SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46819)9/25/2002 12:30:59 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Freidman will grasp at any straw to get us "Negotiating" with the Palestinians.

Micheal Kelly "Deconstructs" Gores speech. He is not happy with it, to say the least.

Look Who's Playing Politics

By Michael Kelly

Wednesday, September 25, 2002; Page A27

Distasteful as it may be, some notice should be paid to the speech that the formerly important Al Gore delivered Monday at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

This speech, an attack on the Bush policy on Iraq, was Gore's big effort to distinguish himself from the Democratic pack in advance of another possible presidential run. It served: It distinguished Gore, now and forever, as someone who cannot be considered a responsible aspirant to power. Politics are allowed in politics, but there are limits, and there is a pale, and Gore has now shown himself to be ignorant of those limits, and he has now placed himself beyond that pale.

Gore's speech was one no decent politician could have delivered. It was dishonest, cheap, low. It was hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts -- bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible. But I understate.

Gore uttered his first big lie in the second paragraph of the speech when he informed the audience that his main concern was with "those who attacked us on Sept. 11, and who have thus far gotten away with it." Who have thus far gotten away with it. The government of Gore's country has led a coalition of nations in war against al Qaeda, "those who attacked us on Sept. 11"; has destroyed al Qaeda's central organization and much of its physical assets; has destroyed the Taliban, which had made Afghanistan a state home for al Qaeda; has bombed the forces of al Qaeda from one end of Afghanistan to the other; has killed at least hundreds of terrorists and their allies; and has imprisoned hundreds more and is hunting down the rest around the world. All this while Gore, apparently, slept.

Well, perhaps Gore was talking loosely. No. He made clear in the next sentence this was a considered indictment: "The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the coldblooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized." If there is a more reprehensible piece of bloody-shirt-waving in American political history than this attempt by a man on the sidelines to position himself as the hero of 3,000 unavenged dead, I am not aware of it.

And, again, this sentence is a lie. The men who "implemented" the "coldblooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans" are not at large. They are dead; they died in the act of murder, on Sept. 11. Gore can look this up. In truth, the "vast majority" of the men who "sponsored" and "planned" the crime are dead also, or in prison, or on the run. The inmates at Guantanamo Bay, and the hunted survivors of Tora Bora, and the terrorist cell members arrested nearly every week, and the thousands of incarcerated or fugitive Taliban, might disagree as to whether they have been located, apprehended, punished or neutralized.

Although Gore knows that Bush has been publicly trying to move the nation toward war with Iraq since at least January, he pretended to believe the president was only now -- "in this high political season" -- pushing for war in order to gain electoral ground for his party and to divert attention from his administration's failure against al Qaeda by attacking "some other enemy whose location might be easier to identify." I see -- Bush is risking his presidency on a war with Iraq because it is the easy thing to do.

Although Gore knows that the Democratic leadership insisted (and both practical politics and constitutional imperatives demanded) that Bush seek the congressional support he is now requesting, he pretended this too was something the president was doing simply for political gain. Although Gore knows that Bush is also seeking, as Democrats also demanded, United Nations approval, he pretended this represented a failure of leadership as well because "thus far, we have not been successful in getting it." True enough -- because the Security Council hasn't voted. Thus far. Cute.

Probably the purest example of the Gore style -- equal parts mendacity, viciousness and smarm -- occurred when Gore expressed his concern (his deep, heartfelt concern) over "the doubts many have expressed about the role that politics might be playing in the calculations of some in the administration." And then added: "I have not raised those doubts, but many have."

What a moment! What a speech! What a man! What a disgrace.

washingtonpost.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46819)9/25/2002 6:00:13 AM
From: frankw1900  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Nadine, here's the problem, I think:

But what makes no sense is to treat Mr. Arafat as if he's totally irrelevant and totally responsible.

Actually, I think this does make sense if you think Arafat is irrelevant to any solution to the conflict and that he is responsible for the degeneration of Palestinian and Israeli life.

It certainly does make sense if you believe his response to just about everything is violent. His track record shows this. What good is he to anyone - Palestinian or Israeli?

The most prominent North American pro-Palestinian commentator, Said, has been saying for about a decade that Arafat is NFG, a thug, a thief, and a millstone tied to Palestinians' futures. He and Sharon probably don't agree on much else, but they do have the same view on Arafat - he's in the way.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46819)9/25/2002 9:21:44 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Interesting this Freidman...

Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2002 10:31 a.m. EDT
N.Y. Timesman in Nutball Rant: Bush Is a 'Silly Frat Boy'
newsmax.com

New York Times ace Mideast columnist Thomas Friedman manages to sound relatively sane and evenhanded when writing under his own byline, but he comes off sounding like an anti-Bush nutball conspiracy theorist in an upcoming interview with Rolling Stone Magazine.

"I don't think [Bush] is a particularly complex human being, and a lot of the rap on him is true: There is a real, silly frat-boy side to him," he tells RS.

"The Bush people are really good at smashing things," Friedman continues. "If you've got a wrecking job, they are your guys. They're cold. They're calculating, and they have the potential to be cruel."

The RS excerpts, reported Tuesday in the Washington Post's "Reliable Source" column, reveal the Timesman as something of a left-wing conspiracy nut:

"I think these guys [in the White House] are bought and paid by Big Oil in America, and they are going to do nothing that will in any way go against the demands and interests of the big oil companies."

The Times ace continues:

"I mean, let's face it. Exxon, Mobil - I think this is a real group of bad guys, considering that they have funded all the anti-global-warming propaganda out there in the world. And Bush is just not gonna go against guys like that. They are bad, bad guys. I mean, Bush's ranch is going to look like a moonscape in ten years if these trends continue."

Friedman didn't comment on the left's wacko October Surprise charges of a couple of decades ago, that had Bush 41 flying an SR-71 spyplane to Paris to arrange a deal with the Ayatollah Khomeini to keep the Iran hostage crisis going until after Ronald Reagan was elected.

But perhaps the vaunted Timesman will offer his analysis of those nutball charges in his next interview.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46819)9/25/2002 11:52:55 AM
From: JohnM  Respond to of 281500
 
Dead End
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


I agree that Friedman is more than a little unpredictable. But, as you might guess, I thought this column was better than most. The line which particularly appealed to me was the following:

But what makes no sense is to treat Mr. Arafat as if he's totally irrelevant and totally responsible.

That's the best phrasing of that issue I've seen and lends credence to arguments that something else is going on, psychological, political, whatever.

And this is the "something else" I think most likely:

One has to wonder whether Mr. Sharon really isn't out to undermine the whole Palestinian national movement in hopes that one day some quisling Palestinian Authority simply surrenders to the Israeli occupation. He sure doesn't seem interested in nurturing a more responsible Palestinian Authority to cede land to.