« Well, that's a relief. | Main | We seemed to have had technical problems today. »

May 26, 2004

Comments

If you've got proof of a conspiracy, Mister Gore - that is to say, something that could be used in a court of law - then by all means share it.

Um, where in that was Gore saying that there was a conspiracy to commit torture? You don't have to think that there was an actual criminal conspiracy to think that heads should roll over this.

My guess: manic phase.

Josh:
From the text - which I do apologize for the link being absent at first; I was trying to get cute with the photo being the link, and failing -

He said reservists photographed abusing prisoners "were clearly forced to wade into a moral cesspool designed by the Bush White House," which, he said, had abandoned the Geneva Conventions.

That's an accusation that the Bush administration specifically intended the abuse at Abu Ghraib from the start. If he's got proof... well then, let's see it.

Moe:

Sorry for the OT but this is too good to miss.

from Merde in France

FWIW, here's the MoveOn transcript of the speech:

http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html/

Although a "moral cesspool" is referred to, the above quote doesn't exist anywhere in that transcript. Either the transcript is in error or the reporter's botched the quote.

The quote from the transcript, btw, reads as follows:

President Bush owes more than one apology. On the list of those he let down are the young soldiers who are themselves apparently culpable, but who were clearly put into a moral cesspool. The perpetrators as well as the victims were both placed in their relationship to one another by the policies of George W. Bush.

I wish the guy in the WH had half of Gore's intelligence, eloquence, integrity, and passion. To heck with what Peoria thinks.

On the cesspool from tomorrow's NYT.

Post updated; thanks for catching that, Anarch. :)

Gore was a snooze in 2000, and now that he has a little personality he's being marginalized. Kerry is a corpse today, and nobody but Dr. Frankenstein himself can put life into those grey bones.

Is the the BEST the Democratic Party has to offer?

I need another drink.

Thought it was considered common courtesy to refer to former Vice Presidents of the United States as such.

"Thought it was considered common courtesy to refer to former Vice Presidents of the United States as such."

Yes, it is. I'm being discourteous. And?

Funny how you two are arguing over which pile of poop is the most moist...

"I'm being discourteous. And?"

And in my opinion it sullies the discourse. But it's your house, your choice.

Well, you know, Rilke, it must be hell for Moe supporting Bush when if the man who won the election in 2000 had got the Presidency, the US wouldn't be in this kind of mess. Have some sympathy for the man: his reasons for supporting Bush over Kerry may be completely hypocritical, but what else has an intelligent and compassionate Republican got these days? Not a lot.

"And in my opinion it sullies the discourse."

I merely return the same discourtesy that former Vice President* Gore has already brought to the table. Actually, I very mildly return said discourtesy.

Moe

*If that makes you feel better.

PS: Jes, I understand that you feel this need to try to annoy me on a regular business, but do you think that you could squeeze it down to a handy acronym or something? Nobody else really cares and I have limited storage space.

I watched the speech last night. It was off the hook. Perhaps Gore's best speech ever and all of them for move-on have been good. Under a Gore presidency there would have been more accountability. Gore seemed outraged about the what happened in Abu Ghreib. Shouldn't we all be?

Nobody else really cares and I have limited storage space.

Eh, Moe, I'm still hoping someday you're going to explain the hypocritical reason you gave for supporting Bush over Kerry. It niggles at me every time I think about you as a Republican, because I used to think you were better than that - and when you post with casual contempt for passionate speeches of outrage over Abu Ghraib, just because it's a Democratic politician making them (and worse than that, the Presidential candidate who beat Bush the last election), well, you know, it annoys me seeing you lower yourself to pure Republican partisanship.

Michael Berube explains why Bush has as much support as he does with this questionaire for the Bush 40%:

[As per the recently updated Posting Rules the cut n'pasted text was deleted without prejudice or further comment, save to note that this should notbe deemed as also being a sole warning before banning. - Moe Lane]

Moe and Anarch:

The AP "cesspool" quote is accurate. Gore deviated from his script. I watched it live and pulled this soundbite:

Gore/bush apology trt :39 oc: george w. bush
13:22:27 President Bush owes more than one apology. On the list of those he let down are the young soldiers who are themselves apparently culpable, but who were clearly forced to wade into a moral cesspool designed by the Bush White House. The perpetrators as well as the victims were both placed in their relationship to one another by the policies of George W. Bush. 13:23:06

Why do I like Bush over Kerry, if Kerry wins Fabius will stop his spinning.

-On intelligence before Bush took office what was the policy of the USA towards Iraq?

-The President, himself, spiked the EPA Report. The masks were available, the workers didn't wear them.

-Veterans benefits were actually cut, I find that interesting.

-Administrators and professionals should not get overtime pay, whereas the guy who is deemed a manager but is just running a cashregister should.

-I remember Clinton fought like the devil for a balanced budget. The only thing he cut was the military.

-A window, a floor but no ceiling explains the hole. Usually the hole is part of the 1st phase, in this plan it is in the 2nd.

-Clinton was to focused on cigars and a humidor to focus on brush.

So your point was?

CNN man: Gore deviated from his script.

I actually guessed that might have been the case, which is why I was more careful than usual in noting that the transcript (which I should really have called a script, in retrospect) said that, not that Gore did. Do you know where I can find either audio of the speech or a verified transcript so I can double-check?

That at least Clinton was competant with cigars and humitors. Bush doesn't even have that.

Military budgets grew under Clinton. We still had budgets surpassing the sum of the next 19 largest militaries in the world. You're just greedy, or hankering for world domination, if you want any more than that.

As I recall, Clinton saved a few bucks on welfare spending as well. He promised to change welfare as we know it and he did. He didn't feel obliged to be the administration of his base, by his base, and for his base.

I think you are being way too optimistic, Timmy. I'm sure there will be plenty to spin in the upcoming Kerry presidency. I will have regrets, though. First, that it won't be a Gore presidency. And second that this Bush fiasco ever happened. In my year and a half years in Europe I was an eager and persistent defender of America, it's past, it's role in the world and the Carter and Reagan presidencies that were contemporary. It's going to be hard to face the shame of the Bush stewartship when I'm able to return.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Go Kerry, Go Kerry, It's your Birthday, It's your Birthday.

er...um....nevermind...

Intellectually, I think Gore would have done better to adopt an elder statesman-like role in all this, but personally, I think he's being rather restrained. The election was so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o close that there's no justification at all in my book for Bush acting as if he had a mandate (and anyone mentioning the 2002 election better own up to the "Terror! Terror! Run for your Lives and Buy Duct Tape!" nonsense the country was being bombarded with at the time)...from day 1 Bush did precious little to build a consensus or try and unite the nation...Gore has every reason to be livid in my book. Having said that, I wish he'd leave it the Deans of the party.

Bush administration not preventing 9/11 = gross incompetence

Bush administration providing terrorism warnings in 2002 based on available intelligence = nonsense

Got it! Can't win, don't try.

Bush administration providing terrorism warnings in 2002 based on available intelligence = nonsense

Before you get too bothered by this assertion, Phil, read this...

As Ashcroft Warns of Attack, Some Question Threat and Its Timing

And then we can discuss whether the Bush teams plays politics with terrorism and warnings.

And let's be sure to begin that conversation with a distinction between stopping terrorism and simply raising an alert to orange. Clearly the second can aid in the first, but they are not one and the same.


Moe Lane: That's an accusation that the Bush administration specifically intended the abuse at Abu Ghraib from the start. If he's got proof... well then, let's see it.

He's still not calling for their prosecution. He's calling for their resignations. There is a big difference there, with very different standards of proof. And, moreover, he is right: those soldiers, while still responsible for their own actions, were serving in a moral cesspool, and they were put there by Bush Administration policies.

I'm just yanking your chain, Edward. It's funny to me -- and as a Pox On Both Their Lousy, Stinking Houses type, I feel comfortable laughing at both sides -- that, whenever anyone criticizes the Clinton White House's creds on terrorism by bringing up the Cole, WTC attack #1, and so forth, all the Clintonistas yell, "LAX Millennium Plot!" In contrast, whenever the Bush admin even appears to be pretending to pay attention to domestic terrorism -- and brings up the fact that there haven't been any attacks in America since 9/11, all the Clintonistas shout, "Hart Report! Duct Tape! AshKKKroft Karl Rovey Rove Rove!"

Shorter NYT Link: "A bunch of people disagree about terrorism intelligence." BFD -- what else is new? There either is an increased threat, or there isn't. If there was, and DHS and DOJ didn't say anything atll, and something happened, you'd complain about that, too, so what's the point? By the way, the article makes clear that the threat level alert wasn't raised.

So tell me what you want them to do, Edward? Not ever say anything publicly about potential threats or intelligence assessments? Clear it with you first, so you can ascertain that they aren't "playing politics?" (As if there are politicians who don't play politics.)

Also, in the NYT article you linked, the only direct accusation that the administration is "playing politics" comes from " . . . some opponents of President Bush, including police and firefighter union leaders aligned with Senator John Kerry, the expected Democratic presidential candidate . . . " Color me unimpressed.

Gore was part of an administration which was successful by any reasonable standard for eight years, yet suffered unending "investigations" and ultimately impeachment over a blow job. No point in repeating the statistics.

Bush, on the other hand, has led us into a disastrous war based on lies and deception - the only real question being whose lies and deception - i.e., is the President a liar or a fool? No other real alternative. No serious criticism from republican congress, let alone impeachment.

His stalwart supporters manage to look at this picture of a pile of crap and somehow see flowers. Its like one of those posters which was popular a few years ago - if you cross your eyes and stare a certain way, you can make yourself see the illusion.

It would be surprising if Gore wasn't outraged.

Late to the party, but that was more than a great speech. It's time somebody said something about the big pile of crap in the middle of the living room floor that everyone knows about, but isn't mentioning. This invasion has become a moral cesspool, and good for him for not mincing words.

And no, I don't expect many in the right wing are going to give it a good review. Duh.

So tell me what you want them to do, Edward? Not ever say anything publicly about potential threats or intelligence assessments? Clear it with you first, so you can ascertain that they aren't "playing politics?"

Well, I sort of have a lot on my plate these days, but, what the hell, sure, I'll take that on.

So long as it's Ridge calling me, and not Ashcroft, he gives me the heebeegeebees...

Sorry, I don't listen to the Hee Bee Bee Gees. What? Oh.

Anyway, I mean, you tell me, you know? Is there, isn't there, what? Is there credible evidence? Will there be another attempted attack sometime before November? I don't have access to information that would tell me one way or the other, and neither do you. Ridge and Ashcroft do. Are they doing something wrong by making this announcement?

I'm going to be on the National Mall with my wife and nearly a million other people this weekend, at a major event celebrating this nation's military and citizenry. Is there reason to be extra vigiliant or concerned? Yes, no? You seem to think you're in a position to know, so you tell me.

I don't have any inside information Phil. I do, however, know the lesson of the Boy who Cried Wolf. And from what I read, there's no reason to believe those 7 people are in the US...and there's this:

There's no real new intelligence, and a lot of this has been out there already," said one administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "There really is no significant change that would require us to change the alert level of the country."

We're paying the Police and Homeland Security Departments to "Be Alert"...so the message to the public seems to be simply: "Don't forget to be afraid."

Other officials said they supported Mr. Ashcroft's warnings.

"I think he was right on the mark in terms of what Al Qaeda's intent is," said one counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

From the same flippin' article. So it's a push. Or did you not expect anyone to read past the fourth graf.

Whatever, though. I'm not voting for Bush, so the interest is academic, but I love how the game is rigged so that nothing his administration does is correct. If there was another attack, and yesterday's press conference had never been held, you'd be screaming "Impeachment!"

And you can only assume that they're crying "Wolf!" if you do have inside information. If they cry "Wolf!" and the wolf actually grabs some sheep, then you're wrong to criticize them, no?

And you can only assume that they're crying "Wolf!" if you do have inside information. If they cry "Wolf!" and the wolf actually grabs some sheep, then you're wrong to criticize them, no?

I'm not worried about people criticizing them, Phil, neither should they. If they're half as worried about "how the game is rigged so that nothing his administration does is correct" as you are, I'd have even less respect for them. One thing I think this President does well is to ignore his critics and do what he feels is right (I just happen to disagree with him on what's actually right).

The lesson from "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" however is that if you raise the alarm too many times and there's no terrorist action, the public will begin to ignore the alarms. That means Ridge and Ashcroft must do so judiciously (and that in and of itself helps avoid the accusations that they're do so politically).

Now, I don't know that there's not more chatter, but the dual facts that whatever there is doesn't warrant raising the code to Orange and there's no new eveidence that hasn't already been out there leaves your quote of choice about "intent" a good candidate for the Carnak award.

Gore sounded like a whacked out loony tune so that Kerry would look like a statesman by comparison. Nice that Gore fell on his own political sword. Maybe he'll get some professional help.

One thing I think this President does well is to ignore his critics and do what he feels is right (I just happen to disagree with him on what's actually right).

There's a difference between ignoring one's critics and ignoring all contradictory information. The former is generally a good thing, but it doesn't palliate the devastating problems of the latter.

" he'll get some professional help."

Ah, the old 'he's clinically insane' talking point. Oldie but a goodie. Worked wonders on McCain, Graham, and Dean.

Because sane people never raise their voice. Except Republicans. When they do it they're just legitimately outraged.

The comments to this entry are closed.