Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Al Gore's speech to MoveOn

Al Gore MoveOn Anti-Bush Politics-American

  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#41 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 12:56 PM

Delvo, on May 29 2004, 06:49 PM, said:

He goes far beyond only paying attention to bad stuff; much of what he said and implied in the speech is simply false. But that's normal from him, nothing noteworthy.
Care to give me a few specific facts from his speech that he lied about, along witht he evidence that he lied about them?

#42 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 01:02 PM

Cyberhippie, on May 29 2004, 11:54 AM, said:

Delvo, on May 29 2004, 06:49 PM, said:

He goes far beyond only paying attention to bad stuff; much of what he said and implied in the speech is simply false. But that's normal from him, nothing noteworthy.
Care to give me a few specific facts from his speech that he lied about, along witht he evidence that he lied about them?
OK, but it'll take time...

#43 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 01:06 PM

i'm not going anywhere :)

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#44 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 29 May 2004 - 10:22 PM

OK, first, some stuff he said that I know isn't "true" but lacks concrete facts; these are conclusions without the facts they're based on being given, so arguing the merit of any one of these sentences could be a long debate all by itself because the debators have to produce the facts themselves from outside the speech instead of using facts that are directly stated right there. It's like me saying "Liberalism is childish. Visciousness, prejudice, and hostility are built in to the foundation of practically everything the Left does or says. The Democrat Party has lost its marbles"... and going on like that for page after page after page after page, just constantly stating the case without ever really making it. Ya, it's alright to say what you think in big general principles and overall patterns at times, but jeez, the audience is due something other than that once in a while!

In fact, this kind of stuff is the bulk of what his speech consisted of, which in a way is the real point here. All he did for most of the speech (which is very long) is come up with an impressive number of different ways to say "Bush bad" without getting around to much of WHY Bush is bad. Sticking to conclusions only without mentioning how you got there is a classic method of indirectly lying, because it's easy to match up the conclusion you want to facts that don't necessarily fit it and still hide the mismatch by hiding half of the equation.

And while they are almost all deceptive, I have nowhere near enough energy, time, or interest to go through this very long speech countering them all, so I just have to mention them in bulk once here, as a reflection of his generally dishonest attitude more than of the veracity of particular details, since that's the subject we started with in this thread. But here's a small sampling of samples...

Quote

How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison... What a terrible irony that our country, which was founded by refugees seeking religious freedom - coming to America to escape domineering leaders who tried to get them to renounce their religion - would now be responsible for this kind of abuse...
That last bit is somewhat noteworthy on its own even outside of the pattern of throwing endless claims but supporting none of them. He blames this country for something done by a few people. How can someone say stuff like that but then object when somebody calls him/her on it and points out the fact that showing such contempt for the country means one hates the country? But it gets even more fun...

Quote

Make no mistake, the damage done at Abu Ghraib is not only to America's reputation and America's strategic interests, but also to America's spirit...
Again, claims just thrown out without rationale... but more interestingly, after what he said at the last point I stopped at, now he pretends to give a flying futz about America's spirit that he was trying to bring down himself. This man can't even stop contradicting himself and proving that one thing he says or another must be dishonest even when all he's talking about is still his own feelings! You'd think he could at least keep his story on THOSE straight. And we haven't even gotten to matters of hard true/false fact yet...

Quote

They have launched an unprecedented assault on civil liberties
Bad as some aspects of the Patriot Act are in theory, the dire warnings that you could say might come from it sooner or later haven't been fulfilled yet, and even then, it would be misguidedness and lack of foresight, not an "unprecedented assault". Calling it that instead of just pointing out the real flaws is lying. Foxes prowling just at the edge of the camp's torchlight range are not the same as dozens of lions currently engaged in an attack on the camp.

Quote

This new political viciousness by the President...
...practically usable as a definition of hypocrisy, for that accusation to be found in this speech of all places, when it's just page after page of viciousness itself... but, I digress...

Quote

...and his supporters is found not only on the campaign trail, but in the daily operations of our democracy. They have insisted that the leaders of their party in the Congress deny Democrats any meaningful role whatsoever in shaping legislation, debating the choices before us as a people, or even to attend the all-important conference committees that reconcile the differences between actions by the Senate and House of Representatives.

Quote

He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention.
OK, the falsehood of these two is so obvious they make their own commentary on themselves. I can only presume anybody who didn't think there were lies in this speech just didn't read these parts. No Geneva Convention violation by the Bush Administration has even been seriously alleged, and no shutout of Democrats from Congressional business has happened (although I vaguely recall one or two others making that claim months or a year or two ago); in fact Republicans tend to go out of their way to give the Democrats more influence than their minority numbers in Congress warrant.

Quote

Just as he would not honor the United Nations... the opinions of our allies...
If this isn't a lie, he must have a memory-blank for the months and months that the Administration wasted on the UN procedures, thus honoring and respecting it even when the UN itself and its other constituent nations didn't. As for "the opinions of our allies", what opinions did Bush not "honor"? He asked for other countries to help, some decided not to, and they're not. They are free to not use their own resources if they choose not to. It just isn't honest to call it "not honoring the other's opinion" when two entities choose different paths for themselves.

Quote

...international treaties...
What treaties? The last time he said that stuff about treaties, he was talking about Kyoto, which would be an odd topic jump here, and it was a lie at the time anyway given the fact that we never signed that treaty so it legally doesn't exist. And even by THAT kind of dishonest standard for "broken treaties", he still couldn't name one that had to do with the subject he was talking about, nevermind plural. He was just counting on his audience going along with any claim he could make about American-international relations and falsely extending "bad relations" to "broken treaties" along with him.

Quote

...the role of Congress and the courts...
Bush got Congress's approval as required, and there have been no court rulings against this. He's trying to manufacture belief in a Federal fracturing and procedural crisis that just simply hasn't happened.

Quote

...or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind."
So the problems we've had in Iraq that resulted from being too soft on the enemy came from defying the widespread demand that we be as soft on them as possible?

Quote

The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks.
The ISS actually said the AQ population went from 20k to 18k; portraying a reduction as a "swelling" just because they're not extinct is a lie, plain and simple. (We have a thread about this elsewhere here at Ex Isle.)

Quote

Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." But because Rumsfeld and Bush did not want to hear disagreement with their view that Iraq could be invaded at a much lower cost, Shinseki was hushed and then forced out. And as a direct result of this incompetent plan and inadequate troop strength, young soldiers were put in an untenable position. For example, young reservists assigned to the Iraqi prisons were called up without training or adequate supervision
He talks about the decision to send far less than we could have and should have if Bush had chosen the more sensible option that was just as easily available to us, and then complains about problems that result from our resources already being stretched too thinly as it is because the number of soldiers there is too many and places too great of a demand on the system. Too many soldiers deployed and too few soldiers deployed are precisely opposite problems. They can't possibly both be the truth.

Quote

And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins.
Attending funerals of the individuals who've died would never make sense from any practical standpoint and can't honestly be contorted into a "dishonor" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. There's a reason why no other President was ever held to such a ridiculous standard. For that matter, GOING would be the real dishonor, since he and any soldier would be strangers, which means he can't truly share in the grief of the family and friends that the funeral's for any more than I could, and there couldn't be any real purpose in it other than to take advantage of the situation for political posturing and photo-opportunity-jumping.

And letting the bodies in the coffins be trotted in front of us all by the press, for whatever purposes the press felt like manipulating the occasions for, would be the real dishonor, not disallowing the press from dishonoring them thus. Just because the dead people are military doesn't mean they don't deserve the peace and quiet normally afforded to dead bodies out of respect just because somebody has a political, cash-oriented, or voyeuristic whim to take advantage of them and their deaths by using them as stage props. This particular item is not just any ordinary reversal of the truth as can often be expected in politics; it actually shows so little regard for our dead soldiers that it sickens and offends me, which I can't think of anything else in politics that has at the moment. His loathing for our soldiers must run deep indeed for this kind of thing to even be thinkable to him. This makes him, as far as I'm concerned, something I've never called anybody over a political issue, not even Gore prior to this episode: just simply worthless scum, even less than that, undeserving of life.

Out of disgust, and because the speech is just so huge that there's no way I'm going to devote this kind of attention and time and energy to the whole thing, I won't do any more for now. This is just what I got from zipping through it in a hurry and snagging a few lines from here and there, and is not intended to be complete, just a few examples.

Edited by Delvo, 30 May 2004 - 10:12 AM.


#45 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 10:54 AM

http://www.moveonpac...rks052604.html/

I just read the speech, several passages caught my attention:

Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention.

Someone please tell the man who almost became president that the Geneva Convention does not cover TERRORISTS. It covers enemy soldiers wearing their country's uniform and readily identified as such. Combatants hiding their appearance by dressing as civilians are TERRORISTS. That's why during WWII they executed German soldiers in allied uniforms on the spot. You hide your identity, pose as civilians and use civilians as human shields, you aren't covered. That's the law, that's the legality, and the law is firmly on the President's side.

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.

Because the entire Democrat party, and their allies in the partisan press, told the world that Bush was an illegitimate unelected president. They told the world Bush was a liar, a non-convicted financial criminal (remember Enron and Worldcom being blamed on him?), and a warmonger. Well guess what? Such partisan rhetoric found a ready audience in a world that 1) Hates what American values represent, 2) Hates American economic power, and 3) Hates American military excellence.

The war plan was incompetent in its rejection of the advice from military professionals and the analysis of the intelligence was incompetent in its conclusion that our soldiers would be welcomed with garlands of flowers and cheering crowds. Thus we would not need to respect the so-called Powell doctrine of overwhelming force.

You mean like the predictions of tens of thousands of American bodybags in Afghanistan and Iraq? Predictions of hundreds of thousands of Iraq and Afghan civilian casualties? Predictions of the "arab street" exploding across the entire middle east? Predictions of the American military being spread "too thin"? Predictions of WMD being used against our troops? Predictions of America stealing Afghan and Iraqi oil? I'll gladly stack the left's enormous predictions against Bush's one prediction (of many) of finding WMD stockpiles.

The same dark spirit of domination has led them to - for the first time in American history - imprison American citizens with no charges, no right to see a lawyer, no right to notify their family, no right to know of what they are accused, and no right to gain access to any court to present an appeal of any sort. The Bush Admistration has even acquired the power to compel librarians to tell them what any American is reading, and to compel them to keep silent about the request - or else the librarians themselves can also be imprisoned.

This is the most hilarious accusation of all, and it's been there since 9/11. Hey Gore, did you watch the 9/11 hearings last month? The chief accusation against Bush was that he didn't make legal law enforcement changes before 9/11. The very law enforcement changes the Patriot Act made, Bush was castigated for not doing SOONER. Everything Bush was criticized for not doing sooner in this 9/11 Commission was done in the Patriot Act after 9/11. Must be great to criticize from every angle, right Al? Accuse Bush of treason for not passing the Patriot Act before 9/11, and then criticize for passing it after. Sure is nice to take every position.

So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.

My thanks to Gore and all of his side for CONFIRMING what the prison abuse scandal means to them. Purely a partisan avenue to win an election, they couldn't care one bit about these prisoners. Thank you for confirming your naked partisanship, if not outright nuttiness, at a time of war.

War is hell, bad things happen, and as far as I know, those who abused these prisoners are being punished. For those seeking to win the 2004 election over this, thank you for rebutting every bit of your own criticism. America is not united, those who support the President do so because it is the right thing to do in a time of war. Those who value their own political power over the lives of our soldiers, and AlGore is their perfect representative.

Get AlGore more microphones, every day, every week. Nothing will re-elect the President faster.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 30 May 2004 - 11:03 AM.


#46 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 11:20 AM

Gauis said:

So the REepublicans who said things of the very same nature while FDR was in office..they were just good ole' boys defending the country??

Nothing was said leading up to, during, or after WWII by the Republicans that in any way compares to the regular statements by Gore, Kerry, Daschle, Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, McDermott, Sen. Clinton, and DNC Chairman MacAuliffe.

The criticism of the Iraq "failure" (yes I am using quotes) is ridiculous and purely partisan. We've had around 600 allied casualties since major combat operations were declared over in Iraq. Go back to WWII, in Anzio allied soldiers suffered 4,400 killed in four months. One beachhead, one operation, 4,400 dead. The Iraq war is not lost, and we're nowhere near losing it. Claiming otherwise might be envisioned as somehow helping Kerry in his presidential bid, but it's not factual.

http://www.army.mil/...anzio/72-19.htm

So I was wondering...in your vision of America...where does dissent end and sedition begin??

Gore's words, and those echoed by his party, make the enemy think they are winning. It is possible to offer your ideas for how you would wage the 'war on terrorism', without calling our present policy a complete failure of catastrophic proportions. That's the line that was crossed, and it's crossed every day a Democrat leader like Kennedy or Gore open their mouths. They embolden the enemy, declaring moral failure when we have neither strategic, tactical, or moral failure in Iraq.

Here we are in total agreement...I feel politician on both sides are doing the exact same thing...honest political disagreement has become a war of unending tv sound bites..

Yes it is. And you had kind words welcoming me to the Ex Isle earlier, I hope I have not ended that tentative friendship by giving my honest opinion. They say in the workplace that you should not discuss politics, religion, or sex. Obviously some degree of that truth is present on the internet. But people like to talk about these things. I just hope to do so cordially.

-Ogami

#47 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 12:01 PM

Drew, on May 28 2004, 09:05 AM, said:

Just in case you missed it, here is the transcript of Al Gore's speech to the rabidly anti-Bush MoveOn group.
Thanks for the link, Drew. It was a good speech, with a number of interesting statements that (sadly) any politician currently running for ofice couldn't get away with, for fear of sounding too partisan. Which is why insane situations like the Iraq War just go on and on - eveyone who can actually make a difference is too afraid to admit the truth.
Per aspera ad astra

#48 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 01:24 PM

The truth, Kevin? Care to explain the following? Or would that lead to the 'admission' that all Iraq war opposition is partisan opportunism? Truth is a casualty of war, and Gore is its foremost victim:

http://fas.org/news/...121664_tlt.html

16 December 1998

EXCERPTS: GORE COMMENTS ON IRAQ STRIKE DECEMBER 16
(Vice President interviewed by CNN's Larry King)

Washington -- Vice President, interviewed by CNN's Larry King late
December 16, explained why the United States felt obliged to strike at
Iraq's Saddam Hussein earlier in the day.

(begin excerpts)

"We tried to make this inspection regime work, and Saddam would not
cooperate. In fact, he obstructed the inspectors. And so we are going
to take the other alternative available to us, to use our military to
degrade his ability to get weapons of mass destruction and threaten
his neighbors. We'll make an assessment whenever this military action
is completed. If, at some point in the future he decides to try to
continue to threaten his neighbors and get weapons of mass
destruction, we may have to do it again."

"There are no plans for any kind of ground invasion or ground
activity. There's no thought of anything like that. I will say that we
have supported the Iraq Liberation Act passed by the Congress. We
would like to see a different kind of regime in Iraq. We've said that
plenty of times. But this action is focussed specifically and
precisely on preventing him or degrading his ability to get weapons of
mass destruction or to threaten his neighbors and we're going to
continue it until we achieve that objective."

"We have strong support from around the world. The British are
participating. We have strong support in the region. We're very
pleased with the level of support for this. I think people all over
the world are really fed up with Saddam Hussein."

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons,
ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many
people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already
demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his
own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction
against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots
and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the
stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the
peace and security of the entire world."

(end excerpts)


#49 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 05:57 PM

But that's not fair! You are using Al's own words to show him as a two faced lying sack of dren.I think the group actually needs to title of TurnOff. Because they are halfway already to Timothy Leary level of reality.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#50 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 08:40 PM

G1223 wrote:

But that's not fair! You are using Al's own words to show him as a two faced lying sack of dren.I think the group actually needs to title of TurnOff. Because they are halfway already to Timothy Leary level of reality.

Yes, how cruel of me to quote Al Gore from 1998. The situation in Iraq today is totally different. Well, when actually did Gore change his mind? During 1999 and 2000, no difference there. Gore did not declare that Saddam was innocent and clear of having any more WMD research or stockpiles. What happened after that?

Apparently the only change was that a Republican is now president. And that's why people like Gore cannot be trusted with the leadership of this country. They've already proven they value their own power above the safety of this country, even to the point of contradicting everything they said about Iraq when Clinton was president. They have no shame, not when the pursuit of absolute power is their cherished objective.

There is not a Democrat alive who can justify or explain Gore's change of stance from 1998 to 2004 on Iraq. It's impossible to intellectually justify, the only basis is psychotic hatred of Bush.

-Ogami

#51 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 08:53 PM

But Ogami, and focusing solely on the MoveOn speech, isn't the speech really about the abuse of prisoners?  No where in the speech does Gore try to say Hussein is some kind of good guy.  

What he does say is

Quote

The President convinced a majority of the country that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11th. But in truth he had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The President convinced the country with a mixture of forged documents and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, and that he was "indistinguishable" from Osama bin Laden.

Well obviously you can't use the 1998 speech to contradict any of this as it predates 9-11.

Quote

He asked the nation , in his State of the Union address, to "imagine" how terrified we should be that Saddam was about to give nuclear weapons to terrorists and stated repeatedly that Iraq posed a grave and gathering threat to our nation. He planted the seeds of war, and harvested a whirlwind. And now, the "corrupt tree" of a war waged on false premises has brought us the "evil fruit" of Americans torturing and humiliating prisoners.

Seems to me that the difference between this and the 1998 speech is the question of the immediacy of the threat.

Finally, you say:


Quote

And that's why people like Gore cannot be trusted with the leadership of this country.

Gore is not running.  Are you saying that Kerry is "people like Gore"?  If so, upon what (other than the fact that he's in the same political party) do you base the contention?

Lil
Posted Image

#52 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 09:51 PM

Hi Lil. Defending Gore is a monumental task, I commend you. I simply take the easier side of noting what Gore said in 1998 changed with a new president. Your job is harder.

you quoted Gore:

The President convinced a majority of the country that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11th.

Gore is lying. The President never said in a single speech anywhere that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11th. If he did, don't you think CNN or ABC News would be interested in reporting that? It never happened.

Rather the administration made the case (now confirmed thousands of times over the past year) that Islamic terrorism had a friend in Saddam Hussein. And if one group's ideology didn't match Hussein's precisely, that was less important than the larger goal of opposing western democracies.

What the Democrats claimed is that they needed a direct line tying Saddam Hussein to Bin Laden, a ludicrous assumption. One did not need to make the case that Saddam knew Bin Laden was planning 9/11 to be guilty of being a fellow traveler. That would be as idiotic as insisting that WWII could not be waged against Germany, unless it could be proved that Hitler knew of the Pearl Harbor plan and agreed upon it. The Axis didn't need an ironclad agreement then, and terrorists didn't need such a simplistic trail of evidence now, either. Those who insist on proving such a simplistic trail of evidence need to check their history books, real life doesn't work that way.

He asked the nation , in his State of the Union address, to "imagine" how terrified we should be that Saddam was about to give nuclear weapons to terrorists and stated repeatedly that Iraq posed a grave and gathering threat to our nation.

Gore says this like the world started on 9/11. Bill Clinton made the very same warnings throughout his presidency, yet I don't recall Gore or Clinton rescinding these warnings at the end of 2000 as they turned over the reigns of power. When did the warnings about Saddam's threat get rescinded, Lil? Can you fix a time where Gore changed his mind, and not have it tied to a partisan slam against a Republican president? You can't.

Gore is not running. Are you saying that Kerry is "people like Gore"? If so, upon what (other than the fact that he's in the same political party) do you base the contention?

Everything Gore says is with Kerry's approval, and that of the DNC. Gore gets to attack Bush in ways that would appear "impolitic" were Kerry to be saying these things. These nutty conspiracy charges need to be said to appeal to the Democrat base, which says a lot about the Democrat base. But it's better if Gore says these things, freeing Kerry to... hide, I guess, until election day. Then he can be statesmanlike!

-Ogami

#53 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 10:03 PM

HubcapDave, on May 29 2004, 09:22 AM, said:

I get your points, I understand them. I don't necessarily agree with them. Particularly the last sentiment. To me, it would seem that the US would have "screwed it up" when our troops were summarily kicked out of Iraq and Iraq was governed by an Islamic theocracy.
Judging by what I heard on 60 Minutes tonight, that Islamic theocracy ain't too far down the road.  :suspect:

And I'm going to say right now that I think Iraq will end up as a Shiite theocracy. You'd have to have had your head in a hole for the last year to miss the signs.

Edited by Rhea, 30 May 2004 - 10:07 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#54 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 10:06 PM

Ogami, on May 30 2004, 06:49 PM, said:

Gore is lying. The President never said in a single speech anywhere that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11th. If he did, don't you think CNN or ABC News would be interested in reporting that? It never happened.
Gore is NOT LYING. The President paired 9/11, terrorism and Saddam Hussein so often in speeches, as did the rest of his flunkies, that at one time a poll showed that 70% of Americans believed Saddam was involved with 9/11.

No, he did not ever say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But he did infer it, over and over and over again.

Zack and I have both provided links to statements made by Bush and his cronies that did indeed infer that Saddam was, in some nebulous way, linked to 9/11. I refuse to do it one more time, since the people who keep saying this are obviously not interested in the facts.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#55 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 10:10 PM

Leaving aside the issue of the current Administration's veracity or lack thereof in terms of us going to Iraq (a topic upon which I suspect we'll never agree) let me address your final point which goes to the last question in my previous post:

Quote

Lil:  Are you saying that Kerry is "people like Gore"? If so, upon what (other than the fact that he's in the same political party) do you base the contention?

To which you responded:

Quote

Everything Gore says is with Kerry's approval, and that of the DNC.

What is your basis for this contention?  Are you of the opinion that every member of the Democratic National Party thinks alike on every single issue?  I can assure you that this is not the case.  Have you so soon forgotten the divisiveness and contention that characterized the DNC's primary elections and the campaigns related thereto?

Quote

Gore gets to attack Bush in ways that would appear "impolitic" were Kerry to be saying these things.

Did you happen to track Kerry througout the primary election process?  Do you contend that he has never accused Bush or this administration of lying? Kerry is nothing if not outspoken.  

Quote

These nutty conspiracy charges need to be said to appeal to the Democrat base, which says a lot about the Democrat base. But it's better if Gore says these things, freeing Kerry to... hide, I guess, until election day. Then he can be statesmanlike!

Spoken like someone who is neither truly familiar with either Kerry or the "Democrat base" as you call it.

As a member of this "Democrat base" as you call it, allow me to give you some perspective:

1.  Many democrats recognize that "ABB" is NOT a campaign.  Many of us recognize that what is needed is not a campaign that centers around "not being Bush" but around proactive points.  

2.  Many of us (raises hand) don't like Kerry.  But, as much as we don't think "ABB" is a campaign, the fact is that to many of us, anyone really would be better than Bush.

3.  Many of us (raises hand) don't like Gore.

4.  We (the members of the DNC) are not in fact a cube of Borg.  Take any five of the most liberal people on this board and you'll find that there are several areas upon which we disagree.  Go on I dare ya.
Posted Image

#56 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 10:30 PM

Rhea, on May 30 2004, 09:04 PM, said:

Ogami, on May 30 2004, 06:49 PM, said:

Gore is lying. The President never said in a single speech anywhere that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11th. If he did, don't you think CNN or ABC News would be interested in reporting that? It never happened.
Gore is NOT LYING. The President paired 9/11, terrorism and Saddam Hussein so often in speeches, as did the rest of his flunkies, that at one time a poll showed that 70% of Americans believed Saddam was involved with 9/11.

No, he did not ever say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But he did infer it, over and over and over again.

Zack and I have both provided links to statements made by Bush and his cronies that did indeed infer that Saddam was, in some nebulous way, linked to 9/11. I refuse to do it one more time, since the people who keep saying this are obviously not interested in the facts.
BS. What we're not interested in is more links to the usual suspects trying to distort the facts into being something they aren't, never were, and never will or can be.

#57 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 10:54 PM

Delvo, on May 30 2004, 08:28 PM, said:

Rhea, on May 30 2004, 09:04 PM, said:

Ogami, on May 30 2004, 06:49 PM, said:

Gore is lying. The President never said in a single speech anywhere that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11th. If he did, don't you think CNN or ABC News would be interested in reporting that? It never happened.
Gore is NOT LYING. The President paired 9/11, terrorism and Saddam Hussein so often in speeches, as did the rest of his flunkies, that at one time a poll showed that 70% of Americans believed Saddam was involved with 9/11.

No, he did not ever say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But he did infer it, over and over and over again.

Zack and I have both provided links to statements made by Bush and his cronies that did indeed infer that Saddam was, in some nebulous way, linked to 9/11. I refuse to do it one more time, since the people who keep saying this are obviously not interested in the facts.
BS. What we're not interested in is more links to the usual suspects trying to distort the facts into being something they aren't, never were, and never will or can be.
In other words:  Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up.  :p

'Sokay Delvo, what one person thinks is a lie another thinks is a fact.  It's the way it's shaken out.

IMO it's a MOOT POINT for purposes of this election.  For whatever reason, the American Public™ does not seem to be interested in whether or not the Bush Administration made any misleading statements in order to get the country into this war.  Accordingly it is stupid for the Democrats to use that issue as a focal point for this campaign.

Not that *my* opinion will do any good as I fully expect Kerry to do exactly what I think he shouldn't:  run on an ABB/Bush lied platform.  

*sigh*

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 30 May 2004 - 11:10 PM.

Posted Image

#58 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 11:14 PM

Rhea wrote:

Gore is NOT LYING. The President paired 9/11, terrorism and Saddam Hussein so often in speeches, as did the rest of his flunkies, that at one time a poll showed that 70% of Americans believed Saddam was involved with 9/11.

You are correct only in that Gore probably is thinking of this poll figure, a poll taken back in September or October 2001 if I recall correctly. That's very different from Bush fooling the public, as Gore asserts.

Gore is lying about Bush making this claim. Here's the link to the White House website, showing every speech Bush made starting in September 2001:

http://www.whitehous...leases/2001/09/

If you can find a single speech anywhere that the President made claiming Saddam Hussein caused 9/11, I'll vote for Nader. Bush never claimed that, and it's telling that you hedge your statement with the "rest of his flunkies", because you just conceded that Gore is an absolute liar. Lil quoted Gore's line, he didn't say flunkies, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, National Review, American Spectator, Foxnews, Washington Times, or the Drudge Report. He said the President made this claim. Gore is a liar, you just proved it conclusively.

-Ogami

#59 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 30 May 2004 - 11:23 PM

Sheesh.  How many times to we have to go through this?  Bush's March 2003 letter to Congress (at http://www.whitehous...030319-1.html):

Presidential Letter  
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate  


March 18, 2003  

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)  

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:  

(1)  reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other   peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national   security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by   Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United  Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and  

(2)  acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public  Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries  continuing to take the necessary actions against international   terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or  aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,  

GEORGE W. BUSH  


Note that the language here is the Bush Administration's typical weasel phrasing.  The "including" gives them wiggle room at the same time they're rhetorically linking Iraq and September 11th.  You see the same trick used over and over again by these people.  The best example is from Bush's own now-infamous aircraft carrier speech.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."


Then later:  "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

Then there's the matter of Dick Cheney repeatedly making the assertion that Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, long after the CIA had discredited the meeting by placing Atta in Florida at the same time the meeting was supposedly happening.  (BTW, the Iraqi agent in question is now in US custody.  If he had confessed to meeting with Atta, don't you think we'd have heard about it by now?)

And last but not least, there's Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz flogging the conspiracy theories of Laurie Myrolie, who claims with scant evidence that Saddam was not only linked to September 11th but the 1993 World Trade Center attack and the Oklahoma City bombing, too.

Remember when Republicans got all up in arms over Clinton's phrase parsing at his Kenneth Starr deposition?    And that was only over a hummer, not matters of life and death.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#60 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 31 May 2004 - 12:15 AM

Except that he lied under oath. It has been claimed it was not a sexual act. The same nonsexual act that if I made a mistake of asking a undercover policewoman who have me arrest on charges of solisiting for sexual act. And if a hooker offered to do the same act upon a policeman She would be facing charges of prostition.

   Yet he's Bill Clinton so the fact I and anyone else would be held and or charged with crimes means it's Ok.

Animal Farm is true here as it was in the book. All Animals are Equal some are More Equal than others.

Now as to the lying under oath it's not  a bad thing. Except that it's perjury and if a nobody did this they could be facing jail time as well as losing the court case and facing extra damages.

Bluntly He lied. He lied in such a way to comittee crime. But he's President Bill Clinton it's ok if he commits a crime he is a great guy.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Al Gore, MoveOn, Anti-Bush, Politics-American

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users