Gore sets the bar higher.

[Andrew Mayer]

An excellent speech by someone who understands the stakes, and what the job of a politician and government really is.

Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith, and we're all used to that. I've even been guilty of it myself on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.

Unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what the country is dealing with in the Bush presidency is the latter. That is really the nub of the problem -- the common source for most of the false impressions that have been frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy.

Americans have always believed that we the people have a right to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth -- and a shared respect for the rule of reason as the best way to establish the truth.

The Bush administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process, and I think it's partly because they feel as if they already know the truth and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each other's agendas.

[Sharpe]

I thought this was a pretty strong speech overall. His criticism of the Bush administration's systematic disregard for facts that don't fit with their ideological or religious preconceptions was right on. I've felt for a couple of years now that the big problem with this administration was more than standard political disagreement with my positions: they are some convinced of their opinions, in an absolutist fashion, that objective reality means very little, unless it meets their expectations. It may be overly simplistic to blame this on talk radio but I've heard a trend over the last few years of talk radio hosts simply slamming out their message regardless of reality and using continuous repetition, bombastic assertions of being right, and calling anyone who disagrees with them biased, to get their message across, regardless of the facts.

(The left is not blameless either, I feel that the over-use of the race card, over emphasis on identity politics and scare politics, labeling anyone who disagrees a racist or oppressor have all undermined the credibility of the left as well).

We seem to be heading towards a situation where key debates are not about policy or the logical consequnces of actions - instead we are debating the core facts. It's like our political system has gotten so polarized we cannot even agree on the basic facts that underlie the debate. On many issues from the environment (global warming), war with Iraq, tax policy and so on, our debates have not been about the policies and their effects but instead the basic facts that should be established and agreed on.

I don't have a solution but I strongly feel the Bush admin is part of the problem.

Dan

[Jason McCullough]

Oh lord, "the race card and scare politics" again.

[Brad Grenz]

Oh Lord, Jason McCullough's incredulity again.

[bmulligan]

I don't have a solution but I strongly feel the Bush admin is part of the problem.

-The Democratic Party Motto

[TimElhajj]

Similar to the ever popular Republican refrain of "I don't know the answer but let's blow stuff up and see if that helps any."

[bmulligan]

"I don't know the answer but let's blow stuff up and see if that helps any

-Bill Clinton, after the cruise missle bombing of an asprin factory in Afganistan during the Monica Lewinski testimony to a grand jury.

[TimElhajj]

Bill knew the answer, dude.

[bmulligan]

Yeah, I guess he did....It was all over the dress. And Clinton lied just enough to the grand jury to get disbarred, but that was only about sex anyway.

All of these powermongers have their agendas and they are all lying to us, all the time. Republican, Democrat, whatever. Everything that comes out of their mouths is pure calculation, except for Bush which sometimes borders on idiocy, but mostly on ineptitude.

I don't know what Gore's agenda is except to get some more recognition since he's basically been out of the spotlight for 3 years now. He needs some action in case he wants to run for Senator again or get a good appointment in a democratic administration next time around. Reading that speech I can just imagine that slow subdued tennessee drawl...
It brings tears to my eyes, from uncontrollable laughter.

[Peter Frazier]

Whatever Clinton's excesses were, he didn't wrap it up in the flag and pretend that his lies were for the greater good of the country. I'd prefer that politicans were at least abashed about their dishonesty.

[ElRavager]

I'm not a big fan of Gore, but that speech is right on the money. thumbs up to the speech-writers! :mrgreen:

[bmulligan]

yeah, I agree with the speech's argument, but coming form the mouth of a liar, it loses its effect. If someone more respected said it(not a politician with an agenda), then perhaps it would hold more weight.

Whatever Clinton's excesses were, he didn't wrap it up in the flag and pretend that his lies were for the greater good of the country.

ok, yeah, sure, he didn't wrap his lies in a flag, just a dark blue dress. Keep in mind at the same time this was going on in 1998, Clinton and the state department were making the rounds trying to drum up support for an attack on Iraq. We were being told of the dangers of their nuclear program and chemical weapons stockpiles. Were those flag wrapped lies or are the Republicans the only ones who lie through the stars and stripes?

[voltaic]

Whatever Clinton's excesses were, he didn't wrap it up in the flag and pretend that his lies were for the greater good of the country. I'd prefer that politicans were at least abashed about their dishonesty.

George Carlin said it best: Bill Clinton told the people right up front, "I'm completely full of shit and how do ya like that?" And the people said "Well, at least he's honest."

[Andrew Mayer]

yeah, I agree with the speech's argument, but coming form the mouth of a liar, it loses its effect. If someone more respected said it(not a politician with an agenda), then perhaps it would hold more weight.

More “disenfranchised chic” BS. Everyone has an agenda, even you. Saying “all politicians are stupid” makes you sound weak and helpless, not smart and cool. There are politicians who do more for the common good, and others do less. It only takes a little time and effort to discover the difference.

ok, yeah, sure, he didn't wrap his lies in a flag, just a dark blue dress. Keep in mind at the same time this was going on in 1998, Clinton and the state department were making the rounds trying to drum up support for an attack on Iraq.

Any attributions, or are you just parroting information you get from “fair and balanced” pundits?

We were being told of the dangers of their nuclear program and chemical weapons stockpiles. Were those flag wrapped lies or are the Republicans the only ones who lie through the stars and stripes?

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.

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.
---Al Gore, Dec. 16, 1998

See the difference?

[Brad Grenz]

Yeah, he thought Saddam had to go, but pussed out on actually putting enough force behind an action to remove him. Isn't lobbing laser guided missles from hudreds of mile away considered inhumane by a lot of liberals?

[Tyjenks]

I heard it on Friday and I thought hearing him deliver the speech was agonizing. To me, it was like he was fed the high points that needed to be hit, he hit them in his normal sleep-inducing tone, and there was much rejoicing by all those who heard exactly what they wanted to hear.

[bmulligan]

There are politicians who do more for the common good, and others do less. It only takes a little time and effort to discover the difference.

Never have I said they are stupid, quite the contrary, it is the populace that are stupid and so eager to believe. Politicians are calculating and precise in the words and rhetoric they choose. I simply find it amusing that the left leaners will latch on to what any liberal says without question, just as the eileen rightly crowd does for their own. Oh, and there is only one common good, but I'm curious to know what your investigational effort has produced......some type of government program or some other 'politically correct nouveau chic' idea?

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.

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.

now tell me the difference between this and what was said by the bush administration?

I didn't realize that some consider it necessary to google some speech quotes evey time someone puts forth a tidbit of historical analysis. Thanks for helping me out by validating my memories of the events 5 years ago.

[Jason McCullough]

I imagine democracy's a rather bad idea if everyone's an idiot, right?

[Dirt]

"I imagine democracy's a rather bad idea if everyone's an idiot, right?"

The Founding Fathers thought so. It's why we have the electoral college.

[graller]

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.

now tell me the difference between this and what was said by the bush administration?

Ummm - We invaded Iraq? I think that's a pretty major difference between the stated intention of this quote.

[Jason McCullough]

"I imagine democracy's a rather bad idea if everyone's an idiot, right?"

The Founding Fathers thought so. It's why we have the electoral college.

Don't give me that republic/democracy shit. :D

[bmulligan]

Ummm - We invaded Iraq? I think that's a pretty major difference between the stated intention of this quote.

Why won't people like you capitulate that Saddam was in violation of UN resolution 1441? Shouldn't there be consequences for kicking out weapons inspectors after you lose a war? Just think how WWII could have been avoided if the europeans had some 'backbone' and made sure that Hitler wasn't rebuilding the german army. 1441 had to be enforced. Unfortunately, we had to be the ones to stand up and say 'enough' because the cow-towing cronies in france, germany, and russia were going to let it slide, invalidating any consequences to any of Saddams actions, or any other terrorist harboring dictator for that matter.

I'll grant you that the US apparantly didn't have a good strategy for the aftermath, but goddamnit, somebody had to do something instead of kicking back and armchairing like the rest of the world and all of us here. Sometimes, someone has to lead by making a decision and following through.

[quatoria]

Maybe that something that somebody had to do could have waited until there was actually a plan for the aftermath to prevent people from starving to death and having no water or medical supplies or having a functioning civil infrastructure? Since, you know, there was no imminent threat of any kind?

[Rywill]

Unfortunately, we had to be the ones to stand up and say 'enough' because the cow-towing cronies in france, germany, and russia were going to let it slide

I think you mean "kowtowing." Although maybe they were towing cows while they did it. Wouldn't surprise me, the bastards. :D

[Tom Chick]

Where were the cows being towed? Had they been illegally parked? Or had they just broken down?

BTW, Ryan, you get bmulligan on your side. Ha ha!

-Tom

[Xaroc]

Ummm - We invaded Iraq? I think that's a pretty major difference between the stated intention of this quote.

Why won't people like you capitulate that Saddam was in violation of UN resolution 1441? Shouldn't there be consequences for kicking out weapons inspectors after you lose a war? Just think how WWII could have been avoided if the europeans had some 'backbone' and made sure that Hitler wasn't rebuilding the german army. 1441 had to be enforced. Unfortunately, we had to be the ones to stand up and say 'enough' because the cow-towing cronies in france, germany, and russia were going to let it slide, invalidating any consequences to any of Saddams actions, or any other terrorist harboring dictator for that matter.

Yeah we had to invade because Saddam, much like Hitler, was only months away from invading Western Europe ... err other Middle Eastern countries ... um the Quicky Mart?

He posed zero threat to us or even really to surrounding countries. There were no WMDs, no link to al Queda, no buying of uranium from Niger, etc. We invaded and got U.S. troops killed all because Bush lied about every reason for the war. Plus I am of the opinion we are going to create more terrorists with this action.

-- Xaroc

[quatoria]

From all availible evidence, it appears that Bush rushed the invasion, despite objections that there was neither the quantity of troops or material needed to sustain a prolonged occupation, because he was trying to beat the inevitable turn of public opinion. Charming.

[Jack]

I'm sick of the freakin' Hitler comparison. It was just political bullshit, as if this is new in politics. How about this: Hitler had the necessary weapons to attack Europe. Saddam barely had enough to defend himself. The fact that we soundly thrashed Iraq clearly states that we were beating up on the retarded kid on the block.

In case someone pipes up about us stopping the atrocities against the Iraqi people: The Iraqis seem lukewarm on the whole atrocity thing. Saddam killing thousands or the US killing thousands doesn't seem like much of a tradeoff. Apparently, they don't know we were destroying them to save them. What fools.

As for the statement that Bush rushed it.... I'm not sure that's true. If you think back, there was a general concensus of "shit or get off the pot" directed at Bush this past winter. I think it's more a problem of the Bush administration saying "We want to invade Iraq. Tell us why we should."

The administration did a wonderful mind-trick by making a multiple-choice war. Collectively, we can no longer remember why we went because they threw so many reasons at us. The conservatives remember the reasons that have since been proven to be true (Saddam is a Bad Dude) and the liberals remember the reasons that are not true (WMD). It's classic political smoke and mirrors.

Unfortunately, Tony Blair is the one who's going to be taken to task for this, moreso than our president. He spoke to Europe in complete sentences and used proper English to give legitimacy to Bush's desires. Now, his head is on the block as Bush points an accusing finger at British Intelligence for faulty information and Europe shakes its collective head at what an ass Blair was for believing in Cowboy Bush.

The long and short of it is, the next president is going to have a hell of a mess to clean up.

[Dirt]

But at least Halliburton got paid!

[Andrew Mayer]

Why won't people like you capitulate that Saddam was in violation of UN resolution 1441? Shouldn't there be consequences for kicking out weapons inspectors after you lose a war?

Yeah. Too bad that's not exactly what happened. The inspectors were withdrawn by the UN on the advice of the US prior to the 1998 Desert Fox bombing campaign for "non-cooperation"

“A few hours before the attack began, 125 UN personnel were hurriedly evacuated from Baghdad to Bahrain, including inspectors from the UN Special Commission on Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

Source: ‘Missile Blitz on Iraq’, Julian Borger and Ian MacAskill – 17/12/1998

Inspections and sanctions were doing there job, even if they weren't as sexy as tanks and flight suits.

It's clear that the (non faith-based) intelligence was correct, and Saddam was contained, and not harboring Al-Queda.

So we're left with no clear mission, and not enough troops. But that's par for the course with this administration. As long as Bechtel and Halliburton are getting fed we're doing great, even if the troops aren't getting enough water.