Gore Accuses Bush Administration of Ignoring 9/11 Warnings

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.

 

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.

 

I agree with Major. I didn't really have a problem with Gore's first speech, but this way is way out of line.

 

For a better (and less political) critique of the Iraq campaign, turn on CNN right now for the Kennedy speech.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Hey, if he's gonna dig the hole, the least we can do is take advantage of it.

 

Really.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Gore's lack of consistency on the issues really undermines his credibility.

 

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.

 

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....

 

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.

 

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.