Thursday, February 16, 2006
One More on Gore
That, folks, is pretty strange.
16 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Feb 16, 12:56:00 PM:
One obvious answer: BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)
Seriously, a recent study showed that when political views are expressed that run counter to the receivers currently held view, the critical thinking part of the brain shuts down and the emotional side goes active. I think we need to look into this more deeply because it would explain at lot. This would explain why it is so hard to use a logical argument to persuade those on the extreme ends of an issue. The Dan Rather faked memo story is a perfect example of intelligent people who were incapable of seeing past their own prejudice, even to save their lucrative jobs. Who was it that said, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he was not reasoned into?” If further research bear this out it will give even more impetus to the movement for more politically balanced newsrooms across the nation.
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Thu Feb 16, 02:00:00 PM:
I wonder why you're so all-fired ready to go after Al Gore's comments without ever addressing the idea that the United States has made policy out of torturing suspects and holding them indefinitely.
Way to dodge the hard questions, CP.
And, by the way, I'm not defending Al Gore, but I am defending his right to go out and speak his mind. I wonder if you've got any beef with Ann Coulter when she makes horrible remarks?
And to Tyree the same idea applies - I'm not defending the use of false documents, but I'm not going to just forget that Bush did not fulfill his obligation to the Guard either.
Attacking the messenger doesn't make the message go away. Stop it.
By , at
Thu Feb 16, 03:08:00 PM:
Simple answer: Coulter has not served as a US Senator or Vice President of the United States.
Gore is a tool for the rabid nutcases in the ME looking to stoke a fire and rekindle the most disenfranchised to become suicide bombers and terrorists. What he's doing is simply wrong. The fact that he's taking 250K for doing it is nauseating.
We'll hear a lot more on this, since he'll make good fodder for GOP commercials when election season rolls around. To that, I say "Al, keep up the good work".
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Feb 16, 03:15:00 PM:
SH - I am not dodging anything. I completely agree with TH's post on Gore's mouthing off in saudi Arabia. I think what he said was wrong on its face, and wrong as a former VP. I also think it was silly -- obviously so. And people have elected -- once again -- to turn it into a partisan run around. Call it what it is. Gore trashtalked the US for compensation to Saudi royalty. Full stop. It was all political bullshit grandstanding. Just like your silly comment.
Don't you actually agree with the irony I pointed out? Don't you in fact find it rather embarrassing that Gore was kissing the Saudi's royal posterior? For $250,000 and maybe more down the road?
Gore can say what he wants. Neither I nor TH said he can't. We can also choose to judge what he says and to whom he says it. I wouldn't have thought in this case it would cause such a great uproar.
But then, of course, lefties have found themselves defending Saddam Hussein recently, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. Sigh. My bad.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Feb 16, 03:24:00 PM:
Al Gore makes speeches that offend me all the time and I never really cared. So does Ann Coulter.
However, to my knowledge, Coulter has never been to a foreign nation to make anti-American speeches before a nation indirectly responsible for terrorist attacks v. the US. For money. There's a difference between political extremism and traitorous behavior, though one can lead to the other, and Gore has demonstrated his willingness to engage in the latter. For money.
This isn't a joe-blow private activist citizen here. This is the former Vice President. What would you think if Dick Cheney went abroad and made an anti-American speech ("God damned socialist liberal pussies are ruining America, making abortions as readily available as if they were at a vending machine, and rounding up people and taking away their guns, desecrating their God given right to self defense against rampant criminal elements!") before a foreign audience? For money?
Aside, I hate the tactic of misdirection. 'Oh crap, they've found a legitimate point! "You should really be worrying about X. Way to dodge the hard questions, so-and-so." Whew, that was close.'
In this case, X = "torturing suspects and holding them indefinitely."
"Suspect" means n. (sspkt) One who is suspected, especially of having committed a crime. We don't hold "suspects" indefinitely. We hold terrorists indefinitely. People whom we know for a fact have and/or have conspired to kill Americans or foreign nationals en mass and/or who are linked to known terrorist groups or individuals. Suspects, if evidence is not found to make holding them necessary, are released. Even detainees at Guantanamo have been released. (some of whom were later recaptured fighting against us, despite their swearing not to)
As for the "indefinitely" part: during a conventional war, POWs are held to the conclusion of hostilities to prevent their rejoining their native force and fighting again. Why would we treat these assholes any differently? Why would we round up and capture an Al Qaeda battalion (yes, they refer to themselves as battalions, brigades, et cetera to give an aura of military legitimacy) only to then release them with plane tickets back home to re-arm and fight again like the Guantanamo detainees I mentioned before? That's beyond stupid.
As for "torture," a run of the mill cop in Bum-Fuck, Egypt has more lee-way with questioning prisoners than a Chief Warrant Officer does in the US Army. Detainees are literally treated better than *I* am, and those who do not follow the rules have a tendency to be court-martialed. Or did you not follow the Abu Ghraib scandal to its conclusion?
Allow me to direct you here: http://blackfacedsinner.blogspot.com/2006/02/on-interrogation-and-torture.html
And lastly, "I'm not defending the use of false documents, but I'm not going to just forget that Bush did not fulfill his obligation to the Guard either."
I spent some time in the Reserves. You are allowed to skip a certain number of drill periods every fiscal year, to allow for people who have other business that they need to attend to do so.
As a pre-emptive action, I'm going to post an excerpt from an article on your side of this question, and then shoot it down.
"The White House also included a signed memorandum from the man who headed personnel matters for the Guard during Bush's tenure, certifying the administration's position. President Bush had "completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," wrote Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel.
A recent examination of the records by U.S. News does not appear to support Lloyd's conclusions. Among the issues identified by the magazine:
* The White House used an inappropriate–and less stringent–Air Force standard in determining that President Bush fulfilled his National Guard duty.
* Even using this lesser standard, the president did not attend enough drills to complete his obligation to the Guard during his final year of service.
* During the final two years of his service obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. Instead, he took credit for makeup drills he participated in outside that time frame. Five months of drills missed by the President in 1972 were never made up, contrary to assertions made by the White House."
1. This White House used innappropriate Air Force standards for drill rather than National Guard standards... Are they serious? These are professional journalists? He was in the AIR National Guard. He was a PILOT. It FOLLOWS Air Force standards.
2. Did not attend enough drills during his final year of service... Neither did I. My command knew I was leaving the Reserves and going active duty. They signed off on it. They didn't care. By not doing anything, on purpose, my commander demonstrated his permission for skipping my last couple of drills. It's not uncommon for people who are leaving the service entirely to do the same thing. Sometimes they expend saved up days of leave to cover the drill periods. But if his command did not act, it thereby demonstrated its permission, excusing him from attendance.
Making up drills is called RST, re-scheduled training, and to my knowledge there is not a time limit for Army National Guard, aside from Commander's preference. In fact, they are very flexible on that because people have dayjobs and families. This is tacked onto the above paragraph; if his CO was ok with it, then it was ok. And if the Army does it that way, then the "less stringent Air Force standards" ought to as well, yes?
I always did find it kind of amusing that this was inflated to become an issue during the election. Even people who were anti-military attacked him for this, which is a little mind-boggling. "We hate the military! And we hate you for not fulfilling your obligations to the military!"
By , at
Thu Feb 16, 03:35:00 PM:
You could also argue that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is not exclusive to the left, but rather has infected BOTH sides of the aisle, albeit in different ways.
I can't count the number of times I've made comments (well, admittedly usually tasteless jokes) from my own particularly odd libertarian/left perspective only to have a bunch of Bush-swillers immediately jump down my throat and accuse me of various high crimes.
Point being that both "sides" make ridiculous and sweeping generalizations and the jackasses as Daily Kos are just as bad and annoying as the jackasses over at Little Green Footballs.
And there's plenty of intellectual dishonesty to go around - you get the feeling that if all the events of the last five years had unfolded in the exact same way, but with one crucial difference - say, that the Presidency had been won by a Democrat - these partisan boobs would all have adopted the exact opposite points that they now currently spout.
Just had to get that off my chest.
Harrumph.
By , at
Thu Feb 16, 05:16:00 PM:
The definition of torture seems to have been reduced significantly to cover almost anything done to prisoners in our care. Rather, it has become an epithet used against Bush, and America, to further a political end. This watered-down definition used by SH should be recognized as such, and seen for what it is: a way of victimizing (intentionally or not) the Islamists who wish to destroy us.
If he were to really be concerned about true torture, he would be appalled that Gore spoke to generously to the leaders of a nation that has a reprehensible record of human rights. They practice true torture, methods our sickest and most depraved soldiers can only dream of performing without being brought up on charges.
No, the safest aproach for the Left is to hurl meaningless labels in an attempt to divert attention from a serious subject (in this case, Gore's horrible opportunism) onto some completely trivial or nonexistent "crime" of the Bushies.
Their problem, mainly, is their utter contempt for normal people.
By , at
Thu Feb 16, 07:36:00 PM:
Americans want a genuine alternative to GWB's half-hearted policies fighting our enemies. When GWB does indeed hold hands with Saudi princes, Democrats reasonably object.
In one giant move, Gore inoculated GWB and Republicans from this criticism. Not just holding hands but putting his tongue down their throats. Alpha-Male style. Just like with Tipper at the convention.
Remember "Fake but accurate?" THAT ended any examination of Bush's National Guard record. Making stuff up just ENDS any discussion.
Going to Saudi and saying: 1. The US treatment of Arabs overstaying their visas after 9/11 was unforgiveable and 2. The US should let into the nation any Saudi who wants to come is ...
TEN TIMES OF STUPID. Saying that in the nation that provided 15 of the 19 hijackers and bin Laden's money (in a conference funded by ... THE BIN LADEN GROUP) is STUPID.
If the Dems had ANY brains and balls left they'd kick Al Gore OUT OF THE PARTY and issue a public statement that his words are unacceptable. PERIOD.
As noted above, this little adventure will provide Campaign Commercial after campaign Commercial very accurately portraying Dems as weak appeasers of our enemies. Particularly after hand-hold Bush leaves the scene.
By Sonic, at
Thu Feb 16, 09:26:00 PM:
Funny I've never seen Al Gore holding hands with the leader of the nation "indirectly responsible for 9-11" or indeed I don't know if Al Gore's family is in a multi-million $ business relationship with the Bin laden family.
Still perhaps the next time Bin Laden is over Cheney could take him hunting....
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Feb 17, 01:33:00 AM:
The "Bin Laden" family is very, very large, very wealthy, and are allies of the Saudi Royal Family that Osama has vowed to destroy. As you might imagine, they have disavowed their wayward brother Osama.
And please post details on Bush's (I assume that's who you're talking about) multi-million $ business relationship with the Bin laden family. I'd like to know more.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Feb 17, 12:15:00 PM:
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Feb 17, 12:59:00 PM:
Cass,
I get the sense that "Dawnfire82" is not a girl. Maybe I'm just reading between the lines.
TH
By , at
Fri Feb 17, 02:13:00 PM:
Screwy...
"Attacking the messenger doesn't make the message go away."
Your right, of course, but by taking away his credibility we can minimise the damage to our country. Since the US has the same military budget as the rest of the world combined, and our warriors have the strength and determination to hit hard and often, Al Queda has a zero chance of beating us militarily. They can use the Democrats to undermine the support for the war at home. The same way that the Soviet Union provided money to the PLO and American draft resisters to undermine our efforts during the Vietnam era. Al Gore can be 100% correct in his words and still hurt the chances of us winning this war. There is nothing wrong with what he is doing as long as you think the rising death toll over a bunch of cartoons is a good thing. If Al Gore or Michael Moore or Alec Baldwin think the President is doing something wrong, lets come up with a platform, tout it domestically and see what the American people think on election day and go with that. Going overseas to attack the President as Clinton and Gore have done recently supports those who oppose us. Politics should stop at the waters edge.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Feb 17, 02:46:00 PM:
My apologies :)
I'm not always quick on the uptake.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Feb 17, 05:12:00 PM:
You're forgiven, on the condition that you stop in to read my blog once in a while. It gets so lonely out there...
By , at
Sat Feb 18, 04:51:00 PM:
Gore can stop global warming by keeping his piehole shut and quit producing that HOT AIR
