. However, if all you want to do is fire up your current supporters and your current detractors, then by all means release the spittle. Twas the latter that Gore was doing. In Gore's case, it doesn't even matter that veins were popping and spittle was flying, his argument examined textually was unhinged. This is what people are responding to. (However, Dean's speech was indeed decried for his mannerisms) Posted by: Jody at May 30, 2004 06:51 PMDear Jody, Not bad huh? Clinton didn't get UN approval, but he did get help from his NATO allies - that proved helpful. Patience and a little generosity (France had 100B$ worth of deals with Iraq - there was no proof that Iraq was either a grave and gathering threat as the Commander in Chief claimed, or connected ti 9/11 as was falsely claimed by the Vice-President. Posted by: dividedandconquered at May 30, 2004 09:54 PMJody, To continue, France is part of NATO - It has been helpful to have then there to share the burden and the costs in Kosovo, as it would be now. Were Bush not so impatient and arrogant (as opposed to the humility he promised - what's wrong with Gore pointing that out?) America's allies would have come on board. When Gore says "jump", the Bush Administration says "how far?"...unless they can use their preemptive prowess to preempt the news -- witness Ashcroft's preemptive and ludibund terror tome. Gore, you will recall, suggested they get rid of other folks, like Larry Lindsay and, I believe, White...among others. In short order, they were toast. Gore knows what is wrong, and he knows how to fix it. He should be the President, but I suspect we had to go through this detour from evolution just to prove that the Republicans simply cannot do the work of stewardship and leadership. The much more serious and responsible Democrats needed a rest, besides. Tanned and rested. Move over, Rover, let Kerry take over. Posted by: anonyMoses at May 30, 2004 10:44 PMI'll try to respond to divided's comments when they specifically relate to my criticism of the Gore speech (most relate to other common arguments from the right that I did not make, nor have the time and energy to defend). In the following, I attempt to compress one of divided's points to a single thought and then respond. My approximation of divided's point is first (would've been underlined, but Stephen has that tag turned off-probably wise), my response is presented in normal text. Bush's impatience and arrogance is turning world opinion House and Senate, approved, Bush led us into war of choice Zinni Your remaining comments are way outside the context of my Gore speech critique, which I presume demonstrated to SixFootPole that at least my criticism of the Gore speech had less to do with style and more to do with substance and wasn't just parroting talking heads (which I believe is a fair interpretation of Pole's contention). That being said, I can't let some of Divided's points slide, even if they were off topic... Gore and terror The truth is neither candidate made terrorisim a priority during the 2000 campaign (for example the price of gas got more attention). As an educated supposition, judging from Clinton's response to the first WTC attack, I have serious doubts that Gore would've even invaded Afghanistan or led a global effort against terrorism. There's no way that Gore would've done Iraq. (You may think that it is a good thing, but I disagree) (as an aside - is the Dem Platform a talking point or something - I'm seeing it everywhere - twice in this thread!) 9/11 and Iraq And if you think there were no terrorist connections, explain Salman Pak. and Zarqawi, and Abu Nidal, and Ansar al Islam, and public support of Palestinian terrorism... On Bush the unilateralist versus Clinton the multilateralist Praising Clinton's multilateralism when he only got NATO involved (in their own background) while calling Bush unilateral has always confused me. Perhaps one of the posters here can explain how 49 is less than 33. Common goals with NATO I need to grow up Umm, I guess I should explain my cryptic 33 reference. That's the number of countries in KFOR - the US led post-war effort in Kosovo. That way post-war efforts could be directly compared and Clinton's multilateralism efforts could be viewed in the best possible light. Somehow I cut that out when I was prettying up my harrangue. My bad. Hopefully, this clears up the matter. Posted by: Jody at May 31, 2004 09:30 AMJody - nothing but specious arguments and non-sequiters - Gore's platform had specifics not warm fuzzies about bad guys with trucks and bombs - Read the 9/11 commission reports if you want to know how the Clinton whitehouse responded to the threats - note who gets blame for not being more aggressive- intel, the military Al said they brought untold shame - I'm not sure you refuted, but these people think so: Post invasion? One plan to get in and out - There was never a doubt that it would be easy to blow stink out of a third world country - Exiting should have been part of the plan - ludicrous not to think so - Their plan was to fly home on accolades and garlands of flowers from welcoming Iraqis - They had not a clue, but the people Gore refers to did - and they weren't listened to I haven't the time to argue about France, but it should be noted as Bush goes to the UN hat in hand to get some help and some legitamacy for his actions that he will be in France this week and it would be very easy to let the people embarrass him 85% of them disagree with his war on Iraq, but that is not what Chirac is doing - I wish he were frankly Are we having a different debate? How does this relate to my criticisms of Gore's speech? Larger discussion of the war sure, my specific criticisms of the speech, no. Side notes: Which of my statements were fallacious, as you charge (as specious implies - thanks for calling my arguments attractive though even if it wasn't meant that way) and which did not logically follow from prior statements (as non sequitur means) specifically with relation to my cirtique of the first five paragraphs of the Gore speech? (Other than the ones I clearly flagged as my replies to your off-topic responses?) Details please. Show me where I have made a false statement or have made incorrect leaps of logic as I very much dislike operating under misconceptions or flawed systems of logic. Posted by: Jody at May 31, 2004 08:33 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"I'd do him."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
