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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (17831)2/13/2006 7:08:18 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
I'm sure Saudi money is changing hands. Gore is a whore.



To: Sully- who wrote (17831)2/14/2006 8:50:17 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
PERFIDIOUS PRINCES & EX-VEEPS

NEW YORK POST
Editorial
February 14, 2006

Speaking of terrorist-enablers, what's up with Al Gore these days?

For those Americans in need of further evidence of why they should thank heaven — or, at least, the Supreme Court — that Gore lost the battle of the hanging chads five years ago, this past weekend provided it.

Once upon a time, an American politician — regardless of party — would never dream of criticizing U.S. foreign policy while abroad. That tradition was long ago trashed, with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton among the more egregious offenders.

And then there is Gore.

He did the two ex-commanders-in-chief one better — or, more accurately, one worse — over the weekend, pandering to the perfidious princes of Riyadh in their own country.

Gore was at an international conference in Saudi Arabia, where he teed off on what he saw as unacceptable war-on-terror tactics by the U.S.

He complained that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and "held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

He was a little light on specifics — and seemingly oblivious to the fact that human rights in Saudi Arabia are, to put it delicately, not common currency.

Then Gore further apologized for the United States decision to end an expedited visa process for Saudis — that is, for making it a little tougher for Saudis to get into the country.

Saudi Arabia's sand dunes will freeze over before Riyadh apologizes for the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis — who, by the way, got into the U.S. through the so-called "visa express" program that was curtailed after the attacks.

And Gore wants to reinstate it?

He should tell it to the FDNY.

It's a sad fact that America's need for energy has forced it into an alliance with Saudi Arabia, whose ruling princes are exporters of the Islamofascist agenda that inspired 9/11.

Why Al Gore feels the need to climb in bed with these creeps is a mystery. Why he does it in public — in the kingdom itself — is a scandal.

For shame.

nypost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (17831)2/14/2006 10:38:58 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Which story about a Vice President is more upsetting: Cheney accidentally injures a friend in a hunting accident or Gore goes to the base camp of Wahhabi Islam to criticize the administration for not being more solicitous of the Saudis and Arabs?

Betsy's Page

As Instapundit said so perfectly,
    Only Al Gore could come up with the idea of criticizing 
Bush for not sucking up to the Saudis enough. Sigh.
Investor Business Daily takes Al Gore to task for traveling to the Middle East and excoriating the United States.

<<< Speaking at the Jiddah Economic Forum, an event staged by oil-rich Saudi royalty, Gore indicted the American government for its "terrible abuses" of Arabs since the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington. Such treatment, he charged, played into the hands of al-Qaida.

And just what was the nature of these abuses?
Arabs 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."

Understand: Fifteen of the 19 al-Qaida hijackers on that fateful day, a day that saw 3,000 Americans go to their fiery deaths, a day that created thousands more orphans, were Saudi citizens. Those hijackers lived undetected in this country precisely because immigration authorities had been permissive.

So Gore believes the tightening of the rules, post-9-11, was one of a series of "terrible abuses"?

And just what, in Gore's theology, is "unforgivable"? His outburst came on the heels of an absurd United Nations report accusing the U.S. of torturing wartime captives at Guantanamo, where guards, struggling to keep hunger strikers alive, reportedly have resorted to intravenous feeding.

A little perspective: The United States went to war to liberate 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those regimes sustained themselves by torturing dissidents in the most unspeakable ways.

Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi dictator, derived pleasure from stuffing live human beings into wood chippers and hanging them on meat hooks.

And the U.N. thinks a vitamin-enriched IV is inhumane?

Was that Gore's example?

Because of the ridiculous asymmetry of Gore's indictment, it may be possible to find some dark humor at his expense. But his calculated comments came at the height of the cartoon intifada, much of it stoked by Saudi-controlled media.

That uprising, aimed at freedom and democracy, indeed at Western civilization itself, just last week left many non-Arabs dead, European diplomatic quarters torched and journalists' lives threatened. Unconscionably, Gore poured gasoline over the global flames. >>>

betsyspage.blogspot.com

instapundit.com

investors.com



To: Sully- who wrote (17831)2/15/2006 8:22:53 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Should we prosecute sedition?

by Ben Shapiro
townhall.com
Feb 15, 2006

Last Sunday, former Vice President Al Gore spoke before the Jiddah Economic Forum. He told the mostly Saudi audience that the United States had committed "terrible atrocities" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He stated that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and detained in "unforgivable conditions." He criticized America's new immigration policy, which more carefully scrutinizes Saudi visas, explaining, "The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake." Finally, he concluded, "There have been terrible abuses, and it's wrong. … I want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

These are outrageous statements. And the silence from the left is deafening. The Democratic National Committee told me that they had not released a statement regarding Gore's speech and had no plans to do so. The New York Times editorial board, the official outlet of the American left, wrote nary a word about the speech.

It is now considered bad form to criticize those who commit seditious acts against the United States. Challenging the patriotism of a traitor draws more ire than engaging in treasonable activities. Calling out those who undermine our nation creates more of a backlash than actually undermining our nation.

Let us consider, however, the probable consequences of Gore's mea culpa on behalf of the "majority" of his countrymen. No doubt his words will fuel the massive tide of propaganda spewing forth from Muslim dictatorships around the globe. No doubt his words will be used to bolster the credibility of horrific disinformation like the Turkish-made, Gary-Busey-and-Billy Zane-starring monstrosity "Valley of the Wolves: Iraq," which accuses American troops of war atrocities and depicts a Jewish-American doctor (Busey) slicing organs out of Arab victims and shipping the body parts off to New York, London and Israel. No doubt Gore's speech will precipitate additional violence against Americans in Iraq and around the globe.

And Gore is not alone. Much of the language of the "loyal opposition" has been anything but loyal.
In September 2002, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) called President Bush a liar on Saddam Hussein's turf, then added that Hussein's regime was worthy of American trust. On "Face the Nation" back in December, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) stated that American troops were "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of, of, of historical customs, religious customs …" Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, averred in December that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

At some point, opposition must be considered disloyal. At some point, the American people must say "enough." At some point, Republicans in Congress must stop delicately tiptoeing with regard to sedition and must pass legislation to prosecute such sedition.

"Freedom of speech!" the American Civil Liberties Union will protest. Before we buy into the slogan, we must remember our history.
President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and allowed governmental officials to arrest Rep. Clement Vallandigham after Vallandigham called the Civil War "cruel" and "wicked," shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, and had members of the Maryland legislature placed in prison to prevent Maryland's secession. The Union won the Civil War.

Under the Espionage Act of 1917, opponents of World War I were routinely prosecuted, and the Supreme Court routinely upheld their convictions. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes rightly wrote,
    "When a nation is at war, many things that might be said 
in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that
their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight
and that no Court could regard them as protected by any
constitutional right."
The Allies won World War I.

During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans, as well as allowing the prosecution and/or deportation of those who opposed the war. The Allies won World War II.

During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the free speech rights of war opponents, whether those opponents distributed leaflets depicting the rape of the Statue of Liberty or wore jackets emblazoned with the slogan "F--- the Draft." America lost the Vietnam War.

This is not to argue that every measure taken by the government to prosecute opponents of American wars is just or right or Constitutional. Some restrictions, however, are just and right and Constitutional -- and necessary. No war can be won when members of a disloyal opposition are given free reign to undermine it.

Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (17831)2/17/2006 9:11:48 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Al Gore's diminished capacity

by Cal Thomas
Townhall.com
Feb 16, 2006

The more Al Gore opens his mouth, the more grateful Americans should be that he didn't win the presidency in 2000. Normally his rants sound like sour grapes and can be ignored, or relegated to the Jimmy Carter school of bitterness, but not lately.

Last Sunday, Gore spoke to the Jeddah Economic Forum in Saudi Arabia. He trashed his country on the soil of one of the most repressive regimes on earth - a monarchy that incubated 15 of the 19 hijackers who killed 3,000 of his fellow citizens on Sept. 11, 2001, and is the home country of Osama bin Laden.

If precedent held, Gore was paid a substantial fee for his remarks. It was money well spent for propagandists and jihadists, who will make frequent use of his comments on Al-Jazeera and other Arab media to keep the anti-American pot boiling.

Gore told his audience, many of whom have been educated at American universities, that after 9/11 Arabs in the United States were

<<< "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." >>>


According to several official investigations into 9/11, at least three of the hijackers overstayed their non-immigrant visas and/or claimed to be students but never registered for any classes. That such behavior might have properly interested immigration and law enforcement authorities apparently escaped the former vice president.

Gore also claimed there were "terrible abuses" of the detainees, but he failed to provide any examples, and media calls to his office produced none. Gore added that the Bush administration is playing into the hands of al-Qaida by routinely blocking visa applications from Saudis:


<<< "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 has completely embraced the far left's creed that Bush is at least as evil as the jihadists. That Gore has "lost it" is evident from his personal attacks on the president, whom he has called "the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon" and a man who "has brought deep dishonor to our country." Gore has called the president a "moral coward" and referred to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse as "the Bush Gulag." He has accused the administration of an alliance with "digital brownshirts," called the administration "simultaneously dishonest and incompetent," and said the president is "out of touch with reality."

Even allowing for excesses of political rhetoric, such comments are way over extreme.

Gore is not Michael Moore, or Jesse Jackson. He is a military veteran, a former member of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, a vice president and nearly president of the United States. His words carry weight, and they will be quoted in ways and in places that will bring harm to his country, which is bigger than any president or administration. Perhaps he needs to take an anger management class or sit on Dr. Phil's couch, where he could channel all of that negative energy into something positive.

In the meantime he should stop this purposeless and unwarranted criticism. What does he hope to accomplish by running down this administration? Bigger speaking fees? He got that. More notoriety? He got that, too, but it is tainted fame. Political office? About the only place he could get elected would be in Saudi Arabia, but they don't hold free elections, and if they did, he wouldn't get the women's vote because women can't vote or drive cars to any polls that might rise from the desert sand. What does the United States need to "understand" about such repression?

For Gore to make his anti-American remarks in Saudi Arabia is at least as bad as what Nazi sympathizers said in this country and abroad leading up to and during World War II.

One definition of "treason" is: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. (dictionary.com)

Cal Thomas is the co-author of Blinded By Might.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

townhall.com