5/26/2004 03:17:16 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

Al Gore...whose side is he on, again? I'm not speaking of honorable dissent. I'm not even speaking of the loyal opposition. What I'm speaking of is outright character assassination, spiced with vitriole and simmered in hatred (Gore's speech inspired me to overextend a metaphor or two).

Gore's rant shows us what he is truly made of, and further reinforces the conclusion that we was unfit to be commander-in-chief. Head of Party is perhaps the only presidential role he has a hope of fulfilling, and he can do that quite well from where he currently sits.

Let's do some fisking...

"an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore international law ..."

Which international law have we ignored? The action in Afghanistan was not preemption. It was retaliation - self defense. The action in Iraq was in effect
enforcement of international law, not the ignoring of it. How many resolutions lie irrelevant and dormant until President Bush chose to lead instead of kow-tow (sp?)?

"All that is required, in the view of Bush's team is the mere assertion of a possible, future threat - and the assertion need be made by only one person, the President"

Here Gore shows his nuanced (because, hey, all Democrats are nuanced) understanding of one of two key principles. First, the one his does not comprehend. it is not the "mere assertion of a possible, future threat" that entitles us to preemption action. It's the seriousness of that threat. If Monaco threatened invasion, we would likely not overthrow the Monaco monarchy. If a man of questionable sanity, who has in the past 1) invaded his neighbors multiple times, 2) attempted to assassinate a past US president, and 3), according to everyone, possesses the most horrific WMD's, and now has a delivery vehicle for them (Al Qaeda), we probably ought to look into it.

Second, Al Gore is correct, that all military decisions are made by the Commander-in-Chief.


"Dominance is not really a strategic policy or political philosophy at all. It is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger for more power still by striking a Faustian bargain. And as always happens - sooner or later - to those who shake hands with the devil, they find out too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul."

So, by liberating the entire populations of Afghanistan and Iraq, we have struck a deal with the devil? Given up our soul? Hyperbole soup, anyone? I go on record not wanting to worship the god of Al Gore - a god, apparently, who rejoices in the domination of others souls by brutal dictatorial regimes, who supports the systematic rape, torture and murder of its people.

What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances.

Let us return to the taste of that hyperbole soup. Here is what Al Gore is saying. First, George W. Bush has destroyed the essential checks and balances of our Constitution. How, exactly, Gore does not say. But Gore is quite sure that the misconduct at Abu Ghraib is the natural result of the Bush administration's war on those checks and balances. So, would Gore have been happier if Congress had passed a resolution supporting the embarrasment and humiliation of imprisoned Iraqi militia? Of course not. The whole idea, from top to bottom, is utterly silly.

The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th.

At least he seems to have forgotten about Florida.

There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with. But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation -- because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him.

Contempt for nations opposing freedom? Or contempt for nations attempting to maintain a multi-billion dollar scheme of money laundering at the expense of oppressed peoples? He does not say.

He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name.

Stirring up hornets is, all things equal, a bad thing. However, the hornets who attacked us on September 11, 2001 were not stirred. Unless, of course, the Clinton administration had stirred them, but Clinton was painfully inadequate in his dealings with terrorist threats. The hornets, unstirred, attacked and killed nearly 3,000 people. These must be the hornets Al Gore believes "pose no threat whatsoever to us."

I would like to know how many men, women and children we have killed in our unbridled hornet stirring, and how many men, women and children were killed, annually, by Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. The numbers, if we are forced to play a numbers game, are not equal. A recent estimate was that 80,000 people died annually in Iraq under Hussein directly from the regime. American action has saved countless lives.

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.

Pick and choose your Iraq news, Mr. Gore, for it is the only way to substantiate your doom and gloom synopsis. The "so-called" Powell doctrine? Is there another name for it? Is it not really a doctrine, or not accredited to Powell?

What a disgrace that their families have to hold bake sales to buy discarded Kevlar vests to stuff into the floorboards of the Humvees! Bake sales for body armor.

Let's set aside our concerns with veracity for a brief moment. Hasn't this been a staple bumper sticker for liberals for nearly twenty years now?

Noting that Vietnam featured a pattern of winning battles while losing the war, Hughes added "unless we ensure that we have coherence in our policy, we will lose strategically."

I hope Al Gore got clearance from John F. Kerry about using Vietnam in his speech...

But amazingly, even active duty military officers are speaking out against President Bush. For example, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior General at the Pentagon as saying, " the current OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) refused to listen or adhere to military advice." Rarely if ever in American history have uniformed commanders felt compelled to challenge their commander in chief in public

They haven't - it was an anonymous source.

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, and were instructed by their superiors to "break down" prisoners in order to prepare them for interrogation.

I thought it was because of Bush's single-handed destruction of the checks and balances of the Constitution.

Okay - that's all I can stomach. There's still more than 2/3 of the speech left. God help us that more than this man's family supports him. Which, according to Al Gore, for us conservatives must be the devil.

|||108560683651040554|||OK, I've Had It!