Still undecided?

[Sundog]

If you are still undecided about who to vote for in November, I think you owe it to yourself to read the text of Al Gore's recent speech. It's not long.

This is for the undecided. I know it's inevitable, but I hope the righties don't spam this thread into submission. If you have something to say about it, stick to disputing the facts of the speech, please.

Check it out here:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704B.shtml

[headscratcher4]

An interesting op/ed...for the discussion...


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28HERB.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Exerpts from Bob Herbert's NYT Column today:

A Speech That's No Joke
By BOB HERBERT


It has always been easy to make fun of Al Gore. But if there's any truth to the thunderous criticism he's turned loose on the Bush administration this week, it's time to dispense with the jokes and listen seriously to what the man is saying.

If Mr. Gore is right, the nation is faced with a crisis of leadership that is perilously close to an emergency.

If he's wrong, then all the folks who have made the easy jokes at his expense can consider themselves vindicated.

The war in Iraq, said Mr. Gore, in an interview on Wednesday, "is the worst strategic fiasco in the history of the United States. It is an unfolding catastrophe without any comparison."

In an echo of the growing chorus of criticism here and around the world, he said the war has not only damaged "our strategic interests" and isolated the U.S. from its allies, it has also made the country more — not less — vulnerable to terror.

In a widely covered speech earlier in the day, Mr. Gore said that Iraq had not become, as President Bush has asserted, " `the central front in the war on terror.' " But he said it has become, unfortunately, "the central recruiting office for terrorists."

The speech was extraordinary — blunt, colorful and delivered with the kind of passion you seldom see in politics anymore. The former vice president described Mr. Bush as incompetent and untrustworthy, and said his policies had endangered the nation.

The president, said Mr. Gore, had "planted the seeds of war, and harvested a whirlwind."


... But this was a speech in which the former vice president said: "What makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Our natural distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and democracy are what have led us as a people to consistently choose good over evil in our collective aspirations, more than the people of any other nation."

This is a time to remember the principles that made this a great nation, and to reaffirm them. I don't know what will happen in the election in November. What I know is that the nation is facing a crisis now. The Bush administration needs to step back from the abyss its ideology has dragged us to.

It may be that the president never understood what made the U.S. great. In that case, he'd be among those who could benefit most from a reading of Mr. Gore's speech. If he followed that up with a look at the Bill of Rights (it would only take a few minutes), he'd have a better understanding of what this country, at its best, is about.

[Sundog]

Beautifully said.

The cusp is upon us.

If anyone goes to read the speech, you might want to spend a little time at truthout.org. You'll see many things American news doesn't tell you.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Sundog
If you are still undecided about who to vote for in November, I think you owe it to yourself to read the text of Al Gore's recent speech. It's not long.

This is for the undecided. I know it's inevitable, but I hope the righties don't spam this thread into submission. If you have something to say about it, stick to disputing the facts of the speech, please.

Check it out here:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704B.shtml

He has some good points, but also some (so far) unsubstantiated accusations. Seems like your typical political speech, slanted just the way you want it.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by DaveW


He has some good points, but also some (so far) unsubstantiated accusations. Seems like your typical political speech, slanted just the way you want it.

Care to bring up some specifics you didn't think were substantiated?

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Sundog


Care to bring up some specifics you didn't think were substantiated?

The usual suspects: the "lying," the mentions that the White House ordered or asked for torture and humiliation there. Not saying these things aren't true, but Mr. Gore is stating them as absolute fact, which is just not known.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by DaveW


The usual suspects: the "lying," the mentions that the White House ordered or asked for torture and humiliation there. Not saying these things aren't true, but Mr. Gore is stating them as absolute fact, which is just not known.

True, of course.

I thought what he was really saying were that Bush's policies led directly to the torture mess. It's not undisputed that the administration deliberately watered down the Geneva Conventions completely on their own and forced it on the military, who carried out the policy reluctantly. I think Gore's point may be that the torture mess is a direct result of this general disrespect for the standard rules of war.

[richardm]

Originally posted by DaveW


The usual suspects: the "lying," the mentions that the White House ordered or asked for torture and humiliation there. Not saying these things aren't true, but Mr. Gore is stating them as absolute fact, which is just not known.

I'm afraid it is known, Dave:

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended interrogation techniques used by the military in Iraq.

He told a Senate committee that methods such as sleep deprivation, dietary changes and making prisoners assume stress positions had been approved by Pentagon lawyers.

From this story. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3708157.stm)

[Tmy]

Most talk wont veen getinto the details of his speech. The fact that there was a big "moveon.org." banner in front of him is enuff to have the Conservs redirect to "he's aligned with kooks" type of arguments.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tmy
Most talk wont veen getinto the details of his speech. The fact that there was a big "moveon.org." banner in front of him is enuff to have the Conservs redirect to "he's aligned with kooks" type of arguments.

Which is why I'm not interested in the opinions of the conservatives. MoveOn is an organization of common citizens and they have a perfect right to hold this event, no matter what the repressors on the right say. Just because the righties think anyone who disagrees with them is evil, from major generals to the ACLU, is no reason for us not to be proud of our activist organizations.

[Tony]

Ever notice that when a party is in power it's willing to trample and pervert the constitution and American principles (for the good of the party...er..america, yeah america), but whenever it's out of power it holds itself up as the guardian of American principles?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony
Ever notice that when a party is in power it's willing to trample and pervert the constitution and American principles (for the good of the party) but whenever it's out of power it hold's itself up as the guardian of American principles?

Well of course! :D

But do you have any specifics to criticise?

And: This is a ringing indictment of the far right, not a trumpeting of the left.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Sundog


True, of course.

I thought what he was really saying were that Bush's policies led directly to the torture mess. It's not undisputed that the administration deliberately watered down the Geneva Conventions completely on their own and forced it on the military, who carried out the policy reluctantly. I think Gore's point may be that the torture mess is a direct result of this general disrespect for the standard rules of war.

Yeah, that was one of the good points I was talking about :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog

But do you have any specifics to criticise?

I didn't read Al Gore's speech (I'm undecided on who I will vote for, not who I will not vote for and a bunch of partisan political puffery isn't going to change my mind), I was commenting on the op/ed h'scratcher posted.


Any part of the speech, that wasn't featured in the op/ed, you think is especially relevant that I should read?


And: This is a ringing indictment of the far right, not a trumpeting of the left.

What is? My comment or the speech?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


I didn't read Al Gore's speech (I'm undecided on who I will vote for, not who I will not vote for and a bunch of partisan political puffery isn't going to change my mind), I was commenting on the op/ed h'scratcher posted.

What are you afraid of? That you might find that it's not political puffery after all?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog

What are you afraid of?

Nothing, It's a mixture of laziness and not wanting to waste my time, throw in a tiny bit of "not giving a *****" and you'll understand. :D

That you might find that it's not political puffery after all?

Doubtful, but hey, I'm always happy to be surprised.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by richardm


I'm afraid it is known, Dave:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended interrogation techniques used by the military in Iraq.

He told a Senate committee that methods such as sleep deprivation, dietary changes and making prisoners assume stress positions had been approved by Pentagon lawyers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sounds like boot camp. Seriously, sleep deprivation and stress positions could fall under torture, I'll admit (though not quite the image of torture I had in mind). That is still a far cry from what happened in the pictures.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


Nothing, It's a mixture of laziness and not wanting to waste my time, throw in a tiny bit of "not giving a *****" and you'll understand. :D



LOL, an honest man. I can deal with that. :D

You might find it an entertaining read, though.

[richardm]

Originally posted by DaveW


Sounds like boot camp. Seriously, sleep deprivation and stress positions could fall under torture, I'll admit (though not quite the image of torture I had in mind).


Absolutely, they're actually quite effective and don't leave marks.


That is still a far cry from what happened in the pictures.

Yes indeed. But the point Gore was making, I think, was if you set up a system where there is a policy of mistreating prisoners then you are in grave danger of having the mistreatment escalate or move off in new directions. Like Lord of the Flies.

There have been numerous psychological experiments done into this - Stamford had one famous example, I think.

The point is, the people in charge set that ball rolling, and it's not much good to say "We didn't think they'd go that far". Especially when you can't help but get the suspicion that this was known about for a while, but nobody did anything about it.

[Tmy]

The whitehouse has been telling us that the old rules dont apply when it comes to the War on Terror. How can that not create an "abuse is OK" attitude.

[hgc]

Fox News, in true form the other night, played up this speech big, but only showed a few portions where Gore is angrily denouncing the Bush Administration, and none of the substance and reasoning. They repeated characterize Gore as being a "strong partisan Democrat." That was the gist of the coverage.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hgc
Fox News, in true form the other night, played up this speech big, but only showed a few portions where Gore is angrily denouncing the Bush Administration, and none of the substance and reasoning. They repeated characterize Gore as being a "strong partisan Democrat." That was the gist of the coverage.

Hey, they report, you decide.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Sundog
If you are still undecided about who to vote for in November, I think you owe it to yourself to read the text of Al Gore's recent speech. It's not long.You're right. I've decided to not vote for Al Gore this November. :D

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You're right. I've decided to not vote for Al Gore this November. :D

Different strokes, I guess. It made me want to write him in. :D

[Upchurch]

Incidently, Sundog. While it is a very interesting read (I really like the man), sometime I want to know what your diffinitions of "not" and "long" are. 11 pages and some change is pretty lengthy for someone with a short attention sp....

[patnray]

Originally posted by Tmy
The whitehouse has been telling us that the old rules dont apply when it comes to the War on Terror. How can that not create an "abuse is OK" attitude.
As long as the Geneva conventions applied, our troops knew exactly what behaviour was acceptable and what was not. The decision that some people were exempt from the protections of the Geneva convevtions left our own troops vulnerable and unprotected. Failing to provide clear and explicit guidelines for what is acceptable and what is not protects those who made the decision, but exposes frontline troops to repercussions. IMHO, it is irresponsible and cowardly of those who made the decision to not step forward and take full responsibility for the results of those decisions and their leadership failures. Apparently those in power have a very narrow view of what it means to "support our troops".

[shanek]

Well, for once, I pretty much agree with Gore. My only real point of contention is that Kerry will be any better. Gore says that Kerry dealt with this "in an impressive and extremely responsible way," but that's hardly a ringing endorsement since he isn't President right now. Kerry's policy on the war is very similar to Bush's, so I don't see any reason to think things would be turning out any differently.

Nader is somewhat different, but really all Nader wants to do is keep the war going and our troops there, just put a different hat on them (the UN).

You don't have to be that observant to see who I'll be voting for... :D