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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Joe NYC who wrote (152431)9/27/2002 2:50:28 AM
From: Joe NYC  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1584573
 
Gore is getting blasted from everywhere, left, right, center:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

washingtonpost.com



To: Joe NYC who wrote (152431)9/27/2002 8:25:05 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1584573
 
These attacks on Germany are ridiculous......Germany is the only country in Germany that is honest enough to play it straight with us unlike France and Russia. And please don't forget the peace demonstration planned in the UK this weekend.

And if American writers think Germany is now contrite over its convictions, think again. This is another example of how Bush has become the great divider instead of the great unifier. There is a point where we may have to stop blaming everyone else and decide that just maybe our leaders are the problem.

ted


________________________________________________________

US to tackle France on Iraq


Powell: A new UN resolution must be strong (AP photo)

A US envoy is beginning a mission to persuade France and Russia to back a new tough draft UN resolution on Iraq.
The envoy, Marc Grossman, is due to visit Paris on Friday and Moscow on Saturday.

All of us, and many others in Congress, are united in our determination to confront an urgent threat to America

George W Bush
Russia and France are among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council who have veto powers - alongside the US, Britain and China.

The draft resolution - sponsored by the US and Britain - is believed to contain clauses that could provide the legal backing for possible military action on Iraq.

"The resolution, or resolutions, must be strong enough... so that they produce disarmament and not just inspections," US Secretary of State Colin Powell told senators on Thursday.

But he admitted there were still difficulties getting agreement from Russia and France.


: Who backs war?


Where key nations stand on Iraq



Moscow is opposed to the use of force against Baghdad, and insists no new resolution on Iraq is needed.

French President Jacques Chirac has proposed a two-step process, in which the resolution would call for unfettered access and co-operation with inspections and would be followed by a second one authorising force should Iraq defy the Security Council.

On Thursday, President Chirac met visiting Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji.

"China approves the two-step approach proposed by France," a spokeswoman for Mr Chirac said.

Mr Powell has warned that the US was prepared to go it alone if it could not get the UN's backing.

'Recipe for failure'

The wording of the US-British draft has not yet been released officially.


Putin favours the return of UN inspectors

But the BBC's Jon Leyne at the State Department says that it is clearly very tough, with two separate clauses that could provide the legal backing for military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said that the UN should do everything possible to avoid a war in Iraq, which he said was "always the last option".

But Mr Powell called such an approach "a recipe for failure".

Our correspondent says it is hard to see how France and Russia would end up vetoing a resolution that the US want so much.

Nevertheless, he says it sounds as if they are playing tough, holding out for more concessions from Washington.

On Wednesday, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld added his weight to the US campaign, by again asserting that there have been high level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq over the past decade.

He said the United States had credible evidence they had sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Congress resolution

As Washington steps up its pressure for a new UN resolution, President George W Bush has said the US Congress was close to agreeing a "tough" resolution on Iraq.


Bush rallied Congress for decisive action

Speaking after talks with leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties on Thursday, Mr Bush said Congress would soon speak with one voice.

The president is seeking authorisation to take military action against Iraq - but there is an intense debate in Washington between his supporters and critics on the precise wording of a congressional resolution.

Many Democrats have misgivings about Mr Bush's policy on Iraq.

However, the party's leaders have indicated that they would support a resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq, and help get it approved before November's mid-tern elections



To: Joe NYC who wrote (152431)9/27/2002 11:20:08 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1584573
 
Defend the Country, Not the Party
By RICHARD GEPHARDT

ASHINGTON — In the days after Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush made a strong effort to work hand in hand with Congressional leaders to build a bipartisan consensus for the war on terrorism. In the State of the Union address he said eloquently, "I'm a proud member of my party. Yet as we act to win the war [and] protect our people . . . we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans."

The president assured Americans then that politics would not play a part in deciding issues of life and death. Which is why when Karl Rove told a Republican party meeting last January that talk of war and terror themes could play to the G.O.P.'s advantage in the 2002 elections — or last June, when a computer disk containing a presentation by Mr. Rove revealed a White House political strategy to focus on the war as a way to "maintain a positive issue environment" — I didn't want to believe it. And when Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, remarked that the White House waited until the start of the election season to promote action in Iraq because "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," I hoped it wasn't true.

But now there's no denying it. President Bush himself has decided to play politics with the safety and security of the American people. It started in New York two days after the one-year anniversary of Sept. 11. Injecting politics into the debate on Iraq, the president told reporters that "if I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people, say, `Vote for me and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.' "

Four times in the past week Mr. Bush has echoed these words. On Monday, he went so far as to say that the Democrat-led Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people." In a recent speech in Kansas, Vice President Dick Cheney also entered the act, saying that our nation's security efforts would be stronger if a Republican candidate for Congress were elected.

Those sentiments were quickly amplified by Tom DeLay, the Republican whip in the House. One Republican member of Congress even went on national television to question a Democratic colleague's patriotism and accuse him of hating America — simply for saying we needed a debate on Iraq.

This is not how a great nation should debate issues of war and peace. To question people's patriotism for simply raising questions about how a war is to be fought and won — to say that anybody who doesn't support the president's particular policy on national security is against national security — is not only insulting, it's immoral.

Like many Democrats, I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq. Some in my own party have criticized me for that support. But this is a case that deserves to be made on the basis of policy, not politics. It's clear that in a world plagued by terrorism, protecting our national security means worrying about where terrorists could get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. Around the world, Iraq is the No. 1 candidate for spreading those weapons. We must deal with this diplomatically if we can, but militarily if we must.

Eleven years ago, the Persian Gulf war debate on Iraq took place after an election, which helped keep politics out of it. Because of the urgency the current administration has placed on Iraq, we are asked to vote on the issue this fall.

Calling for a Congressional vote is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is building a broad, bipartisan coalition to provide the support necessary for the country to get behind — and stay behind — any war effort. Democrats are committed to trying to develop a final bill that will draw the broadest bipartisan support possible for dealing with this threat.

But the statements by the president and the vice president only serve to weaken that process, undermine trust and thwart cooperation. If Mr. Bush and his party continue to use the war as a political weapon, our efforts to address the threat posed by Iraq will fail. Military action, if required, may meet with quick success in Iraq, but a peaceful, democratic Iraq won't evolve overnight. It will take the active support of both parties in Congress over the long term if we are going to win the peace. That's only going to happen if we act, not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as Americans.

Richard Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, is House minority leader.