I don't trust any politician. I think they are all liars. I keep waiting for one of them to prove me wrong... I'm not holding my breath
I have a problem with Gore stating something on precedent was factually wrong, without elaborating on the content and criteria of actually what was wrong...It is pure idiotic hot air mixed up to sound like he is making a point, but actually not. What is Gore referring to when he says the "past"...It could be anything conjured up. It makes no sense, and this style is a proven loser. Now if you neo-demos want to know the term, I can think of common sense, and decisiveness as a lacking attribute. Truman was a great democratic leader. The last one I know of. Follow that style, and the "neo" term will go the way of the DoDo bird, screaming Dean, and frothy mouthed Gore...
Here's what Gonzales said on Larry King... http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3398375 http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/policy.html http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/17/gonzales-smears-gore/
you're the one whose sounding like a DODO bird.. making up stupid terms.. and just criticizing but not pointing out the actual inaccuracies.. give us specifics.. have you even read his speech? which part in your opinion is flat out wrong?
More from the AP... and Nedra Pickler of all people... when you've lost Nedra Pickler, you've lost... http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/01/17/ap2456266.html
Personally I don't find this argument reassuring. Its saying that the CLinton Admin. didn't violate the law because there wasn't a law stating specifically that physical searches require a warrant. Technically this is true but I still find it troubling that law enforcement would consider such an infringement OK because there was no specific law. I would also argue that something like that would still go back to the 4th Ammendment regarding due process for searches and seizures. Anyway whether the Clinton Admin or the Bush Admin did things that infringe upon liberties doesn't make it any more palatable. What I'm seeing from a lot of supporters of what Bush is doing now would be apoplectic if the Clinton Admin had done it and only support it because Bush is in office. Of course they are forgetting that there's never been such a thing as a permanent majority party in the US and if the current argument stands then a future Democrat President could assert the same powers.
Scotty boy, and Gonzales, have been severely put down in their arguments. Of course those arguments were among the most juvenile kind that has ever existed..."They did it first!" Talk about some politicians being whiney babies.
Gonzales really is a disappointment. While he's not a weirdo like Ashcroft, he seems to be equally incompetent and the AG's job description now seems to be rationalizing the Admin's extra-legal activities after the fact (which in reality is the role of the white house counsel, I believe). Yet another company man, like Michael Brown, etc. - not surprising in a dysfunctional admin where loyalty is number one and good government is a distinctive second priority.
Gore was the one who did not elaborate on what was exactly wrong in scope and content in his critisicm of president Bush...Here is my favorite part of what I'm talking about:One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America." Sounds like he is saying something, right? But if you look closer at the stupid terms and rhetoric, he is saying "ONE of the other ways the Bush administration has controlled the flow of information"...What are the other ways Gore?. He won't tell us. Surely this is important to you and me. Why is he controlling this information? Why shouldn't he share this???...If there is inference to something other I want it heard to the American people. He goes on..."consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest." Language and politics of fear? Somebody interpret this, better yet, why won't Gore spell it out without being clear as mud? The thing is he can't. He talks about what fear can do as follows: Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women." He is talking about what fear can do, but I'd rather him explain the specific differance of reacting in accordance with an unprecedented clear and present danger threat... The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk. Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights. What?.. the very Bill of Rights, that Sen. Feinstein herself admitted that had she had a say it would be..."Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in", that the proven infringement of the proven ineffective, and more importantly proven RIGHTS infringed Clinton gun ban of 1994 (Thankfully gone the way of...you got it, the DoDo bird.) Gone are the days when a Democratic President such as Truman was a beacon. the Neo-demos in their style of sensationalism realize the "gradual effect" of controlling individual rights. Sure they believe in "rights", but it must be for the collective good where individual speak is degenerated, and degraded, and consequently in starkness to the individual. You will be assimilated. THAT is NOT why the founders of this country faced dire threats Gore...They did so for the individual. That is what made this nation great. Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously? Newsflash...The world has always been dangerous Gore. Even before America became America. Danger? We are in danger, when we allow indecisiveness be a hallmark. When we refuse to act or be willing to use powers to protect when the act is debated as lawful. It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same. We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is an INSULT to hear your frothy mouthed, and politically underhanded speech about protecting freedoms, when decisive and responsive action is not tantamount to neo-demo collective thought process. In fact, your duty right now is to shut the hell up turn around and walk away like a chump...The joke is over, we all had our fill of you saying something, but not saying anything at all...To be honest.
is that the best you can do mainstream genius conservative neo repub? a couple paragraphs about how the admin uses fear to control information wherein gore did not even bother cite specific examples? so basically you agree that all these remaining parts are the truth. thats a lot of truths for a "fringe idiot liberal neo demo"
Um, it was a speech. It was not a policy document. It was not a dissertation. It was not a presentation at a conference of specialists. I know Gore was doing something unheard of in GOP circles... actually assuming his audience had some intelligence, assuming his audience got news from somewhere other than Fox, and assuming his audience knew how to run basic Google queries... but see, good speakers highlight the issues and put them in context. There are many words and phrases in Gore's speech that can lead you to more detailed information if you wish to pursue it. For instance, in regards to the control of information, one might point out the restrictive Executive Orders on FOIA, or the end run around the Presidential Records Act, or the increase in White House level approval (and frequent changes) of basic agency documents (unheard of in previous administrations). There's also the changing of wording on official transcripts, removing pages from the WH web site, the almost countless rewrites of scientific papers to put them in line with political beliefs, paying journalists with government funds to write articles and columns that help the administration's message, having agencies manufacture fake news reports that show the administration in a favorable light or advance a part of the administration's agenda, and allowing male prostitute Jeff Gannon a seat in the WH briefing room so he could be called upon to ask softball questions. These are just some off th top of my head. There are many more available at Google.com. And by the way, will Bush, who by all accounts will push Health Savings Accounts in the SOTU, speak in anything but generalities with a few statistics thrown in for effect? Probably not. Will he go into great detail about health care issues? Probably not. will I criticize the speech? Probably. Will I criticize it because he didn't go into enough detail? Probably not.
