From today's NYTimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/po...wanted=2&8hpib

Before you reply slamming the guy who invented the internet, please at least do me, if not yourself, the favor of reading the article. I actually find myself agreeing with most of what he says here. Particularly, I agree that (1) recent legislation has endangered our privacy, (2) Saddam is a bad guy we should go after, and (3) this fact does not, however, excuse a failure to continue to break up Al Queda (though I would *not* sign off on a factual assertion that nothing in this vein has been done), and Saddam should therefore not be center-stage.

Gore Says Bush's War on Terrorism Is Ineffective
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 20 — Al Gore said today that the United States had failed to destroy Osama bin Laden and dismantle the network of Al Qaeda because President Bush spent the fall campaign "beating the drums of war against Saddam Hussein" instead of prosecuting the war on terror.

As a result, Mr. Gore said, Americans are as much at risk of a terrorist attack now as they were before Sept. 11.

Mr. Gore said that while the administration had stumbled abroad in dealing with Al Qaeda, it had undertaken the "most systematic invasion of privacy of every American citizen that has ever been taken in this country" with the expanded use of wiretapping and secret court proceedings in the war on terrorism.

"We have always held out the shibboleth of Big Brother as a nightmarish vision of the future that we're going to avoid at all costs," Mr. Gore said, speaking heatedly and intensely in an interview here this morning. "They have now taken the most fateful step in the direction of that Big Brother nightmare that any president has ever allowed to occur."

Mr. Gore offered some of his sharpest attacks on Mr. Bush's foreign and terrorism policies since his defeat in 2000 in an hourlong interview. It was part of an orchestrated cross-country crush of interviews with television and print journalists, designed, ostensibly, to promote two new books Mr. Gore wrote with his wife, Tipper, both about the American family.

But this meticulously planned roll-out — Mr. Gore gave 10 interviews today alone — has also served to give the former vice president extraordinary high visibility, and a run of highly favorable television coverage, at the very moment he is preparing to announce whether he will seek a rematch with Mr. Bush in 2004.

Mr. Gore said he would not decide until the end of the year whether to run again, but his attack on Mr. Bush's terrorism policies was a clear effort to differentiate himself in a Democratic presidential field that was threatening to leave the gate without him. It also seemed intended to give voters — and Democratic leaders, many of whom have been critical of Mr. Gore's absence from the public stage — a preview of how he might run against Mr. Bush. Although Mr. Gore made reference today to the disputed circumstances by which he lost the 2000 presidential election, he made it clear that he did not think it gave him any advantage over his Democratic rivals.

"I think where all the fundamentals are concerned, I would not be able to take anything for granted," he said. "I don't think the party owes me a red cent for what I went through in 2000. I think that it would be starting over."

Some Democrats say they fear that Mr. Bush may prove difficult to defeat precisely because of his association with the issues that Mr. Gore took on today.

Afghanistan "is falling back into chaos," Mr. Gore said. "Osama is back. Al Qaeda has reconstituted itself and, according to the director of central intelligence, possesses just as severe a threat to us right now as it did during the weeks leading up to Sept. 11. Meanwhile, the president has been out on the campaign trail, beating the drums of war against Saddam Hussein."

"Now, there are ample reasons to go after Saddam Hussein," Mr. Gore said. "He's a bad guy and he ought to be removed from office. But we have a terrorist organization trying to kill us right now."

In the interview, Mr. Gore said Mr. Bush had invoked Mr. Hussein at the start of the fall campaign in a successful effort to frame the midterm elections to the benefit of Republicans — and to divert attention from what he described as the administration's failure to deal with Al Qaeda. He said the administration was paying a cost for that now, as evidenced by the apparent emergence of Mr. bin Laden's voice on a tape recording that surfaced last week.

"I think they lost focus," Mr. Gore said in remarks that served to build on a speech he delivered in September when he asserted that Mr. Bush would not be able to plan at one time for a war against Iraq while still dealing with Al Qaeda. "And I think the country is paying a price for it."

(Page 2 of 2)

"I do think that dismantling the Al Qaeda network and rendering them incapable of threatening us — the way they do right now — I think that is a measure of success," Mr. Gore said. "And I think our chances of success, so defined, have been drastically damaged by the president's decision in the run-up to the election to shift all the focus to an entirely different new war."

Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, dismissed Mr. Gore's criticisms as posturing and said, "The president is uniting America and the world in the global war against terrorism and we are making immense progress both at home and abroad."

As to Mr. Gore's remarks about privacy, Ms. Buchan said, "The president is committed to protecting the American people and doing everything possible to protect the American people in a way that adheres to the Constitution."

If he does not run for president in 2004, Mr. Gore said, he will probably never do so again. Some aides have advised him to wait until 2008 rather than risk defeat to a strong incumbent. "I think for all intents and purposes, a decision on 2004 is a decision on whether I have a future in politics or not," he said.

Although he was described by some friends as concerned that another loss to Mr. Bush would be a devastating coda to his political career, Mr. Gore said that was not something he would consider in making his decision.

Mr. Gore acknowledged that, should he run again, he would have to deal with some problems of his own making. In particular, the former vice president has been criticized by Democratic leaders who complained that they had not personally heard from him since election night, an absence that reinforced Mr. Gore's reputation in some corners as awkward and aloof.

"They have a legitimate complaint," Mr. Gore said today. "And that was a trade-off I chose to make. After a quarter of a century I needed the time off from politics. If I decide to run again, I'm sure that will be a problem for me."

By contrast, asked if he was concerned about some state Democratic leaders who criticized him and said he should stay out of this race, Mr. Gore shrugged, and said: "I don't think they matter a lot. I respect their opinions. And I would take them into account. But I don't think it matters very much."

The one area in which Mr. Gore said he was not worried was one that had come to be a bane of the Clinton administration: fund-raising.

"There will be a whole lot of factors to put on the table," he said in discussing his decision-making process. "Some will be things to worry about. Some will be strengths to build on. Fund-raising will not be in the worry category."

Mr. Gore did say he respected the argument by some Democrats that the party needed new blood to move ahead from the defeat of this past election. Asked whether he considered himself new blood, Mr. Gore paused for a long time, and began to laugh.

"I went to see Bob Dylan in Madison Square Garden last week and he gave a terrific show and I was reminded of one of his lyrics that I think answers your question," Mr. Gore said. The vice president then leaned forward, and reaching back to 1964, began to sing, slightly off-key, from Mr. Dylan's "My Back Pages."

"I was so much older then," sang Mr. Gore, who is 54. "I'm younger than that now."

[ 11-21-2002, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Go Gore! Personally I like this speech of his a lot [img]smile.gif[/img] It's almost as great as the episode of Celebrity Deathmatch where he slaughtered Wierd Al Yankowich!

Osama hasn't been caught and Al-Queta hasn't been completely dismantled because of Iraq? I don't think so.

If Al's boss, Mr. Clinton, had insisted on serious enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions from the beginning, we might not be in this position today. ;)

It could also be said that the Clinton administration's handling of the Osama Bin Laden terrorist threat is to blame for the size and strength of terrorists attacks against the US. That wouldn't be completely fair, but it's probably more accurate that Mr. Gore's accusation regarding the Bush policy on Iraq.

EDIT - For the record, I still kind of like Gore what with the internet stuff and all. :D

[ 11-21-2002, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Very true, it might not be entirely the fight against Iraq that's allowing Osama to return to power. But it's not hampering him, either, that Bush is focusing on that scumbag Saddam instead of wiping out the Al Qaeda entirely.

<font color="plum">You beat me to it, <font color="dodgerblue">Ronn</font>. A lot of people seem to forget that ALL the terrorists attacks on American embassies and military barracks occurred during the Clinton Administration - as did the attack on the U.S.S. Cole! If Bill Clinton had concentrated on dismantling Al-Qaeda, the World Trade Center might never have been attacked. That's very speculative, of course, but it is not a completely unreasonable assumption.

If the "head" had been captured or killed during the 8 years of the previous Administration, there is a good chance the "body" would have been too weak and disorganized to pull off the attack.

Don't get me wrong, <font color="tan">Timber</font>, I'm not using this as an opportunity to turn the tables and "bash Clinton (or Gore)". While I disagree with a LOT the man did, I feel that Clinton did a good job as President.

I'm just pointing out that He and Gore took even LESS action against Al-Qaeda than Bush has, so Gore's criticism of Bush strikes me as being just a little hypocritical.</font>

I really believe the search for Osama and the quest for the dismantling of Al-Queta hasn't been adversely effected by the Iraq issue.

I think we would still have the same situation regarding Osama and Al-Queta that we have today even had Iraq not been returned to the forefront. A focus on Iraq doesn't mean the other operation has to suffer especially considering that preparations against Iraq are mostly conventional, and the search for terrorists is now mostly unconventional.

What I can't, for the life of me, understand is why the world, the US included, ever let Saddam get onto the "back burner" to start with. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Well, I agree that Al Queda actions are ongoing - and I cite the recent car-bombing by remote control plane that we posted tons about on this very forum.

But, from what I understand, Clinton had an absolute OBSESSION with Osama, and would have done a lot more if he could have gotten away with it. Even with the Cole, the instances of Al Queda action at that time were not of the scale that would have supported the actions I do believe he wanted to take. So, instead, he popped off a few dozen missiles, blew up some buildings, and called it a day. I do remember hearing about one other time when the Clinton folks knew/suspected Osama's location and did nothing - but I think there were just too many other irons in the fire at the time for them to go after what was then an "off-the-radar-screen" guy.

Just to accentuate that I'm not Clinton/Gore bashing, I'll admit that even with the terrorist's attacks that occured during the Clinton Administration there was no way he could have gone on a "War Against Terrorism" in the sense we've seen post September 11, 2001. I do believe more should have and could have been done on his watch, but yes, he was constrained by a perceived lack of world support. Who would have said, "yeah, go get'um we're with ya"?

Gore thinks something has to be done about Iraq, but doesn't think Bush is doing it correctly. Gore thinks the war on terror needs to be handled differently.

Of course he says these things! He's going to run against Bush or begrudgingly support his party's candidate who does in 2004. If he agreed with what Bush is doing, he wouldn't have much reason to say "Choose Gore in '04". Gore will never say Bush is doing a great job, and unless things get drastically worse the, "it's the economy, stupid" approach isn't going to work again. ;)

The Democrates have to oppose Bush or they have no reason to ask people to replace him with their presidental candidate.

[ 11-21-2002, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

That's a way cool campaign slogan. Should we send it his way? ;)

Personally, I hope the whole WAR popularity dies down by '04, so we can have a moment to realize that Bush has done nothing to help the economy, has taken active strides to hurt the environment, has created an unmonitored defense agency, and has ripped up a good bit of our civil privacy rights. That way, whoever the Dems, or anyone else, put up for election can have a fighting chance to beat the guy on some real issues that also count.

You still like him though, right? :D

You still like him though, right? :D </font>[/QUOTE]I never said that. :D I think he's a fine person, but not fit to lead. I think his administration is successful because he has done what any cagey businessman who knows they're in over their heads does: surrounded himself with really competent people. He's doing fine with Iraq, even if he is a bit overzealous, but you cannot address only one issue at a time. I've seen nothing real on the economy in over a year to even be suggested by his office.

That's really an easy answer TL because it makes it seems like having good people on the team is a cop-out or an admission of incompetence. Furthermore, it makes it too simple to say anything good that happens isn't his idea, and everything bad is completely his fault. ;)

I will point out that any competant president would surround himself with the best and brightest he could find. Wouldn't it be stupid to say, I'm the smartest, so hire a bunch of jackasses as advisors? :D

I just wish they enforced them against Israel,
It has more outstanding resolutions than Iraq.

None that force them to disarm or submit to UN inspections though.

EDIT - And what exactly does that have to do with the point being made, the issues being discussed, or the topic of this thread? If you want to start an anti-Israel thread you could. ;)

[ 11-21-2002, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Ronn, My post regarding the Bush Team was not an all-or-nothing comment. I'm just saying that I think his exceptional team is his saving grace. I think his personal aptitude is best evidenced by the fact that he has not had a press conference since 9/11/01. He's made speeches, but has little ability to field questions. Take notice of this, and let me know if I'm wrong.

I know TL. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But even saying they're his saving grace is too easy because there is no way to prove or disprove it. We can't just bench "the team" to find out, and the fact that he doesn't give speaches doesn't prove it to me.

You'll never hear me argue that he's a great orator . [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Kind of like the argument over his college transcripts. He's not a genius, but he's competent. Personally, I'd rather have a president who can pick and then actually administrate his administration than one who sounds good and can put on a show for the press and public. Both would be nice, but if I have to choose...

I do realize your arguments go deeper than this though, and your point is taken. ;)

[ 11-21-2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

<font color="#ff6666">Im not posting about the content of the article, but asking a question.

Why does ANYONE care what a failed presidential campaign, ex-politician, unemployed, out of touch, out of the loop person like this guy says?

He has no idea what is or is not being done, he has no inside skinny on the security briefs from NSA and other three letter acronyms. Basicly he is no more or less informed than anyone on here? He may one day hold an office again, but right now he is nobody as far as foreign policy goes.

</font>

True Magik, but what he says is important because, to the American public, he's the most likely Democratic presidental candidate for '04, so what he has to say about these things has to be regarded as important although for the most part it's rhetoric.

This is part of his election run "wind up", and not everyone realizes he doesn't know as much about the situation as he'd like us to believe, and unfortunately this allows him to spread misinformation.

<font color="#ff6666">Do you really think that he will be the best that the democrats can find for the 04 elections? I was expecting Daschel or someone, not gore who by then will be so hopelessly out of the loop that it would be like having a completely new guy. I don't mean to dis the guy, but he really is out of the loop and uninformed to the point that he really doesnt know anymore than the average internet aware google user.</font>

Ronn and MagiK, before you guys get too busy carried away with stoking each other's flames, let's not forget: (1) this guy was privy to US secrets for 8 years, (2) The DNC likely doesn't deny him any info he wants, (3) Contacts exist for all of us in our chosen profession, and (4) one could reasonably assume he's at least as up-to-date as the most up-to-date people on this pages because keeping up with these trends is both his job and, yes, his passion (as with most politicians). If you're saying "Let's be real, here," I am merely agreeing and trying to help you do so.

[ 11-21-2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color="#ff6666">Right and thats what I said, that we was no more up to date than anyone on here [img]smile.gif[/img] The only reason aside from political and philosophical stances I would think the Dems could do better, is because Al gore, has no real backbone, he seems too easily swayed by public opinion polls and has no real personal conviction...or at least that is my view of him.</font>

Ah.... swayed by public opinion. I like that. I used it to defend Bob Dole's comments regarding abortion, which basically amounted to: "Bob Dole doesn't think it's right, but Bob Dole knows the American people are overwhelming in favor of freedom of choice, so Bob Dole does his best to represent those people." :D Gotta love his 3rd person self references. :D

But, I think it's true. A politician's job is to represent my view, no?

I know what your saying, but his perceived insight, as well as the things TL just posted make Gore's thoughts news worthy whether he's actually in the loop or not.

I think he'll get to run in '04. After all, he did get more popular votes than any other man in history. I seem to remember reading that somewhere, or was it Reagan?(**see edit**)

If Bush is still as popular then as he is now, or even close to it, I think the other contenders would be more than happy to let Gore have another shot and bide their time until '08. I could be wrong, but that's my guess.

EDIT - Popular Votes Research Update(as if anyone cares...lol)

1st Place - In 1984 Reagan received the most votes ever for a presidental candidate, and won re-election, with 53,428,357.

2nd Place - In 2000 Gore received the second most(official) votes for a presidental candidate, but lost the Electoral College, with 50,456,167.

3rd Place - In 200 Bush received the second most votes for a presidential candidate, but won the Electoral College, with 50,996,064.

[ 11-21-2002, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

I really like Dole! I like him so much I voted for his wife here in NC...lol.

I still hate that I wasted what could have been a perfectly good vote for Dole on Perot in '96!

Quit laughing, or I'm telling! :D

[ 11-21-2002, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Perot: the only man in history out-of-touch enough to address the NAACP as "you people." LOL. :D :D :D :D :D

I warned you, so now...

<h2>I'm telllllllliiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnngggggg!</h2>

<font color="#ff6666"> Not yours no [img]smile.gif[/img] Those of the people who voted for him [img]smile.gif[/img] He should run on what used to be called a "plank" Ie state what he believes in, what he will fight for and allow people whith those valuse to vote for him. Not change his opinion every other week during the election campaign so that you have no idea where he as a man stands. You need to be able to know what kind of person your representative is. (and we won't discuss politicians that flip flop on issues cause almost all of them do to suit their own ends) </font>

I disagree to some extent, there, MagiK. One of the Brits in Parliament representing the colonies - and I apologize for forgetting who it was - wrote regarding a proposed legislation which would in effect make any colonial ship on the seas without the proper Stamp Act papers a pirate vessel. And, in the days where many British Navy Sailors made fair fortunes off of privateering pirate ships, this was bound to have a big impact. This representative basically said, quite eloquently, "I know I supported this in theory once, but now it has come to my attention that it would have a huge impact on those I represent, who are all opposed to it, and since I represent them, I must do what is best for them."

Hell, if you're someone who is so firmly grounded in their "plank" that you will not budge or bend when it comes time to re-evaluate something, you are obviously beyond growing and maturing as a person, beyond critical thought, and not, IMHO, worthy of my vote.

The reed which does not bend must break.

<font color="#ff6666">
LoL errrr hehehe sorry Bman [img]smile.gif[/img] heheheheh :D :D :D </font>

<font color="#ff6666">I didn't say you had to be adamant about it, just not whipping back and forth in the breeze so fast that you make a fair immitation of a flag. </font>

Fair enough. What politicians really do this "whooping" though - isn't it rather suicidal professionally? I mean, none of us like the spineless folks.

As for Gore's spine, I know people from Tenn. who told me they felt that way about him. From my personal experience, I know he kept riding the enviro horse even when it wasn't winning - and that I did respect. But then, I'm one of those who always lists the environment in the top 3 or 4 spots as far as importance is concerned.

Also remember the few times Clinton tried to take forceful action vs Osama the republican's started shooting that he was doing to divert attention from other troubles, ala 'Wag the Dog'. Just today on Fresh Air, they had an interview with Bob Woodward on his new book 'Bush at War'. It seems that the CIA, under Clinton, had a fairly good network in place in Afganistan keeping tabs on Osama, but they were not authorized to attempt to take him out. This policy was also continued under the Bush Administration, till 9/11.

This post, by Attalus, in our own forum further confirms that the work against Al-Queta continues despite the recent focus on Iraq.

Al-Queta isn't on the back burner for our government, but it is for the media unless, of course, they catch/kill one, then it's a reason to briefly break away from the continuous Iraq coverage/commentary/focus. ;)

Thanks, Ronn. I haven't taken part in this thread so far because I have absolutely no interest in Gore due to his blatant opportunism, though I fervently hope he is the Dems nominee in '04. But your point is well-taken. The media seems to think that we only have one or two guys, and if they are paying attention to Saddam, they must be neglecting Al-Qaida, though I am pretty sure that every member of the armed services and intelligence community would trade his or her chance at Paradise to nail Bin Laden. Their name would live forever.

Also remember the few times Clinton tried to take forceful action vs Osama the republican's started shooting that he was doing to divert attention from other troubles, ala 'Wag the Dog'. Just today on Fresh Air, they had an interview with Bob Woodward on his new book 'Bush at War'. It seems that the CIA, under Clinton, had a fairly good network in place in Afganistan keeping tabs on Osama, but they were not authorized to attempt to take him out. This policy was also continued under the Bush Administration, till 9/11.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ff6666">I seem to recall that the Republicans/Defense Department types were PO'd that after ignoring their screams for action for months chose to attack an asprin factory the the Joint Chiefs had said was probably NOT a valid target and useing Million dollar missiles to destroy $3 tents in the desert. </font>

<font color="#ff6666">
No disrespect to the Man Al Gore, but I will predict that if he runs in '04 that the Republicans will get another huge win. (yes you read it here first and I'll admit it if I turn out to be wrong) </font>

<font color="#ff6666">
No disrespect to the Man Al Gore, but I will predict that if he runs in '04 that the Republicans will get another huge win. (yes you read it here first and I'll admit it if I turn out to be wrong) </font></font>[/QUOTE]I think that's what Attalus is counting on. ;)