Anti-Americanism Goes Even Further

It is one thing when a herd of smelly, misshapen hippies form a protest and carry signs saying 'America is a terrorist nation'.  It is quite another when a former Vice President, who came within 538 votes of being President of the United States in 2000, goes out to Saudi Arabia and issues statements that make the US government look like a villain in the eyes of Saudis and other Arabs. 

A full analysis and list of blogs is here.  But I don't want to just jump on the right-wing attack bandwagon, so I have tried to assess this as objectively as possible.

First Gore says, "The U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment."  OK, this appears reasonable at first.  But, as usual, criticism of America is based on a utopian standard, rather than a realistic assessment of the circumstances at the time, in relation to how other societies in the real world might have reacted to the same. 

But then Gore says, "Arabs have indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order"  Now, this is where I have to say that he has gone too far.  He is openly saying that violation of immigration law (overstaying a visa or not having a renewed greencard).  And not just for some harmless Mexican laborer, but for people who fit the demographic profile of the 9/11 hijackers, right after 9/11.  If terrorists were to conduct another strike, the first thing they would do is let their immigration paperwork expire, so that they are no longer tracked in the system while they plan an attack.

What are his solutions on what should have been done to prevent another attack? 

Yes, Gore says, to an audience in Saudi Arabia, that catching such people is wrong.  At other venues, no doubt he will suggest Bush did not do enough to prevent the 9/11 perpetrators from conducting their attack.

So for a speaking fee of a few hundred thousand dollars, Al Gore is willing to inflame more hatred against the US, that will invariably increase the chances that some Americans get killed. 

From a moderate in the 1980s, Al Gore has drifted further and further to the left under the belief that this faction constitutes a sizable and worthwhile political base, even as the left has become synonymous with anti-Americanism.  As anti-Americanism becomes the world's second superpower, more high-profile names will accept payment to speak negatively about their country, the way Al Gore did. 

On a brighter note, if Al Gore was considering running for President in 2008, he has probably thrown his chances away with this speech.  Plus, if Hillary Clinton is running in 2008, since her main strategy would be to claim that her election would bring back the happy days of Bill Clinton, the indirect association with the now disgraced Al Gore would be a heavy piece of baggage. 

Comments

[jeffolie]

Left wing nutjobs have an honest, albeit misguide tradition here. They rarely win elections to the Presidency. We often let the nutjobs hug or even carry on conversations with trees and imaginary enemies as long as they do not rise to the level of doing criminal acts.

Even hate speech remains immune from prosecution except for treason and sedition. Localities have elected socialists, bigots, criminals and dead people to Congress. The constitution provides for enough broad powers to survive strange people.

Gore has moved from active politican to celebrity status among the nutjobs. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter who bad mouths America regularly and has support among the anti-americans nutjobs.

Celebrity do not run for the Presidency they love getting paid megabucks too much. Gore is a nutjob.

[GK]

The article has been updated with additional content. If a former Vice President is movign dangerously close to courting anti-Americanism for political support, then we live in truly scary times, perhaps more scary than even the cold war.

[Percy]

What nonsense! Al Gore, the man who rightfully won the Florida election before Bush stole it from him, knows what is right for getting America to sync up with the international community and away from the Shrub's utter disregard for international law.

It surprises me not one bit that the racist Repukes over here want to detain Arab immigrants just because of their race. Can anyone say Germany 1936?

[ATS]

Percy,

If Gore actually won Florida in 2000, then why did he desperately sue Florida to throw out 21,000 absentee ballots from overseas military servicemen? Why did the leftist Florida Supreme Court order recounts only in 3 heavily liberal counties and not the entire state (a move the then left-leaning US Supreme Court shot down by a 7-2 vote)? You can't answer these questions, because coherent thought is as elusive to you as it is for the Islamic radicals you're rooting for to attack America again.

And don't pretend you care one bit about Arabs. If you did then you would have supported the liberation of Iraq and the removal of Saddam, by far the worst mass murderer and oppressor of Muslims in world history.

For clarity's sake, tell us, who is more evil: (a) Saddam the murderer of over 300,000 Iraqis or (b) George Bush the liberator of 27 million Iraqis and the punisher of Saddam? This is a simple question with only one of two possible answers, and shouldn't be very hard for you to answer.

[jeffolie]

Nutjob Gore sucks up to the wipe Jews off the face of the earth genocidal bigots. Yes, Germans in 1936 were just like these Jew hating Arabs that paid off Nutjob Gore.

[Percy]

ATS,

Yeah, sure. The guilt of having stolen the very essence of democracy itself may finally bother you some day. Apparently, today is not the day in which you have grown a conscience.

Saddam was Rummy's friend back when the US needed him, and the US gave him the means to produce mustard gas.

Plus, it is funny to see right-wing hatemongers criticize Gore for talking to Saudis, when Bush is the one who made sure Osama's family was safely out of the country after the planned 9/11 attack.

I know, deep down it must bother you that your country is doing something this evil. Your outbursts are a reflection of this.

[ATS]

Percy,

Rather than flailing about your arms in distress, could you please simply answer the questions clearly posed to you. If you do that, I'll be happy to answer any similar questions you might have for me. You claim to have a superior conscience, so answering a few simple questions should be easy for you.

Here they are again, in simplified form:

1.) If Gore actually won Florida in 2000, then why did he try to throw out 21,000 absentee ballots from overseas military servicemen?

(See November 13th entry in: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/got.here/index.html
also, Warren Christopher's attempt to throw out the votes in: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/11/13/presidential.recount.update/index.html)

2.) Why did the leftist Florida Supreme Court order recounts only in 3 heavily liberal counties and not the entire state (a move the then left-leaning US Supreme Court shot down by a 7-2 vote)? Or do inconvenient facts like this not matter to you?

3.) A media recount by the NY Times, CNN and others in 2001 confirmed that Bush won the Florida election. Were those media outlets all lying? Yes or no?

4.) Since you claim to care about Arabs, why do you oppose to a war that removed the worst mass murderer and oppressor of Muslims in world history?

5.) Since you feel you've a superior moral conscience, you should easily be able to say which one is more evil: (a) Saddam Hussein or (b) George Bush?

Enlighten those of us who lack a conscience as to your answers to these questions. Thanks.

[ATS]

Also Percy, you wrote:

''...after the planned 9/11 attack.''

Do you mean to say that Bush planned the attacks of September 11, 2001?

(A quick 'yes' or 'no' should suffice.)

Thanks again.

[ATS]

Anyone home, Percy?

Are you going to enlighten us with your superior conscience, or cower away and simmer in frustration at the unpopularity of your false claims about President Bush and the liberation of Iraq?

I asked you 5 uncomplicated and neutral questions. This isn't the fascist totalitarian state you dream about, in which your mythology would go unchallenged and you wouldn't have to back it up with facts and evidence.

Either answer the questions or admit defeat.

[Percy]

Look at these conservatives, not even concerned that Dick Cheney shot a man in the head and broke the law, while at the same time wailing about Gore calling them on their racism.

And regarding your other questions, I am under no obligation to answer them, and explaining something so complex to a Bushie would be like explaining differential equations to a 4-year old.

[ATS]

We're all in awe of the Great Percmeister. Please dispell my 4-year old ignorance and inferior conscience with your stunning inability to answer simple "yes/no" questions.

Truly, you're under no obligation to prove yourself anything other than a buffoon who can't debate. Changing the subject doesn't make your claims of Bush stealing the Florida election and Saddam being and angel any more true than the notion that you can sustain a coherent thought.

I'll make it even easier for you. Answer only 3 out of the 5 questions -- any 3 of your choosing -- or admit you're an intellectual weakling who's wasting everyone's time. You can even choose to answer the very simple "yes/no" questions.

Ball's in your court, chum.

[Fewlesh]

ATS,

I will reply to your loaded questions.

4.) Since you claim to care about Arabs, why do you oppose to a war that removed the worst mass murderer and oppressor of Muslims in world history?

Because by fighting this war, we have removed a great counterweight to Iranian dominance in the gulf.

http://www.thelongwaveanalyst.ca/news/2006/06_02_12_iran.htm

It would have been better to back the dictator, then let the Iranians control both Iraq and Iran. This will definitely lead to a direct Arab/Persian conflict, which happens to sit on top of a huge fraction of the worlds oil reserves.

By pursuing diplomatic means, we may have had a situation much like Libia, where they are adopting cooperation with the west.

5.) Since you feel you've a superior moral conscience, you should easily be able to say which one is more evil: (a) Saddam Hussein or (b) George Bush?

I actually think George Bush will go down as one of the worst predisidents in US history. George bush is more evil because he has fundamentally corrupted one of the greatest democracies with a web of lies and the economic corruption that may hobble one of the greatest free markets in history, bringing misery and suffering to America, and losing our leadership position in the world.

Sadam only really affected his people, but Bush's idiocy will reverberate for generations to come. Think Calivin Coolidge, and the socialist reforms that we still live with today.

You can beat on the liberals all you want, but president Bush has abadoned the economic and social freedom loving roots that used to center the GOP party.

[Twonkie]

Fewlish,

1) So you advocate supporting Saddam to hurt Iranians? That may appear like a good idea at first, except that Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran and could have done it again.

Plus, Saddam WAS hurting people outside his borders. He was paying $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Plus, the 1993 WTC attacks were done by Ramsey Yousuf, who had links to Saddam.

Not to mention that Russian and British intelligence said he was producing WMDs.

2) What 'lies' has Bush used to ruin the US economy? The economy is very strong, with 3.6% GDP growth in 2005, a 4.7% unemployment rate, and high consumer confidence. In one sentence, you say he is weaving a web of lies that are deceiving many (supposedly smart) people. In another, you say he is an idiot. You suffer from what is known as Bush Derangement Syndrome.

In fact, the average unemployment rate during Bush's 5 years so far has been 5.4%. For Clinton's 8 years, it was 5.3%. Not much difference here.

Read the other post on this blog : The economy is strong for those who can admit it.

The article also talks about how people who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome (such as you) are inhibiting your own success in this strong economy, through pessimism and risk aversion.

[ATS]

Fewlesh,

You wrote:

"It would have been better to back the dictator, then let the Iranians control both Iraq and Iran. This will definitely lead to a direct Arab/Persian conflict, which happens to sit on top of a huge fraction of the worlds oil reserves."

Ok, so you think a transcontinental ethnic war between over 23 nations (Iran and the 22 Arab states and their allies) is preferable to America getting rid of JUST ONE tyrannical dictator in JUST ONE small country of 27 million?! And you liberals accuse conservatives of being "warmongers".

You also said:

"By pursuing diplomatic means, we may have had a situation much like Libia, where they are adopting cooperation with the west."

You have your events backwards. The only reason Libya got with the program and renounced its WMD programs was that America showed Khaddafi what we would do to him by catching and humiliating Saddam. Literally days after Dec. 14, 2003, when Saddam's head was being inspected for lice on national TV, Khaddafi announced to the world that Libya would unconditionally stop all of its chemical and biological weapons programs -- no questions and no negotiations. The only way pressure works is by demonstrating the "serious consequences" (to quote UN resolution 1441) of noncompliance, which President Bush did and the Democrats were not and are not willing to do.

Your claim that "Sadam [sic] only really affected his people" is also undercut by the facts including the audio tape of Saddam and his cabinet that was just released and aired on ABC yesterday:

** Saddam attacked America in the first WTC bombing in 1993 (the mastermind Ramsey Yousef was Saddam's intelligence officer).

** Saddam tried to assassinate a former president of the United States.

** Saddam attacked Kuwait, Israel and Iran -- none of whom are "his people".

** Saddam threatened Saudi Arabia and discussed plans (on the aforementioned tapes) to attack New York and Washington DC with biological and chemical weapons.

** Saddam directly funded suicide bombers against Israel and payed $25,000 to the family of every Palestinian murderer of Jews.

This list is far from complete, yet ostriches like you choose to ignore these inconvenient facts. After all, facts would prevent you from nurturing your self-hatred redirected at Bush and make the next 3 years of continued victories against Islamic terrorists impossible to bear.

[nikkolai]

The lefty nutjobs get shot sown in flames (as usual). Do not let facts get in the way, you jerks. It is always nuance, nuance, nuance. What must it be like to walk around like these people?

[onemansopinion]

Percy and Fewlish = spamming trolls.

PWN3D!

[zurgenbugen]

What do you there there new US politics