I think it's outrageous, here we have a potential 2008 nominee running off at the mouth in a horrible venue and Foxnews/Cnn and here are more focused on a damn hunting accident.

Of course, it's Cheney and we know the shooting was to distract us from Haliburton's ops!!! /groan

Al Gore, apparently with no political advisor of note, makes horrible antiUS statements in Saudi Arabia and noone covers it. odd that...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200602% 5CPOL20060214a.html

Everywhere else in the world it's huge news....just not here...

Fandros

Would have been nice to see Gore mention that the majority of 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. I do agree, this is a bit across the line.

Of course, it's Cheney and we know the shooting was to distract us from Haliburton's ops!!! /groan


haha..nah..the Cheney hunting accident was just that, an accident due to carelessness. Although Cheney did have the required hunting license he did fail to have the required upland bird stamp which is where I see the problem.

He broke the law!!!!!!!!!

Even here in Utah having the license and forgetting the stamp will usually only cost you a small fine.

Hardly worth blogging to hell and back about it.

Gore's story is of much more importance imho. It would appear he's either off his rocker , or is being used as a lightning rod. Able to flip out, ala Howard Dean, and draw negative attention away from the Dem's real contenders.

Fandros

I'd like to see a copy of the actual speech.

I'll see what I can find Fil. So far I can only find excerpts on various sites.

Fandros

yeah same here.

haha..nah..the Cheney hunting accident was just that, an accident due to carelessness. Although Cheney did have the required hunting license he did fail to have the required upland bird stamp which is where I see the problem.

He broke the law!!!!!!!!!

So you never exceed the speed limit or crossed the street while not at a cross walk? Because if you did you broke the law and should turn yourself into the nearest officer.

Seems a bit nit picky to me to cry foul and want to string someone up for not having the proper upland bird stamp. So what he didn't have a stamp, pay the fine and be done with it. Whoopee. If this was the worst thing that elected officials did, I could live with it. Not having the stamp that is. Not the shooting part.

Edit.... seems Mr. Whittington's condition has worsened.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uschen0215,0,2748368,print.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

A pellet from Cheney's gun migrated near the heart, and caused "irritability to the heart muscle," said Dr. David Blanchard, who is treating the man.

Blanchard said the result is that the heart "is beating irregularly. Its basically like a short circuit." The doctor referred to the victim having received "a silent, or minor heart attack."

Blanchard said the victim, 78-year old lawyer Harry Whittington, has a strong heart and is doing well.

It does seem inappropriate, given the venue. Maybe all the funerals were booked? ;)

So you never exceed the speed limit or crossed the street while not at a cross walk? Because if you did you broke the law and should turn yourself into the nearest officer.

Seems a bit nit picky to me to cry foul and want to string someone up for not having the proper upland bird stamp. So what he didn't have a stamp, pay the fine and be done with it. Whoopee. If this was the worst thing that elected officials did, I could live with it. Not having the stamp that is. Not the shooting part.


Well lets see. I haven't hunted in years, probably since about 1984 or so. But I do know that when I purchased a hunting license I also needed to purchase certain stamps that were required to hunt certain game. If I wanted to hunt ducks I bought a duck stamp, pheasant I bought a pheasant stamp etc... Its a pretty standard thing from state to state and also certain stamps are issued by the federal government.

I know that I never hunted for any type of game that I was not licensed or "stamped" to hunt, if I did I would have been guilty of poaching. You see, hunting without the proper license is a form of poaching. Now I do agree with you that in itself when someone gets shot in a hunting accident the shooting is a much more important issue at that time than whether someone has the proper licenses to hunt. However beyond that, as it should be, there is the issue of being properly licensed to perform the task and after all is said and done this matters.

Of course not having the proper upland bird stamp might not be such an issue to someone who doesn't hunt or to someone who doesn't care, but to me and the people I used to hunt with it was something that we were very careful to be sure we had.

As far as comparing it to exceeding the speed limit or jaywalking that is not quite an accurate comparison. More appropriately it could be compared to having a drivers license for a car but not getting one for the 18 wheeler that you drive.

When it comes to the severity of the crime it's the same class misdemenor (spelling).

Usually treated with a warning in the field Rover. Certainly less serious than say manslaughter or lying under oath.

Back on topic please, lord knows you hate it when a real crime is brought up against one of your boys.

This is about Gore and his....odd choice for venue.

Fandros

When it comes to the severity of the crime it's the same class misdemenor (spelling).

Usually treated with a warning in the field Rover. Certainly less serious than say manslaughter or lying under oath.

Back on topic please, lord knows you hate it when a real crime is brought up against one of your boys.

This is about Gore and his....odd choice for venue.

Fandros

Of which ultimately freedom of speech is not a crime.

I think Rover perhaps you need to look up sedition.

Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want when you want where you want. Just because you have Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can't be held accountable for what you spew.

What you're saying is starting to sound that fat lead singer with the Dixie Chicks. She ran her mouth and then got upset when record sales started to take a dip. She blabbed about how her Freedom of Speech was infringed. Actually that wasn't the case, just folks taking exception to what was said.

Basic misunderstanding of what Freedom of Speech actually means. This spewing by Gore will cost him ultimately. Any chance he thought he had of winning the Presidency is surely in the shitter now.

Fandros

Well I guess I just see it a bit different. Breaking the law is breaking the law. If you don't have the right stamp or tag while hunting you are breaking the law. If you speed or jaywalk you are breaking the law. If you drive an 18 wheeler without the proper certification you are breaking the law. In your previous post you wrote 'He broke the law!!!!!!!'. So is it because of who he is we need to string him up or is it because he didn't have an upland bird stamp?

I guess I'm just trying to say that it would seem that you want to string him up not because of what he did ("He broke the law!!!!") but because of WHO he is. I don't know the answer to this, but if he paid the proper fines involved with hunting with out the poper stamp, then what is your issue?

But back on topic... Down with Gore!!! :)

/Agree w/ Fandros

Gore may have ment what he said, but there is a time and place for everything. He may feel that way, but saying it publically and in that forum wasn't his best choice for maintaining a career in politics, well not in America anyway.

He probably hurt himself and other politicians may shy away from him due to that 'guilt by association' thing.

I'm not holding anything against the guy for speaking his mind, but I hope he had other career paths lined up.

Of which ultimately freedom of speech is not a crime.
There is NO "freedom of speech" from the country he chose to rant from. That's the point.

And Fandros, I'm going to disagree with you on this. I don't think what Gore is doing is sedition. It's dispicable... makes me want to puke.

But he's no traitor. I'd wager everything I own that right now the transcript you're looking for is being reproduced for the jihadis. Right now some mosque is probably loudspeakering his anti-American anti-Bush rant.

Just like the embassy burning muslims need to have moderate peaceful muslims check them on their actions, today's Democrats need to check Gore's. But it ain't going to happen, not when Hillary and Bill both have done (and do) the same thing in far away places as well. They should demand better conduct. But it ain't going to happen as long as you nod in agreement like good little anti-Bush fanatics.

I think Rover perhaps you need to look up sedition.

Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want when you want where you want. Just because you have Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can't be held accountable for what you spew.

What you're saying is starting to sound that fat lead singer with the Dixie Chicks. She ran her mouth and then got upset when record sales started to take a dip. She blabbed about how her Freedom of Speech was infringed. Actually that wasn't the case, just folks taking exception to what was said.

Basic misunderstanding of what Freedom of Speech actually means. This spewing by Gore will cost him ultimately. Any chance he thought he had of winning the Presidency is surely in the shitter now.

Fandros


Definition of Sedition from Websters: Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.

Maybe its just me, but when I hear the word Sedition I think of the movie "The Last of the Mohicans" The part where Nathaniel and his family want to leave the fort to protect their families and the British general has him arrested for sedition.

Sedition, thats a scary word with a scary definition.

Even scarier if there are the rumblings of charging people with it for speaking their minds. If this is the case, then many Americans are guilty of this crime. It is a scary world we live in when people are calling it sedition when one speaks his/her mind in dis-agreement with our government.

Perhaps I am wrong, but as I don't agree with all of what Gore said, I much more disagree with WHERE he said it. A country that neither respects basic rights or even has a due process, whereby simply saying you don't like those in power would be defined as sedition.

Has the politics in our country become such as to speak ones mind against the policies in effect is interpreted as sedition by some?

The rights of free speech should be something that we hold dear to our values as citizens. It was something that has seen the blood of many young men spilled on battlefields for, beginning with the American Revolution.

I guess now we can now look at Denmark and give them their kudos for standing up for free speech even in the face of extremist behavior.

While one may not agree with Gores words or venue it at one time at least was the law of our land that his opinion was his and constitutionally protected by law. I can only hope it will be that way now and forever in our country.

Actually, I wasn't really thinking of sedition against our government directly.

But more inline with causing disruption with our efforts in the Middle East.

Yes Rover he has the right to say what he said. But he lacked wisdom.

Funny, you're jumping all about with your tail wagging about Cheney lacking a stupid stamp for a minor infraction.

But, when something Gore said could incite even more dissent ( and perhaps more violence against our folks and allies) in an already volitile region you want to shrug it off.

Amazing, and again shows how out of touch some of the extreme left are.

Fandros

Well, I liken Gore's speechifying to that of another attention whore from another generation.....Ms Jane Fonda.

I have no problem with either Fonda's or Gore's positions on issues, but I do take exception to the extreme lack of common sense (or decency) displayed by them both in going to a foreign country and espousing those views. I would not spit in their faces as some have and would, but I also would not have much respect for them either.

Now, as to why the coverage has not been more intense, I think it has been shelved for use when he attempts any political moves as it will surely be an albatross around the neck. And, I also see folks content in allowing him to marginalize himself, which is what his behavior and actions have pretty much accomplished since the 2000 elections. Giving him a lot of coverage for this right now would put him in the public eye, and it may be deemed more strategic to put that onus on his handlers; do they really want to have him publicized for giving his speech to Mid-eastern listeners?

Five will get you ten that if he attempts to run in 2008, this will be all over the networks and newspapers.

But more inline with causing disruption with our efforts in the Middle East.

Our seditious efforts in the Middle East?

Honestly, I'm not sure what Gore has said that could lower the opinion of the US any further than the current administration has.

But at this point it's moot. All we have are little quotes from a larger piece. It makes as much sense to render judgments at this point as it does to rush the theatre for Cheaper by the Dozen Two because "the New York Times calls it '....funny....'"

Actually, I wasn't really thinking of sedition against our government directly.

But more inline with causing disruption with our efforts in the Middle East.

Yes Rover he has the right to say what he said. But he lacked wisdom.

Funny, you're jumping all about with your tail wagging about Cheney lacking a stupid stamp for a minor infraction.

But, when something Gore said could incite even more dissent ( and perhaps more violence against our folks and allies) in an already volitile region you want to shrug it off.

Amazing, and again shows how out of touch some of the extreme left are.

Fandros


Gore causing disruption in the middle east? Are you serious? I think Bush took care of that way back yonder. Other than human wave assaults by Muslims or the detonation of a nuclear bomb I think the current level of violence by IED's, snipers and crowds burning embassies is a bit hard to beat.

Haven't been over there have ya Thor or Rover?

Contrary to your media fed beliefs there are still good and decent folks over there. Folks who are either riding the fence on their beliefs about us or folks who support us outright.

They don't all hate us, but when you have demigogues such as Clinton(s) and Gore spreading even more hate and appearing to the world to still be leaders of said country then you spread even more hatered of us than was there previously....

But go on, and fuss and worry more about Cheney's accidental shooting of a friend while out hunting. OoOo the lack of a stamp, fuck I think I throw myself on the tender mercies of the court....I jaywalked once annnnnd fished on an expired license!!!!! OMG!

I can see where that's an even bigger worry to the left. Gives them something more to hate.

Gore was out of line, many of the more moderate liberals are sure to be wondering wth Gore's doing. I know they are reconsidering their past support of the man.

I know I have...

Fandros

Contrary to your media fed beliefs...
You simply have no credibility when making statements such as this.
...there are still good and decent folks over there.
I've never said anything otherwise. In general, it's the Osgiliaths of the world, the Coulters, Freepers, and LGF types who propound the "Muslims are all terrorists and need to be nuked" meme. They are the ones spreading the hate, and it's been this administration pushing for war.
They don't all hate us, but when you have demigogues such as Clinton(s) and Gore spreading even more hate and appearing to the world to still be leaders of said country...
Even if they were attempting to promote such an image, I've seen not a hint of evidence that anyone anywhere believes it. This just seems to be more lashing out and projecting on your part. Calling Clinton and Gore demagogues in the face of the Bush presidency was good for a chuckle, though.

I'm still interested in knowing what was actually said in the speech before I make any judgment on it.

Haven't been over there have ya Thor or Rover?


I served in Alpha Company 1/8 1983. Read your history.

Contrary to your media fed beliefs there are still good and decent folks over there. Folks who are either riding the fence on their beliefs about us or folks who support us outright.

There are good and decent folks everywhere, which is why it is so bothersome to me that the invasion of Iraq has consumed that area of the world and inflamed things to the point of the whole thing being, at the very least, borderline out of control.

They don't all hate us, but when you have demigogues such as Clinton(s) and Gore spreading even more hate and appearing to the world to still be leaders of said country then you spread even more hatered of us than was there previously....

I don't know whether you've taken a really close look but the invasion of Iraq, no matter what the reason, has done far more to destabilize the middle east than any speech Clinton, Gore or their grandmothers could give.

People in the middle east have a very different view of the world than we do in the west and in europe but I assure you, they are not in the least bit stupid, and know full well who is in charge in the USA at any given time.

But go on, and fuss and worry more about Cheney's accidental shooting of a friend while out hunting. OoOo the lack of a stamp, fuck I think I throw myself on the tender mercies of the court....I jaywalked once annnnnd fished on an expired license!!!!! OMG!

This is such a minor issue and tragically someone was injured, I did however find it ironic that Cheney who espouses his following of the rule of law actually broke it, no matter how minor of an infraction one might perceive it to be.

I can see where that's an even bigger worry to the left. Gives them something more to hate.


I see this as a bigger worry to the nation as a whole as it seems to be what the press is concentrating their resources on. I would think Bush/Cheney are overjoyed to have the concentration taken off of Iraq and Illegal wiretapping.


Gore was out of line, many of the more moderate liberals are sure to be wondering wth Gore's doing. I know they are reconsidering their past support of the man.

Gore might very well be out of line. But in the realm of reality what he says really holds no weight in the world. Perhaps it can be used by an AlQaeda propagandist but be certain it is what Bush says that holds the real propaganda.

Neither one of you has a realistic vision of what's going on in real life.

Go read up on Gore....go look and view his vision of the very estranged version of the left.

See, imho he's your Pat Robertson....he's your pariah and if you ascribe to his vision then you're just as lost in the mire as the rest of the fools.

I'm pretty sure you'll not see a Democrat win 2008. It's not because I envision a great hope shining through from the Republican party.

It's simply because I feel that the party of Democrats of today are comprised of losers,obstructionists and flat out failures....

Thor, and Rover...who did you vote for in 2000?

I voted for Gore, goddammit I'm soooo glad he lost.

Fandros

I'm pretty sure you'll not see a Democrat win 2008.

Actually, I believe if Bill Clinton were able to run again in 2008, he could very likely win the election.

I still think McCain is the best hope for the Republican party.

Look at the two new Supreme Court Justices, and the confirmations of other judges, as just one impact he has had via working with the opposition to move forward, rather than clinging to a "my way or not at all" position as most of the current Republican politicans seem inclined to do.

I have made it clear that McCain is my choice, but I swear I would rather see Bill Clinton back in the White House than most of the people claiming to be Republicans these days.

Hunting laws, our parliament spent a good two-year-time-waste wiping out the thousand year old Fox-hunting tradition here in England.
Not like other things needed better attention. Say, immigration or education?

Gore causing disruption in the middle east? Are you serious? I think Bush took care of that way back yonder.

"All the problems started with Bush." ? Why were you over there in '83 again?

Bush didn't start this, nor did Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, or Carter...

Will Gore's rant cause some jihadi terrorist to kill someone? No... but it certainly didn't help. Which is the point.

See, imho he's your Pat Robertson....he's your pariah and if you ascribe to his vision then you're just as lost in the mire as the rest of the fools. Exactly what I've been saying, but more succintly. Thank you.

The Democrats are going to have to get their act together and call the Deans and Michael Moore's and the Carters on their bull shit. Don't honor their trash politics, demand better. You'll be a better party.

Sorry Rover,, But 1983 don't mean shit. There was no such thing as the internet, and most people in the middle east were uninformed. Now, with the way the information Super highway works, almost ALL people over there are exposed to propaganda and shit that the media puts out about prisoner abuses, ex-presidents bashing the US, Michael Moore, fat ass dixie chick. All of these things are now seen over there. Attitudes are alot different now then they were even during the Gulf War. I give you credit for being a former military guy, but 20+ years ago means nothing in today's world. I am sure Vietnam has changed alot since Byl was there.

I am still trying to figure out how Cheney was brought into a conversation about Gore??? Wag that dog...

I actually love it that Gore is doing this. It only helps the Republicans, and I cannot wait until Mikey Moore, Suzy Sarandan, Baldwin, and the multitude of other left wing wackos start spewing off at the mouth,.. piss the Larger Republican base off and get them out to vote... BTW... Billy Zane can suck my dick! Look up his new movie...

wtf did Gore say anyway?

But 1983 don't mean shit. There was no such thing as the internet, and most people in the middle east were uninformed.

I love this. "I was uniformed in 1983, ergo everyone else must have been too."

Before the internet, no one outside the US could look up how to make newspaper on Wikipedia!

Malse,


In 1983, the only way you knew about something serious happening was via the newspaper or the big 3 networks. If you missed the evening news at 6:30, then you had to wait until 11pm. Now look at today... If the President farts in public it is blogger material 10 seconds BEFORE it happens. So, ya I say that compared to today.. you were uninformed... keep sniping.

That's funny considering there are still available recordings of people on NPR and the BBC, books and papers from various people and organizations of varying bias, and even New American Century-related "white papers" discussing EXACTLY the situation in question in 1983. You can keep your fingers in your ears all you want, but it is fatally stupid to assume the rest of the world does the same.

Malse,


In 1983, the only way you knew about something serious happening was via the newspaper or the big 3 networks. If you missed the evening news at 6:30, then you had to wait until 11pm. Now look at today... If the President farts in public it is blogger material 10 seconds BEFORE it happens. So, ya I say that compared to today.. you were uninformed... keep sniping.

Yep, you are right. I distinctly remember seeing 5 Shiite Militia, back in '83, sitting around and saying "We would attack these Marines if only we could get our news a day earlier". I thank God every day that there was no internet or blogs back then. I'm certain if there was we would have had 247 killed that day instead of 246.

Well CNN was around and if you think that much has changed in the middle east except information technology since 1983 you are sadly mistaken. There was a hatred of America then, there was a hatred of Israel, suicide bombers, radical muslims, extreme poverty, hoplesness felt by the average person there etc... Lets not forget the massacre of palestinian refugees by the Christian Militia in the Shabra and Shatilla refugee camps.

The reasoning behind the Multi National Peacekeeping Force in going to Lebanon in '83 was the invasion by Israel to eradicate the PLO. If you think that the people in Lebanon thought the US was there to liberate them you are sadly mistaken. There was small arms fire, RPG's, Artillery and Katyusha Rockets shot at us on an almost daily basis along with stone throwers and many other minor things.

If you, for one minute think that the people of the middle east were uninformed about what present or former leaders were saying or had no ability to recieve news you are proving yourselves to be arrogant and uninformed yourselves. The difference in the delivery of information today verse 1983 is only perhaps it got there 24 hours later. The fact is, it got there.

A big part of the problem today is that not much has changed in the middle east since 1983 other than they get their news a day earlier.

wtf did Gore say anyway?

A bunch of crap like Arabs deserve to be treated with dignity, that some of the treatment that they have endured since 9/11, despite the innocence of the individual, has been wrong, that not all arabs drive car bombs etc... You know...the stuff that starts riots.:devil

Nice self edit on Gore's speech there Rover.

He also said that Saudi's were being targeted/rounded up for lil to no reason. That they were being harassed and removed from the country for lil things like Visa infractions ( never mind that 13 of the evil bastards that flew into the Towers were both Saudi's and under fake Visas).

You can piece together most of the speech by googling various sites. I've yet to find the entire transcript.

Fandros

He also said that Saudi's were being targeted/rounded up for lil to no reason. That they were being harassed and removed from the country for lil things like Visa infractions ( never mind that 13 of the evil bastards that flew into the Towers were both Saudi's and under fake Visas).
As I recall, most/all were in the country legally. But either way, are you saying that because a number of Sauds were involved in the attacks that rounding them all up is justified?

Malse,


So, you knew about all of these things on NPR and the BBC how? Looking shit up on the internet now to try and find facts now is irrelevent. And my main point was the middle east not being informed, not the US or Britian where most households had TV or radio or access to the paper. In the Middle east, it mostly traveled by word of mouth or paper, and something like what Gore said would not have even made the news there. But today, EVERYTHING can be found via the internet, and that is a HUGE world of difference. Why do you think China is trying to censor the internet? Maybe because they do not write all the papers, or do the news broadcasts? Maybe because if the people over there get informed on what is going on in other parts of the world, it would be harder to control them? But you are right.. I am sure they are informed and up to date on world events by thier local papers and news.. unbiased of course. Just like the people in the middle east back in 1983...

It still boils down to people today are one hell of alot more informed with what is happening in the world (if they choose to be) then they were in 1983 or even 1993.

Not what I'm saying at all Thor, please to remove your own faulted paradigms from my mouth please.

Like others you assume that we just gathered up mass Saudi's for no reason at all?

Those rounded up were cited for visa infractions, among other issues.

Are you instead saying that we shouldn't have taken extra precautions with people who met the same criteria that was shared with the criminals of 9/11?

And btw, no they were not here legally. From what I gather the names/data used to aquire the visa's were in question.

Fandros

Hell Shanno, I was in a small town in Indiana in 1983. We were just barely getting cable in 1983 let alone internet heh..

Your point is valid.

Fandros

Not what I'm saying at all Thor, please to remove your own faulted paradigms from my mouth please.

Like others you assume that we just gathered up mass Saudi's for no reason at all?

Those rounded up were cited for visa infractions, among other issues.

Are you instead saying that we shouldn't have taken extra precautions with people who met the same criteria that was shared with the criminals of 9/11?

Thousands of Saudis/Arabs/Muslims were rounded up in the post-9/11 further as part of the "war on terror." Detainees' identities were kept secret, many received harsh treatment, and charges were often weak at best. Page 5 of this testimony (http://www.aaiusa.org/PDF/JZtestimony111803.pdf) before the Senate Judiciary summarizes some findings in this regard by the Inspector General of the DoJ.

There's a difference between investigating suspects and simply rounding up and interning suspects a la Japanese-Americans circa 1942. The reason, in my view, that we gathered up so many individuals of similar background was to appeal to the alarmist meme rippling through the country after 9/11. Immigration charges and the like were a pretext for the ensuing dragnet and incarceration. It mattered less who was caught up in the sweep and why than the demonstration that [b]something was being done![/b. How many of those captured were charged/convicted of terrorist activities?

Some links (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165210,00.html) that mention (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-09-hijackers_x.htm) the legal (http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/sept11/attacks/thehijackers.html) status of the hijackers. I agree that some, at least, likely used duplicitous means to acquire their passports, but that's somewhat different from jumping the border. They had documents and were treated as legitimate visitors to the country.

Sorry Rover,, But 1983 don't mean shit. There was no such thing as the internet,

The first time I accessed the Internet was in 1984 and it had already been around at least 5 years at that point.

Hmmm Internet invented in 1979? I think that was a limited, college access only net wasn't it?

Fandros

Actually Thor, here's a link that counters your claim that we indiscriminately rounded up and held Saudi's and then perpetrated indignities upon them.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004544.htm

Fandros

Here's an interesting link for the actual public rollout date of the Internet that we know and loath today....

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story070.htm

Fandros

Nice links.

But I still have no idea what Al Gore said in his speech and why I should be outraged.

You're citing Michelle Malkin as a counter to my point? A major defender of internment (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260514/qid=1130668469/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-5763555-8627246?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) of Japanese Americans during WW2? Well of course she denies wrong doing in the post-9/11 roundup. She wrote the book on it!

Nah, I'm not citing her per se. I'm linking her site to a quote she used in regards to the overblown reports of mistreatment of Saudi's after 9/11.

Fandros

Ahhhh and L2, I've tried and tried to find a link to the actual unedited speech.

None of the major news sites will link more than a few lines. I wonder at the lack of objectivity by our so called news reporters/editors of today.

Fandros

The first time I accessed the Internet was in 1984 and it had already been around at least 5 years at that point.

Don't forget there was also these things called radios (probably what Malse was talking about with his comments on the BBC tapes) and remember those big satellite dishes for TV.

The BBC was and still is broadcast worldwide and I do distinctly remember it being quite poular in the middle east.

Nah, I'm not citing her per se. I'm linking her site to a quote she used in regards to the overblown reports of mistreatment of Saudi's after 9/11.
Mostly she seems to be quoting herself. Her links to National Review and (especially)Townhall aren't very compelling. And even in quoting herself she notes that hundreds were kept for weeks in the dark about charges, that a number of them were kept for a month in similar state, and that there were indeed violations of civil liberties. The one document (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0306/chapter7.htm#VIII) she cites in particular has its share of criticism, as well as showing the "rounding up twice the usual number of suspects" approach taken:
Witnesses both inside and outside the FBI told us that given the wide-ranging nature of the terrorism probe, the FBI interpreted and applied the term "of interest to the September 11 investigation" quite broadly. For example, a supervisory special agent in the FBI's New York Field Office who was in charge of the unit responsible for detainee clearance investigations told the OIG that if JTTF agents searching for a particular person on a PENTTBOM lead arrived at a location and found a dozen individuals out of immigration status, each of them were considered to be arrested in connection with the PENTTBOM investigation. He said no distinction generally was made between the subjects of the lead and any other individuals encountered at the scene "incidentally," because the FBI wanted to be certain that no terrorist was inadvertently set free.
Chapter 7 offers criticism of confinement, if you care to look.
However, our review raises serious questions about the treatment of the September 11 detainees housed at the MDC in several regards.
And, of course, the number of terrorism related arrests speaks for itself. So, to recap: A lot of people were unnecessarily rounded up, some of them suffered in various ways (physically, socially, financially, and so on), and there wasn't much to show for it but an appeasement of the panicked need to do something!.
None of the major news sites will link more than a few lines. I wonder at the lack of objectivity by our so called news reporters/editors of today.I wonder at the lack of objectivity of those who are relying on the lack of objectivity by those so called news reporters/editors to render their hate-Gore judgments. I'm not saying Gore isn't somehow in the wrong here (Saudi Arabia seems an odd choice of locale for it all), but I'd like more information.

Ahhh, there is a lack of objectivity inregards to Gore's lil speech in Saudi on my part. I admit it, wtg Thor you sussed me out!!

I've spent a considerable amount of time researching the event ( had yesterday off work and was bored). Even if the excerpts I found were the worst and only bits of speech out of line it's too much.

See, Gore was strike 3 for me in my last Democrat voting spree.

Clinton was strike one and two...both betrayed my visions of what a loyal american voted to office should be like.

I'm biased against them, but those two earned said bias...

Funny how you point a finger at my lack of objectivity....but don't wonder yourself at why the major networks won't print the entire speech.

Methinks thou doth protest too much at my own lack of objectivity...

Fandros

Next month, Gore goes to Communist China to rant about Bush's domestic spying program.... and Thor, L2, Rover, and the rest will miss the point (again.)

Funny how you point a finger at my lack of objectivity....but don't wonder yourself at why the major networks won't print the entire speech.

I wonder why someone doesn't print it. The networks aren't in the habit of printing out entire speeches unless they are very short or from the President (and even then, I'm not sure they print anything but the SOTU, if that). So it's not a surprise to me.
Methinks thou doth protest too much at my own lack of objectivity...
Being perfectly objective is hard work. Mainly, I object to a variety of fallacious remarks that repeatedly crop up in your posts and which have nothing to do with objectivity (or, often, with the topic at hand). Like this quote...try this: "Methinks thou dost protest too much at all things Ted Kennedy." See? Doesn't mean much. Same with 90% of arguments to motivation, another common -- and objectionable -- tactic.
Next month, Gore goes to Communist China to rant about Bush's domestic spying program.... and Thor, L2, Rover, and the rest will miss the point (again.)
What was the point again? Please cite specifically from the text of Gore's speech.

Next month, Gore goes to Communist China to rant about Bush's domestic spying program.... and Thor, L2, Rover, and the rest will miss the point (again.)


I think I get the point as you exampled above. If Gore went to China to gripe about Bush's domestic spying it would be wrong because China is guilty of domestic spying and information gathering on its own citizens, and that it is wrong for someone to go to a country where the leaders think its A-OK to do something like that to its citizens and gripe about it happening here. This is because we know that crap like domestic spying is something that WE as US citizens should never tolerate and that we are set apart from countries like China because our government doesnt violate our liberties like they do in authoritarian regimes like China.

but don't wonder yourself at why the major networks won't print the entire speech.



No, I wonder why that is, but I also wonder why the otherside hasn't printed the whole thing either.

All I know is that Michelle Malkin,CNS and Washington Times think I should outraged, outraged!, at something Gore said, but dont place his speech in any sort of context, just abbreviated snippets. It does coincide nicely with the Cheney hullaballo however.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" bellowed the great and mighty Oz.

Truthiness... its whats for dinner