1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Gore Accuses Bush Administration of Ignoring 9/11 Warnings

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by MadMax, Sep 27, 2002.

  1. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    This makes me angry....please don't tell me the Gore isn't politicizing this whole issue.

    Gore accuses White House of ignoring 9/11 warnings
    By Donald Lambro
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES


    Former Vice President Al Gore yesterday made his second attack this week on President Bush's war on terrorism, accusing the administration of ignoring signs that al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden planned to attack the United States on September 11.

    "The warnings were there" before the attacks, Mr. Gore said.
    Mr. Gore's speech, which also accused the administration of running roughshod over civil liberties, capped a week of Democratic dissent, including party lawmakers' angry charges that the administration was politicizing the war. The two speeches were seen as a strong signal that Mr. Gore intends to run for president again in 2004, by leading those Democrats who oppose the president's policies on Iraq.
    Speaking at a Democratic fund-raising breakfast in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Gore accused the administration of failing to heed intelligence signals that the FBI and the CIA had picked up in the months before the September 11 attacks.
    Mr. Gore also said Mr. Bush's Justice Department and the FBI had spent more time and resources investigating a suspected brothel in New Orleans than monitoring bin Laden and his terrorist network.
    "Where is their sense of priorities?" Mr. Gore asked.
    Mr. Gore also accused the administration and the Justice Department of violating the civil liberties of Americans in the move to round up terror suspects and said "highly questionable" decisions have been made under Attorney General John Ashcroft.
    "What's going on nationally, with the attack on civil liberties, with American citizens in some cases just disappearing without right to counsel, without access to a lawyer — I think that is disgraceful," Mr. Gore said.
    "I think we need to stand up for our principles in this country and stand up for what this nation represents, even as we face the terrible dangers that we have to confront in the world today," he said.
    Mr. Gore's latest criticism of the administration was dismissed last night by Republicans as political posturing in preparation for another run at the presidency.
    "This has nothing to do with civil liberties. It has everything to do with Al Gore putting points on the board to improve his image," a Senate Republican leadership official said on the condition of anonymity.
    Mr. Gore is the only Democrat among several prospective Democratic presidential contenders to attack Mr. Bush's plans to make war against Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein from power and destroy any weapons of mass destruction. Earlier this week, Mr. Gore said any military action against Iraq now could "seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and weaken our ability to lead the world."
    His stepped-up criticisms, after months of silence on the issue, were seen as a strong signal that he intends to run for president again in 2004. Mr. Gore lost the 2000 presidential election to Mr. Bush in one of the most closely contested races in U.S. history.
    Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle on Wednesday accused Mr. Bush of politicizing the debate over Iraq, and the Congressional Black Caucus yesterday also came out against Mr. Bush's war plans in Iraq, saying it opposed "a unilateral first-strike action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States."
    "A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, result in substantial loss of life, destabilize the Mideast region and undermine the ability of our nation to address unmet domestic priorities," the group said in a statement.
    Ironically, while Mr. Gore was escalating his attacks on the administration, former President Bill Clinton was planning to attend a Labor Party conference in Great Britain to help Prime Minister Tony Blair persuade skeptical party members to support Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush in taking military action against Iraq.
    Mr. Blair is expected to face a key vote at the conference on whether Britain should join the United States in going to war against Iraq.
    Mr. Gore's stance is an almost 180-degree turn from his previous position on Saddam's regime. When he was a senator from Tennessee, he was one of a small number of Senate Democrats in 1991 who voted for a resolution to give Mr. Bush's father authority to go to war to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. As vice president, he pushed for a resolution giving Mr. Clinton authority to take military action in Iraq in 1998. And earlier this year, he said there must be a "day of reckoning" for Saddam.
    Democrats are becoming increasingly divided over the issue of military action against Iraq, though there is a general agreement among their ranks in Congress that a majority of them will back a resolution of support that Mr. Bush is seeking in the House and Senate. Mr. Daschle said last night that Democrats had agreed to hold a vote on an Iraq resolution. But he said there were still disputes with the administration over the wording of the resolution.
    Democratic presidential hopefuls who are expected to support a resolution include House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.
    Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has raised questions about the administration's plans for Iraq after taking military action but has said he supports using military force to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. Lieberman, who was Mr. Gore's vice-presidential running mate, has declined to criticize Mr. Gore's remarks, saying that "I think he makes the debate more complete."
    But Mr. Lieberman has taken the lead among Senate Democrats to craft a resolution that would give Mr. Bush authority to use all available means to take pre-emptive action against Iraq.
     
  2. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,984
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    What? Like saying Democrats don't care about the security of the American people? Or having the war as a part of your campaign strategy back in January?

    I do wish Gore would shut the **** up though.
     
  3. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,681
    Likes Received:
    16,205
    This makes me angry....please don't tell me the Gore isn't politicizing this whole issue.


    You know, lots of people I've heard from recently (Ann Richards was the most supportive) are thrilled that Gore is going out and talking, because their biggest concern is that we might be getting into a war without discussing it in every way possible, which is a disaster waiting to happen.

    I'd agree with that, but the way Gore is going about it now seems to be just nuts. His first speech about getting global support was fine -- this is going overboard. Some of what he says is reasonable debate (like the Ashcroft) stuff but then he combines it with pure political drivel like the brothel vs. OBL thing.

    As far as politicizing the war, though -- that's being done by both sides. Karl Rove wrote a paper on the fact that Bush needed to keep all political focus on terrorism / Iraq to help win the November elections. :(
     
  4. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    i haven't made those statements above...i never said the other side wasn't guilty of politicizing the issue as well...but to come out and actually say what Gore is saying here is beyond belief to me. particularly when Gore was a part of the previous administration who knew the threats of OBL just as well.
     
  5. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,984
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    I agree with Major. I didn't really have a problem with Gore's first speech, but this way is way out of line.
     
  6. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,681
    Likes Received:
    16,205
    For a better (and less political) critique of the Iraq campaign, turn on CNN right now for the Kennedy speech.
     
  7. Achebe

    Achebe Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 1999
    Messages:
    6,237
    Likes Received:
    3
    yeah he should have let Daschle take the line from there. He hit a high w/ four retired generals echoing his speech the following day, and then he does what we've all felt the Republicans were doing. Oooo gross.
     
  8. TheFreak

    TheFreak Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 1999
    Messages:
    18,304
    Likes Received:
    3,310
    Ironically, while Mr. Gore was escalating his attacks on the administration, former President Bill Clinton was planning to attend a Labor Party conference in Great Britain to help Prime Minister Tony Blair persuade skeptical party members to support Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush in taking military action against Iraq.

    Does this mean Clinton isn't running in 2004?

    This guy from "Democrats.com" was on the O'Reilly Factor the other night complaining because the cable news networks didn't break away and show Gore's speech from the other day in its entirety! How funny is that? O'Reilly was like "we don't even show all of Bush's speeches, why would we do that?" The guy was completely serious.
     
  9. BrianKagy

    BrianKagy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    4,106
    Likes Received:
    6
    Hey, if he's gonna dig the hole, the least we can do is take advantage of it.
     
  10. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,984
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    Really.
     
  11. Refman

    Refman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    Gore's speech is very disingenuous. He criticizes Bush at every turn, yet gives no indication of what he would have done differently if he had been President. It's very easy to bash somebody when you don't have to have an alternate course of action.

    OK so civil liberties are "under attack?" Well Al...what would you do differently that WOULD STILL BE EFFECTIVE? See that's the hard part. Combating terror isn't easy. It's a difficult process because ANYBODY could be a terrorist. I'd elaborate further, but Mr. Gore very conveniently just said that civil liberties are under attack without talking about how they are under attack.

    Bottom line: This was a very shallow speech. The whole purpose was to talk Bush down in preparation for Gore's running in 2004. This is the most blatant example of politicizing the war I have seen to date.
     
  12. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,681
    Likes Received:
    16,205
    This is the most blatant example of politicizing the war I have seen to date.

    I dunno... The administration calling people who question Bush's views on the war "un-American" is right up there with it. No doubt this was ridiculously political as well, but it's certainly not the only example.
     
  13. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924

    i understand your point...but the problem is this is an attempt to lay at least part of the blame on 3,000 dead american civilians on the feet of the president...that's taking it to an entirely different level.
     
  14. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gore's lack of consistency on the issues really undermines his credibility.
     
  15. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    119
    And that is no different than members of the Bush Administration laying the blame for 3,000 dead American civilians at the feet of Bush's predecessor.

    You can't trust any politician, regardless of party affiliation.
     
  16. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    i seriously must have missed something...who did that??
     
  17. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Once again, ref, I have to disagree with your rationale. We have set up a system of government which is the basis of our existence. It is supposed to be the way we work, through the good times and the bad, not just when we feel we aren't threatened. Throughout it's history the USA has often perceived itself to be under the threat of some form of danger or another...the British, the Spanish, the Mexicans,the separatists, the Natives,the Chinese, the Japanese, the Germans, the Soviets, the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Cubans, the Nicaraguans, the drug lords, the mafia, the Libyans, the Iranians, the Afghanistanians, the terrorists...If we are to justify suspension of civil liberties whenever we feel threatened, how can we claim to be a Democracy? I agree that combating terrorism isn't easy...if you believe in civil rights. It's pretty damn easy if you don't, as the Soviet union's relatively clean record of terrorist acts attests.

    If you abandon the principles which we maintain are the basis of our nation for practical reasons, then we are saying that the system doesn't work. A system either works or it doesn't, come what may, and once you start making adjustments for the sake pf pragmatism, you might as well go all the way...Dictatorships are conceded to be the most effective systems for both conducting wars and combating terrorism.

    IF being EFFECTIVE is your chief aim, and you are willing to excuse the means to achieve that end, then join the ranks with the other great pragmatists of our time...Can anyone argue that Hitler was EFFECTIVE? Or Stalin? Caeser was entirely EFFECTIVE while he was committing genocide. Taligunner Joe may have had some colateral damage while firing on Communism, but there is no doubt he was EFFECTIVE at damaging those who actually were communists...Our system of wiping out the Native populations is almost textbook in terms of it's EFFECTIVENESS...Hiroshima and Nagasaki were entirely EFFECTIVE. You get my point.

    When we decide that 'freedom' and 'liberty' are foundations of our system of government, we can't just tear away at our faoundation every time we think another would better suit our purpose for the present crisis, else we don't have a system at all, we have an illusion. We are saying that those who say our system is wrong are right, and that we are willing to admit it ourselves if we feel threatened. We will fight against anyone else's right to infringe upon civil liberties, will point our fingers ( and sometimes our guns) in accusation and condemnation, and we dismiss the reasons other nations give for those infringements upon human rights as beside the point. It makes no difference, we say with moral superiority, if you feel that your religion/culture/political system is more EFFECTIVE this way, when you threaten civil liberties, you are just doing wrong, and if worse comes to worse, we will militarily put you back in the right. If you happen to have some resources we want, well, that's all the better. Wrong is wrong, and we stand on the side of right....unless we feel threatened, and then it's all about what is more EFFECTIVE....
     
  18. Refman

    Refman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    MacBeth--

    Life is not a fair proposition. All that really matters are results. When the results are 3,000 dead it is unacceptable. Period.

    All of that being said, there is a delicate balance to strike. Effectiveness vs. Liberty. There are those who will whine and cry when they have their bags searched at the airport, claiming that their privacy (a civil liberty) has been violated. Do we suspend Constitutional protections? No. But you must realize that human beings give up some of their liberties to the government in order to receive the benefits derived therefrom. It's called the social compact.
     
  19. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924

    real people don't live in that academic world...real people don't vote with those weighty ideas in mind. they are asking...no, demanding, an effective war on terrorism...they want to be made safe...they want to feel that what happened on 9/11 won't happen again. that's the bottom line.

    besides..your view of a civil rights violation might not be the view of somebody's else...and that somebody else just might be a judge. your view of abandoning principles may not be shared by everyone else.
     
  20. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,681
    Likes Received:
    16,205
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/Multimedia/video/archived/2002/09/vr020913.ram

    real people don't live in that academic world...real people don't vote with those weighty ideas in mind. they are asking...no, demanding, an effective war on terrorism...they want to be made safe...they want to feel that what happened on 9/11 won't happen again. that's the bottom line.

    Actually, according to the Gallup Poll, real people are getting more and more concerned about violating civil rights in order to fight terrorism. :)
     

Share This Page