Al of Arabia: One Liberal, Without a Country, Lacking a Brain

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
The adage that "politics stops at the water's edge" has apparently long since been laid to rest. At the least, we need a new adage counseling American politicians not to defame their country or grovel before the potentates of the homeland of many of America's enemies. Yesterday former Vice President Gore spoke before a "mainly Saudi audience" on day two of the Jeddah Economic Forum: "Gore laments U.S. abuses against Arabs." The AP 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."

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

That's what Gore wants them to know. I want them to know that Gore's impulse to defame his country before a foreign audience for fun and profit does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of citizens of my country. I want them to know that the American people support the enforcement of America's immigration laws, especially against those suspected of having a possible terrorist connection. I want them to know that when 15 of the 19 perpetrators of September 11 were found to have been Saudi citizens, the American people wanted the Saudi government to take responsibility for its role in the attack on the United States and take every action necessary to ensure that it never happens again.

I want them to know that when the Justice Department Inspector General's draft report on the subject of detentions in the immediate aftermath of September 11 was prepared, former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson wrote that the period after the September 11 attacks was one of tremendous intensity, as the Department was required to alter its central mission in order to prevent further acts of terrorism; his staff was required to respond, in a crisis atmosphere, to hundreds of novel legal issues; had to shoulder a monumental task and an enormous workload; and had a great number of other responsibilities during this period as part of a comprehensive effort to protect the United States from further acts of terrorism:

"The detention of those illegal aliens suspected of involvement with terrorism was paramount to that mission. My staff understood that the immigration authorities of the Department should be used to keep such people in custody until we could satisfy ourselves - by the FBI clearance process - that they did not mean to do us harm.

"Given those circumstances, I respectfully submit that it is unfair to criticize the conduct of the members of my staff during this period. In light of the imperative placed on these detentions by the Department, I would not have expected them to reconsider the [hold until cleared] detention policy in the absence of a clear warning that the law was being violated. It is clear in the Draft Report that this did not occur until January 2002. When the issue was squarely presented, it is apparent that they promptly did the right thing; they changed the policy."

(For more on the Justice Department Inspector General report, see here.) What is to be said of a man who stood a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States and now feels free to defame his country as he has done?

Link
 
The editor is alluding to a statement that only illegal immigrants were rounded up. However, there are several flaws with his assumption:

1) Legal immigrants were rounded up as well. Those detained were charged with routine immigration violations. A report by the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute (MPI), an influential think tank, found that they were, in fact, treated harshly in several detention centers.
2) Primarily foreigners from middle eastern backgrounds were singled out and rounded up.

True, America was in a state of panic after 9/11, which could help justify America's actions. However, Gore's statements were, indeed, correct. However, the damage to civil liberties and America's appeal to foreigners as the land of opportunity diminished. I've attended three separate universities now, and have learned that attracting the best and brightest foreigners from across the globe will help American maintain her competitive edge. If we lose these people to Europe or Asia, America may no longer keep her role.

The author fails to mention how the Bush administration flew members of Osama Bin Laden's family out of the country to avoid capture. Should the author not feel outrage that these Saudis were given aid and comfort when 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and these were family members of the man who organized the WTC attacks?
 
I'd like to hear more of what those on this board who constantly harp on the "Bush-Saudi" connection have to say in response to Gore's remarks. Is he also the corrupt puppet of the Saudi regime?
 
Dude, it's Al Gore.

His break with reality happened a long time ago. The funnier things are the people who can tune into his frequency and can mold Al's alternate version of reality into their own.

BTW, I love your new avatar, PAD. Good stuff !
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']That's what Gore wants them to know. I want them to know that Gore's impulse to defame his country before a foreign audience for fun and profit does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of citizens of my country. [/quote]

Yes, Al Gore, a public servant the majority of his adult life, Senator, Vice President, Presidential candidate, is a TRAITOR! This guys comments reek of McCarthyism, but the best part isn't that you guys are ashamed of it, no, in fact you're PROUD of it.

I want them to know that the American people support the enforcement of America's immigration laws, especially against those suspected of having a possible terrorist connection.

I bet if you actually asked every individual American if it was right to hold people without charges, access to lawyers, family or courts for up to six months for misfiling a green card application, they'd say "no."

I want them to know that when 15 of the 19 perpetrators of September 11 were found to have been Saudi citizens, the American people wanted the Saudi government to take responsibility for its role in the attack on the United States and take every action necessary to ensure that it never happens again.

We did? Did I miss something? The political right of this country has given Saudi Arabia a complete pass on 9/11. This administration did everything in it's power to shift public blame away from Saudi Arabia; and the rest of the Republican controlled government whistled politely and turned the other way. Shit, not three weeks ago the president caved to Saudi pressure a day after the state of the union over his call to reduce middle eastern oil by 75% in 20 years. The left has been screaming about saudi Arabia's status as a "partner in the war on terror" since day one because of their rather obvious ties to terror groups and long history of civil rights abuses and been called "loony" for doing so.

I want them to know that when the Justice Department Inspector General's draft report on the subject of detentions in the immediate aftermath of September 11 was prepared, former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson wrote that the period after the September 11 attacks was one of tremendous intensity, as the Department was required to alter its central mission in order to prevent further acts of terrorism; his staff was required to respond, in a crisis atmosphere, to hundreds of novel legal issues; had to shoulder a monumental task and an enormous workload; and had a great number of other responsibilities during this period as part of a comprehensive effort to protect the United States from further acts of terrorism:

So being stressed out is now an excuse for violating people's civil rights? Ok, check.

"The detention of those illegal aliens suspected of involvement with terrorism was paramount to that mission. My staff understood that the immigration authorities of the Department should be used to keep such people in custody until we could satisfy ourselves - by the FBI clearance process - that they did not mean to do us harm.

Guilty until proven innocent, righty-o.

"Given those circumstances, I respectfully submit that it is unfair to criticize the conduct of the members of my staff during this period. In light of the imperative placed on these detentions by the Department, I would not have expected them to reconsider the [hold until cleared] detention policy in the absence of a clear warning that the law was being violated. It is clear in the Draft Report that this did not occur until January 2002. When the issue was squarely presented, it is apparent that they promptly did the right thing; they changed the policy."

So what I can glean from these statements he's saying, "Yeah, we violated some laws and some people's rights, but we were under a lot of pressure from our superiors to get this done, so we can't be held responsible. Besides, sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet."

(For more on the Justice Department Inspector General report, see here.)


So I did and I found the report in question does (as does a pending lawsuit) in fact criticize the JD for not considering the legal ramifications of its "hold until cleared" policy until January 2002, when the policy was changed. It also takes issue with the serious mistreatment of at least 11% of the detainees.

What I found really interesting was that POWERLINE didn't take the time to write about the report itself, but instead wrote about an another article about the report from the National Review, so he's presenting it to you twice removed by politically right partisan ideologues.

He says, "I read the report, in light of the Department's subsequent change in policy, as making a significant criticism of the Department. If the report is merely criticizing the Department's failure to consider sooner the legality of a policy that is in fact legal, the criticism is remarkable only for its triviality." So he admits in the first sentence that the report is a significant criticism of the JD, then questions the motives of the report and dismisses it based on that motive not saying if he believes that was actually the motive. He goes on to say that the "policy was in fact legal" but fails to mention that's the opinion of the JD's lawyer, not a judge and I'm sure in the pending legal trial the policy's legality will be brought into question. (if it wasn't, why'd they change it?)

What is to be said of a man who stood a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States and now feels free to defame his country as he has done?

You really do have to appreciate the absolute self righteousness language of the political blogger, I mean, whatta jack ass. Like no republican has ever partaken in misinformation, political hackery or slander. It's guys like this that call Bob Barr a liberal RINO, BOB fuckING BARR.

What I really love is in a later report on his blog he talks about Kieth Olbermans' report on Cheney's shooting a guy:

UPDATE: This is just too much. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, one of the most notoriously partisan Democrats in the journalism business, dons blaze orange to dramatize--I guess--the vitally important hunting accident issue. He isn't kidding, either. Unbelievable.

I love how he takes offense to jokingly wearing an orange hunting hat and vest and presents it to the reader as it was a serious bit and how he's stunned, STUNNED!

OK, so let me get this straight, THIS:

milbankpic-thumb.jpg


Was supposed to be taken seriously?

I saw that report last night, the two commentators are laughing and joking, of course that part's edited out of the clip he posts (provided by Michelle Malkin.) Yes ladies and germs, POWERLINE is a respectable, truth serving news source.

Keep up the good work PADdy.
 
do you think facets of gores speech wont be directly used as inspiration for more attacks on our servicemen stationed in the region?

i can understand a bit of this but not when speaking in saudi arabia to saudis.

this is in the family shit, not something you go tell the opposing side (not directly i know) were at friggin war in the theatre were he spoke, we have brothers and sisters there getting kiled and that probably spured one more person to set a roadside bomb for them.

garbage.

go ahead and pick my post apart im not here to debate , but to voice my opinion and point out, loose jaws can get us killed over there.
 
[quote name='paz9x']do you think facets of gores speech wont be directly used as inspiration for more attacks on our servicemen stationed in the region?

i can understand a bit of this but not when speaking in saudi arabia to saudis.

this is in the family shit, not something you go tell the opposing side (not directly i know) were at friggin war in the theatre were he spoke, we have brothers and sisters there getting kiled and that probably spured one more person to set a roadside bomb for them.

garbage.

go ahead and pick my post apart im not here to debate , but to voice my opinion and point out, loose jaws can get us killed over there.[/QUOTE]

You realize we're not fighting saudi arabia, right? And I fail to see why, with all the other reasons to hate americans, a person is going to take a rather tame opinion of a a former american vice president as reasons for fighting the u.s.

Besides, an american voice speaking out against things that saudi's find despicable seems to be a good thing. It helps show that americans aren't all heartless thugs out to kill muslims. It is an attempt to show that things aren't as black and white as they may think they are. If I hate a group of people for what they've done, learning that some members of that group are appalled at some of the same things I am would help in lessening that hate.
 
So to clarify - When Dubya is holding hands with Saudi royalty they are our trusted friends in the Middle East, but when Gore speaks in front of them, they are "the potentates of the homeland of many of America's enemies"?

Just checking.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You realize we're not fighting saudi arabia, right? And I fail to see why, with all the other reasons to hate americans, a person is going to take a rather tame opinion of a a former american vice president as reasons for fighting the u.s.

Besides, an american voice speaking out against things that saudi's find despicable seems to be a good thing. It helps show that americans aren't all heartless thugs out to kill muslims.[/QUOTE]

since everything else we do makes us out to be thugs right.

obviously its you who doesnt know who were fighting since you cant make the connection. its a stance against the government of our country. gore is saying hey its not all of america but just the current government (who our servicemen are a direct representation of there) who is guilty, dont hate all of us.

and yes with all the other reasons to hate us whats an extra one from gore? i mean its like a grain of sand.

but every grain of sand is manified and used against us. its cool some kids wont have a dad because people dont know when to control their mouths.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']So to clarify - When Dubya is holding hands with Saudi royalty they are our trusted friends in the Middle East, but when Gore speaks in front of them, they are "the potentates of the homeland of many of America's enemies"?

Just checking.[/QUOTE]
your name fits thats post.
 
[quote name='paz9x']its cool some kids wont have a dad because people dont know when to control their mouths.[/QUOTE]
So are you excusing all Bush has done to create fatherless children - sending them into an ill-conceived war in the first place, lack of appropriate body armor, etc.?

It's funny how the right claims anyone who speaks out against the war is guilty of getting our soldiers killed, but completely ignores the administration that put them in harm's way to begin with.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']So are you excusing all Bush has done to create fatherless children - sending them into an ill-conceived war in the first place, lack of appropriate body armor, etc.?

It's funny how the right claims anyone who speaks out against the war is guilty of getting our soldiers killed, but completely ignores the administration that put them in harm's way to begin with.[/QUOTE]

two wrongs make a right....................my posts arent fuck the leftist posts,
its not hey look what this side did, its look what gore did at a time like this.

so because the right "put them into an ill-conceived war" its ok to go ahead do them harm, theyre not robots theyre people and saying what he said where he said it puts their lives in more danger.
this isnt a difficult correlation to make.

this forum should be retitled left vs right because its a futile exercise in finger pointing where the actual topic isnt really discussed.
the quoted response outlines such.
 
Reading comprehension - it's a good thing.

Do you think Gore's recent comments will get more soldiers killed than Bush's "Bring it on" comment?

If you want to bash Gore for speaking out, fine, but don't excuse the things Dubya has done that have lead to US soldiers being killed.
 
[quote name='paz9x']since everything else we do makes us out to be thugs right.

obviously its you who doesnt know who were fighting since you cant make the connection. its a stance against the government of our country. gore is saying hey its not all of america but just the current government (who our servicemen are a direct representation of there) who is guilty, dont hate all of us.

and yes with all the other reasons to hate us whats an extra one from gore? i mean its like a grain of sand.

but every grain of sand is manified and used against us. its cool some kids wont have a dad because people dont know when to control their mouths.[/QUOTE]

Are we fighting muslims or just people who happen to be muslims? The answer doesn't matter much, but the perception of what we are doing does. And, if we are fightings muslims, is that a uniform position or is it one most americans don't agree with? Again, it's the perception, not the answer, that's important. Gore is not adding things that aren't already believed. Instead he's taking what they already believe about america and saying that the majority of americans oppose the very same things they do.

If a country commits abuses and is viewed horribly for them it does no benefit to sit by and say nothing. While not true, silence is often percieved as support. Listening to people rant about the evils of islam, and the criticisms they make, is a good example of that. Al Gore made a speach to saudi's stating that the abuses that have taken place, abuses saudi's already believed were occuring, are opposed by the majority of americans and are not representative of america. Appeal to a nations principles works best when dealing with people in an international setting, while an appeal to patriotism works best in a domestic setting. Americans advocating the belief in a certain government, instead of national principles, is not beneficial in the current climate. It would do nothing to increase understanding between people, and make each less trusting of the other.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Reading comprehension - it's a good thing.

Do you think Gore's recent comments will get more soldiers killed than Bush's "Bring it on" comment?

If you want to bash Gore for speaking out, fine, but don't excuse the things Dubya has done that have lead to US soldiers being killed.[/QUOTE]
you might want to look into that reading comprehension since my post doesnt make an excuse for this dubya you mention.

mourning - that was a good post, i dont necessarily agree with your opinion but i understand what youre saying.
 
bread's done
Back
Top