A true Patriot

[Controlled Chaos]

BY JAMES TARANTO

Monday, February 13, 2006 12:44 p.m. EST

 

Our Friend Al Gore

 

The man who came within a hair's breadth of the presidency in 2000 is denouncing his own government on foreign soil, the Associated Press reports:

 

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

 

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

 

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

 

There is a comical element to this, as Glenn Reynolds notes: "Only Al Gore could come up with the idea of criticizing Bush for not sucking up to the Saudis enough. Sigh."

 

Heh. Indeed. But blogger "TigerHawk" makes some serious points:

 

This is asinine both substantively and procedurally.

 

Substantively, the idea that cracking down on Saudi visa applications is "playing into al Qaeda's hands" is laughable. Had we scrutinized Saudi visas a little more carefully in 2001, thousands of Americans who died on September 11 that year might well have lived. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on that day were Saudi nationals. If we had denied some or all of them visas, exactly how would that have "played into al Qaeda's hands"? . . .

 

Procedurally, Gore's speech is repugnant. It is one thing to say such things to an American audience in an effort to change our policy. . . . It is, however, another thing entirely to travel to a foreign country that features pivotally in the war of our generation for the purpose of denouncing American policies in front of the affected foreign audience. It is especially problematic to mess with Saudi political opinions, which are subject to intensive influence and coercion by internal actors and the United States, al Qaeda, and Iran, among other powers. Supposing that some Saudis were inclined to be angry over the American visa policy, won't they be more angry after Al Gore has told them that they're being humiliated? How is that helpful?

 

Finally, Gore's outrage at the American treatment of Arab and Muslim captives may be genuine, and it may even be worthy of expression in the United States, where we aspire to do better than press accounts suggest we have done. But whatever nasty things we have done in exceptional cases in time of war, they pale in comparison to the standard operating procedure in Saudi Arabia. So this is what Gore has done: he has traveled to Jiddah to explain to the elites of an ugly and tyrannical regime that the big problem in the world isn't the oppression of Arabs by Arabs throughout the Middle East and North Africa, but the mistreatment of a few hundred Arabs in the United States. This is like visiting Moscow in 1970 and denouncing the United States in front of a bunch of Communist Party deputies for the killings at Kent State. . . .

 

There is simply no defense for what Gore has done here, for he is deliberately undermining the United States during a time of war, in a part of the world crucial to our success in that war, in front of an audience that does not vote in American elections. Gore's speech is both destructive and disloyal, not because of its content--which is as silly as it is subversive--but because of its location and its intended audience.

 

The only consolation is that Gore likely would have done a lot more damage had he spent four years in the White House. And given the precedent set by Jimmy Carter, it isn't hard to imagine Gore as an embittered one-term ex-president giving the same speech in Jeddah.

[kapkomet]

Freedom of Speech! Gore was robbed! He's RIGHT! Just look at the drivel posted on here on a daily basis. It pretty much confirms it, doesn't it?

[southsideirish71]

I expect more from the inventor of the Internet.

[Goldmember]

I expect more from the inventor of the Internet.

 

that pretty much wore him out. nothing good has come from him since...

Edited February 15, 2006 by Goldmember

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I expect more from the inventor of the Internet.

 

 

Al Gore is a piece of s***. If that wasn't completely obvious before it certainly is now.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I expect more from the inventor of the Internet.

 

 

Al Gore is a piece of s***. If that wasn't completely obvious before it certainly is now.

 

Isin't denouncing ones own government on foregin soil during a time of war an act of treason? What he did is very Jane Fonda-esque. I think he should be clapped in irons and sent to Guantanamo to live among the people he feels so sorry for.

[Flash Tizzle]

I can only imagine how Gore's speech is spun in Saudi Arabia. Likely title of local newspapers: "GORE: "U.S. HATES ARABS," "INFIDELS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SAUDI ARABIA,"TRUTHFUL GORE EXPOSES RACIST BUSH"

 

Seriously though, what purpose did his speech serve? What were his intentions to disclose such allegations in Saudi Arabia? Does anyone believe he attended the conference and thought, "to repair the relationship between Saudi Arabia and US, I'm going to bring up all the terrible things our nation has done since 9/11. Yeah, let's just forget where majority of these hijackers were from.."

[YASNY]

C'mon guys. Nobody wants to talk about this? We've got a national scandal going on with the attempted murderby Cheney.

[Flash Tizzle]

C'mon guys.  Nobody wants to talk about this?  We've got a national scandal going on with the attempted murderby Cheney.

 

I'm sure the democratic portion of Soxtalk will be making their way in soon enough to defend Gore.

 

Although Cheney's accident does deserve attention. Gore is rather fortunate he said those comments this week. It would have garnered far more than a small blurb on news websites otherwise.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[southsideirish71]

Edited February 15, 2006 by southsideirish71

[NorthSideSox72]

May an independent wade in?

 

First, the quotes used by this author were actually taken (it appears) from the JEF website (Jeddah Economic Forum), who was paraphrasing Gore. I see nothing anywhere that tells us what he actually said. We have double heresay here. So I am skeptical.

 

And I may be OK with him saying that the US has committed terrible abuses against Arabs since 9/11. Why? Because we have. Iraq, anyone? But I hope the context was correct. If he was intimating that it was happening in the US, then I'm insulted. While there have undoubtedly been a few isolated criminals committing hate crimes, that does not make it widespread. If he is talking about our foreign policy towards the Middle East, however, I agree with him completely.

 

Now that all said, I think he goes over the line (if he really said what is being paraphrased) when talking about indiscriminate rounding up of people, and people being kept in unforgiveable circumstances. For one thing, to use the word "indscriminate" makes the US look like they just rounded up folks who looked Middle Eastern, which is untrue and makes us look like buffoons. And the only people being kept in unforgiveable circumstances are the really bad folks.

 

As for comparing this to the Cheney hunting accident, there is no comparison. The current VP shooting someone is a much bigger story than a questionable speech by a former VP and talking head. Thats pretty clear to me, and apparently, most Americans agree.

[Balta1701]

Now that all said, I think he goes over the line (if he really said what is being paraphrased) when talking about indiscriminate rounding up of people, and people being kept in unforgiveable circumstances.  For one thing, to use the word "indscriminate" makes the US look like they just rounded up folks who looked Middle Eastern, which is untrue and makes us look like buffoons.  And the only people being kept in unforgiveable circumstances are the really bad folks.

Well, actually if the widespread reports of how people wound up at Gitmo, most notably the recent piece by the National Journal, are accurate, then that's not extremely far from the truth in that case.

 

I think the actual piece is behind a subscription wall now, but Here's a summary.

 

A study of individual detainee cases published recently by the National Journal argued persuasively that more than half of the detainees currently in Guantanamo were abducted in the mountains of Pakistan by warlords who handed them over to U.S. forces for cash rewards, sometimes $1,000 a head. At a time when U.S. forces were unable to find Osama bin Laden, and were desperate to find enemy soldiers in the mountainous caves of Pakistan and Afghanistan, tribal informers apparently had a field day pointing to their own enemies as a way to supply human chattel, who ended up in Guantanamo.

 

Many of their individual case files suggest that government lawyers felt pressured to find, or invent, evidence that detainees actually knew something about Al Qaeda operations. One Yemeni prisoner was interrogated so roughly that, according to the National Journal, he finally said in exasperation, "OK, I saw Bin Laden five times: three times on Al Jazeera and twice on Yemeni news." His "admission" was duly recorded in a case file: "Detainee admitted to knowing Osama bin Laden."

[samclemens]

gore is a sore loser. hes just mad that his 15 minutes has long been up. same with howard dean.

[YASNY]

My biggest complaint with Gore's speech is not what he said, but where he said it. If he wants to give a speech here in the U.S. to spur policy changes, that's one thing. But to say all this crap over there and inflaming the anti-American sentiment of the average Arab even more is arguably treasonous.

[Controlled Chaos]

May an independent wade in?

 

First, the quotes used by this author were actually taken (it appears) from the JEF website (Jeddah Economic Forum), who was paraphrasing Gore.  I see nothing anywhere that tells us what he actually said.  We have double heresay here.  So I am skeptical.

 

And I may be OK with him saying that the US has committed terrible abuses against Arabs since 9/11.  Why?  Because we have.  Iraq, anyone?  But I hope the context was correct.  If he was intimating that it was happening in the US, then I'm insulted.  While there have undoubtedly been a few isolated criminals committing hate crimes, that does not make it widespread.  If he is talking about our foreign policy towards the Middle East, however, I agree with him completely.

 

Now that all said, I think he goes over the line (if he really said what is being paraphrased) when talking about indiscriminate rounding up of people, and people being kept in unforgiveable circumstances.  For one thing, to use the word "indscriminate" makes the US look like they just rounded up folks who looked Middle Eastern, which is untrue and makes us look like buffoons.  And the only people being kept in unforgiveable circumstances are the really bad folks.

 

As for comparing this to the Cheney hunting accident, there is no comparison.  The current VP shooting someone is a much bigger story than a questionable speech by a former VP and talking head.  Thats pretty clear to me, and apparently, most Americans agree.

 

 

Who the hell are you to decide what most Americans agree on??? The majority of Americans have only been fed one story on the national news. That f***in speech should not have been made over there. Lead the news off with that...let the people decide what they think is more important.

[Balta1701]

Well, actually if the widespread reports of how people wound up at Gitmo, most notably the recent piece by the National Journal, are accurate, then that's not extremely far from the truth in that case.

 

I think the actual piece is behind a subscription wall now, but Here's a summary.

Ok, found working links to those National Journal pieces in case anyone wants the gory details.

 

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

 

Presumably if you've read all of th ose you can probably figure out how to get to the other article. Here's a more succint summary of the articles.

[NorthSideSox72]

Who the hell are you to decide what most Americans agree on???  The majority of Americans have only been fed one story on the national news.  That f***in speech should not have been made over there.  Lead the news off with that...let the people decide what they think is more important.

 

Sorry, I thought it was clear why I said most Americans agree. I stated in a different thread (sorry for the confusion) that since people are reading the Cheney articles so avidly, and don't seem to care much about the speech, that people have made a choice. People are eating the Cheney thing up, like it or not.

 

Again, the media services its consumers, like any other business. They publish what will get read. If they don't, they don't survive. Too much competition.

[kapkomet]

Sorry, I thought it was clear why I said most Americans agree.  I stated in a different thread (sorry for the confusion) that since people are reading the Cheney articles so avidly, and don't seem to care much about the speech, that people have made a choice.  People are eating the Cheney thing up, like it or not.

 

Again, the media services its consumers, like any other business.  They publish what will get read.  If they don't, they don't survive.  Too much competition.

And just like I asked in the other thread, who controls what stories people are hearing about?

 

People are spoonfed, boring twits for the most part. The interest generated on the Cheney story is because they are screaming about it the loudest. It's kind of like crying FIRE in a theatre. It gets people's attention, only because they're screaming FIRE the loudest.

[NorthSideSox72]

And just like I asked in the other thread, who controls what stories people are hearing about?

 

People are spoonfed, boring twits for the most part.  The interest generated on the Cheney story is because they are screaming about it the loudest.  It's kind of like crying FIRE in a theatre.  It gets people's attention, only because they're screaming FIRE the loudest.

 

See my answer in other said thread.

 

I guess I just refuse to blame the media, who are just doing what all businesses do. I don't blame movie makers for making crappy movies, because people go to them. I don't blame CNN for making Cheney's shooting a top story, because people read it. In fact, on many news sites, that is how stories get listed on the splash page - by number of hits.

 

You, on the other hand, want to blame the media. Sounds amazingly like an argument that "liberals" are often accused of here - blame everyone but yourself. Where is the personal responsibility?

[minors]

This shows Gore's true colors having to make the speech over there. Gore = Coward. I can not imagine what would happen if he would have been elected.

[kapkomet]

See my answer in other said thread.

 

I guess I just refuse to blame the media, who are just doing what all businesses do.  I don't blame movie makers for making crappy movies, because people go to them.  I don't blame CNN for making Cheney's shooting a top story, because people read it.  In fact, on many news sites, that is how stories get listed on the splash page - by number of hits.

 

No it's not... not the only way.

Edited February 15, 2006 by kapkomet

[whitesoxfan101]

Good to see the inventor of the internet doing his best Jane Fonda impression.

[NorthSideSox72]

No it's not... not the only way.

 

Why I said "some".

 

And you can bet that if some story buried way deep in a list gets tons of hits, it will get moved up.

[southsideirish71]

Ok, found working links to those National Journal pieces in case anyone wants the gory details.

 

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

 

Presumably if you've read all of th ose you can probably figure out how to get to the other article.  Here's a more succint summary of the articles.

 

 

Most of the "enemy combatants" held at Guantanamo -- for four years now -- are simply not the worst of the worst of the terrorist world.

 

Many of them are not accused of hostilities against the United States or its allies. Most, when captured, were innocent of any terrorist activity, were Taliban foot soldiers at worst, and were often far less than that. And some, perhaps many, are guilty only of being foreigners in Afghanistan or Pakistan at the wrong time. And much of the evidence -- even the classified evidence -- gathered by the Defense Department against these men is flimsy, second-, third-, fourth- or 12th-hand. It's based largely on admissions by the detainees themselves or on coerced, or worse, interrogations of their fellow inmates, some of whom have been proved to be liars. .

 

What a pile of conjecture and bulls***. Was this authored by the Gitmo Hippy release foundation or the Stop the War foundation. So in summary it states that most of the people in Gitmo are not terrorists or the worst of the worst, just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. GMAFB. So we are just rounding up all these people for what, a f***ing zoo near castro. Come on now.

Edited February 15, 2006 by southsideirish71

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, isn't that why most of the people that were placed in Gitmo were finally sent home?