Full Version: Gore on Abu Ghraib
Al Gore delivered a stunning indictment of the Bush administration in an address in New York yesterday - broadcast last night on C-Span. In it, he made no bones about the sheer incompetence and recklessness of the Bush White House which, he claims, lead directly to the abuse at Abu Ghraib:
It was a powerful speech, during the course of which he called for the resignations of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Stephen Cambone, Condoleezza Rice, and George Tenet. It angered me - and literally brought me to tears. It was so powerful as a whole that excerpting does it little justice, but I found the conclusion particularly stirring:
Now, as Al Gore received a clear majority of the votes cast in 2000...
Will this speech have any impact at all on the votes cast in 2004? Or is Al Gore now little more than a political has-been?
QUOTE
How dare they blame their misdeeds on enlisted personnel from a Reserve unit in upstate New York. 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.
How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison.
How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison.
It was a powerful speech, during the course of which he called for the resignations of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Stephen Cambone, Condoleezza Rice, and George Tenet. It angered me - and literally brought me to tears. It was so powerful as a whole that excerpting does it little justice, but I found the conclusion particularly stirring:
QUOTE
In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as president.
I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every turn to frustrate accountability...
So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.
I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable - and I believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, "We - even we here - hold the power, and bear the responsibility."
I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every turn to frustrate accountability...
So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.
I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable - and I believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, "We - even we here - hold the power, and bear the responsibility."
Now, as Al Gore received a clear majority of the votes cast in 2000...
Will this speech have any impact at all on the votes cast in 2004? Or is Al Gore now little more than a political has-been?
Will this speech have any impact at all on the votes cast in 2004? Or is Al Gore now little more than a political has-been?
Well, I read it and was almost brought to tears- I can't believe he wrote it! LOL
- but if he did, it was brilliant- and if he delivered it in Clinton's manner instead of his own, it was probably quite moving.
But really, unfortunately, as dead on accurate and true this rings to me, America doesn't like a loser, and even though he did not "lose" the popular election- He ended up with the moniker anyway- and many poeple that supported him also felt that he let them down, really feeling the election was his to lose anyway.
So, the pro-GW crowd will call it "bashing" , it will have no impact with the converted, or the ABB or the neo-cons, and I don't think, unless someone gets this into heavy rotation and the speech is well delivered, that it will have much impact- but if there are really good soundbites that play over and over on advertising, it might have impact, especially if it slams home the "get out the vote" among the disenfranchised from the last election. I mean, 50-90 thousand poeple with "black sounding" last names getting out to vote certainly would make a difference in florida, don't you? 
Well, I read it and was almost brought to tears- I can't believe he wrote it! LOL
- but if he did, it was brilliant- and if he delivered it in Clinton's manner instead of his own, it was probably quite moving. But really, unfortunately, as dead on accurate and true this rings to me, America doesn't like a loser, and even though he did not "lose" the popular election- He ended up with the moniker anyway- and many poeple that supported him also felt that he let them down, really feeling the election was his to lose anyway.
So, the pro-GW crowd will call it "bashing"
, it will have no impact with the converted, or the ABB or the neo-cons, and I don't think, unless someone gets this into heavy rotation and the speech is well delivered, that it will have much impact- but if there are really good soundbites that play over and over on advertising, it might have impact, especially if it slams home the "get out the vote" among the disenfranchised from the last election. I mean, 50-90 thousand poeple with "black sounding" last names getting out to vote certainly would make a difference in florida, don't you?
I heard portions of Gore's speech on CNN. He was very impassioned, yea fiery in his delivery. I think he has struck a chord with many of us. It reminded me of the movie Network where a well-known television journalist who has quite lost his mind tells his audience to open their windows and yell, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not taking it any more!" (And the people do!) Except that there was anger, not madness, in what Gore was saying.
Surely there are folks who want to regard Al Gore as a has-been, but it doesn't mean that he has to live down to their expectations. He's obviously been living his life while the public spotlight has been on other people, and he has a message.
He has his audience, and it obviously isn't the same as those who are determined to keep the incumbent in office. But it sounded like a hellfire and brimstone old-timey sermon to me, and I felt like shouting "Amen!"
Surely there are folks who want to regard Al Gore as a has-been, but it doesn't mean that he has to live down to their expectations. He's obviously been living his life while the public spotlight has been on other people, and he has a message.
He has his audience, and it obviously isn't the same as those who are determined to keep the incumbent in office. But it sounded like a hellfire and brimstone old-timey sermon to me, and I felt like shouting "Amen!"
Gore isn't much of a "has been". But that doesn't mean his words will have much of an impact.
At this point in the election cycle, the nation is quite divided with about 45% supporting Bush at all costs, 45% supporting Kerry at all costs and the rest either ignoring the process or not sure what to make of all the sound and fury.
On the other hand, had a Republican with some intestinal fortitude stood up and said similar things or if the Republican Party had had the guts to run ANYONE against Bush in this primary season, we might have something to consider. But they can't do that, because they didn't offer themselves an alternative.
How did the Republicans back themselves into this corner where they have to support an Administration that has done so much wrong? Didn't anyone notice that there might be a problem? Was it really just that "Bush has raised all this money, so you'd be crazy to run against him"? At this point, the GOP is stuck trying to attack everyone else for anything obvious said about Bush or spin every negative event into "it wasn't his responsibility" even if everyone can see that it was. The GOP should have at least given themselves a choice.
At this point in the election cycle, the nation is quite divided with about 45% supporting Bush at all costs, 45% supporting Kerry at all costs and the rest either ignoring the process or not sure what to make of all the sound and fury.
On the other hand, had a Republican with some intestinal fortitude stood up and said similar things or if the Republican Party had had the guts to run ANYONE against Bush in this primary season, we might have something to consider. But they can't do that, because they didn't offer themselves an alternative.
How did the Republicans back themselves into this corner where they have to support an Administration that has done so much wrong? Didn't anyone notice that there might be a problem? Was it really just that "Bush has raised all this money, so you'd be crazy to run against him"? At this point, the GOP is stuck trying to attack everyone else for anything obvious said about Bush or spin every negative event into "it wasn't his responsibility" even if everyone can see that it was. The GOP should have at least given themselves a choice.
I doubt that Gore's speech will change anyone's mind one way or the other. This is an election year, Gore's campaigning for his man, and we all know he endorses Kerry. No surprise there. If Gore himself were running, a stirring speech might make a marginal difference, but Kerry is not Al Gore.
Will this speech have any impact at all on the votes cast in 2004? Or is Al Gore now little more than a political has-been?
Wow! Honestly, I didn't think Al had it in him to deliver such an impassioned, eloquent denouncement of the Bushies. I missed the speech - caught the tail end of a TV news story showing him behind the podium, but didn't get to hear the speech.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with amf and Mrs. Pigpen - nothing will change die-hard Bush supporters' minds, least of all a Democrat (oh, horrors!). I can already hear the diatribes from the right even as they think themselves above it all- especially since I noticed that it was a MoveOn event - "oh, it's just those radical/sore loser/liberal media bias sour grapes."
Hmm, the "oh YEAH's" have already started:
Using that logic, Bush should be held personally responsible for the terrorist attack on 9/11. If that's the best the GOP can come up with, then maybe there is hope that this speech may have an effect on voters' opinions. The weak "blame it on the previous administration" argument is tired and old and dusty.
There they go again; anything against the Bush administration is "blaming America". Funny, I didn't know Bush and America were synonymous.
Wow! Honestly, I didn't think Al had it in him to deliver such an impassioned, eloquent denouncement of the Bushies. I missed the speech - caught the tail end of a TV news story showing him behind the podium, but didn't get to hear the speech.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with amf and Mrs. Pigpen - nothing will change die-hard Bush supporters' minds, least of all a Democrat (oh, horrors!). I can already hear the diatribes from the right even as they think themselves above it all- especially since I noticed that it was a MoveOn event - "oh, it's just those radical/sore loser/liberal media bias sour grapes."
Hmm, the "oh YEAH's" have already started:
QUOTE
"Al Gore served as vice president of this country for eight years," Republican National Committee Communications Director Jim Dyke said. "During that time, Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States five times and terrorists killed U.S. citizens on at least four different occasions, including the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the attacks on Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole. Story
Using that logic, Bush should be held personally responsible for the terrorist attack on 9/11. If that's the best the GOP can come up with, then maybe there is hope that this speech may have an effect on voters' opinions. The weak "blame it on the previous administration" argument is tired and old and dusty.
QUOTE
However, speaking privately, some in the GOP were not at all unhappy with Gore's speech. "We're delighted by it," said one GOP strategist, "because what you see now is a coalescing of the 'blame America first' wing of the Democratic party that has been largely absent from the stage since 1984." Story Link
There they go again; anything against the Bush administration is "blaming America". Funny, I didn't know Bush and America were synonymous.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ May 27 2004, 10:32 AM)
Hmm, the "oh YEAH's" have already started:
Using that logic, Bush should be held personally responsible for the terrorist attack on 9/11. If that's the best the GOP can come up with, then maybe there is hope that this speech may have an effect on voters' opinions. The weak "blame it on the previous administration" argument is tired and old and dusty.
There they go again; anything against the Bush administration is "blaming America". Funny, I didn't know Bush and America were synonymous.
QUOTE
"Al Gore served as vice president of this country for eight years," Republican National Committee Communications Director Jim Dyke said. "During that time, Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States five times and terrorists killed U.S. citizens on at least four different occasions, including the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the attacks on Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole. Story
Using that logic, Bush should be held personally responsible for the terrorist attack on 9/11. If that's the best the GOP can come up with, then maybe there is hope that this speech may have an effect on voters' opinions. The weak "blame it on the previous administration" argument is tired and old and dusty.
QUOTE
However, speaking privately, some in the GOP were not at all unhappy with Gore's speech. "We're delighted by it," said one GOP strategist, "because what you see now is a coalescing of the 'blame America first' wing of the Democratic party that has been largely absent from the stage since 1984." Story Link
There they go again; anything against the Bush administration is "blaming America". Funny, I didn't know Bush and America were synonymous.
And these GOP responses support my point. Instead of honestly dealing with the criticism, they have to deflect it and attack the messenger and try to duck any responsibility.
If they had only encouraged someone to run against Bush, maybe they would have to be more honest about the criticism.... When the criticism comes from within your own party, you're more likely to take it seriously. When it comes from outside the party, the party will immediately throw up a wall to protect its own.
And that's too bad, because if all you do is sit and listen to people like yourself all day, you have no chance of improving your results or learning something new.
The country deserves better.
While I agree with the sentiment behind Gore's words, I have found his speeches to be relatively ineffective since 2000.
I think he is a bit of a political has been and that was emphasized some when he failed to win his own state. I do not think that Al Gore's words have the weight to move public opinion but I am glad he is speaking out forcefully, because i think this is a year for such speeches.
Sadly, I agree with above posts that Gore will not move the electorate much as a campaigner this year.
I think he is a bit of a political has been and that was emphasized some when he failed to win his own state. I do not think that Al Gore's words have the weight to move public opinion but I am glad he is speaking out forcefully, because i think this is a year for such speeches.
Sadly, I agree with above posts that Gore will not move the electorate much as a campaigner this year.
QUOTE
Will this speech have any impact at all on the votes cast in 2004?
I consider this election highly polarized. That means that all the people who even knew Gore was making a speech have already decided who to vote for. Ironically, the voters that rarely concern themselves with politics are going to carry the president to the white house.
QUOTE
Or is Al Gore now little more than a political has-been?
If Gore had run for president again and started speaking like he is now, theres no doubt in my mind he would be our next president. Moveon.org has taken a shine to him, so I think he's still in the game. He got televised on hardball, didn't he?
Will this speech have any impact at all on the votes cast in 2004? Or is Al Gore now little more than a political has-been?
Wertz, you beat me to the punch, I read this yesterday and was considering posting it myself
When I read this speech the other day, it really moved me as well. Gore was able to perfectly sum up the serious problems with this administration in this speech. It makes me wonder where we'd be right now as a country had he won the presidency in 2000 -- I'd say that based on this speech we'd be in a much better situation.
Although there are many things I think the Bush administration has done wrong in the past 4 years, Gore primarily focuses on Iraq and foreign policy in this speech. I think that was the appropriate move, we have definitely gone the furthest off the track in this area.
In answer to the question for debate, I don't know if Gore's speech per se will have any effect on the election. However, it is clear that Americans are not pleased with how the Bush administration has handled themselves since around 2003 or so. Iraq is probably the one issue that will cost Bush the election and this speech really just brings that into focus in an eloquent and emotionally powerful way.
To back that up with hard numbers, please take a look at this poll entitled: California's View of the President and the War.
There is an article which accompanies this as well, but I think the graphs summarize the points very well.
California is definitely not the bastion of republican support these days. Outside of Orange County and some parts of Central CA, not many people give themselves that label. However, if you take a look at the top graph, I believe it clearly illustrates the Bush presidency.
Before Sept 11th, Bush was on his way to being a very mediocre president. The day after Sept 11th his approval rating shot up to about 75% and remained there throughout the Afghanistan campaign. The country and the world believed he was doing the right thing. Then it started steadily declining as we got more and more involved with Iraq.
Some of the other graphs on here are also interesting as well. Another key thing to take away is that the reason for this decline in support isn't due simply to Democrats and Liberals. Moderates, independants, nonpartisan and even some Republican voters are turning against Bush as well.
So back to California, while CA clearly isn't a republican stronghold it illustrates a national trend pretty well. The article correlates this to national trends polled by ABC and CBS.
Gore's speech is timely, truthful and from the heart, which is more than I can say for any Bush administration speech since 9/11.
Wertz, you beat me to the punch, I read this yesterday and was considering posting it myself
When I read this speech the other day, it really moved me as well. Gore was able to perfectly sum up the serious problems with this administration in this speech. It makes me wonder where we'd be right now as a country had he won the presidency in 2000 -- I'd say that based on this speech we'd be in a much better situation.
Although there are many things I think the Bush administration has done wrong in the past 4 years, Gore primarily focuses on Iraq and foreign policy in this speech. I think that was the appropriate move, we have definitely gone the furthest off the track in this area.
In answer to the question for debate, I don't know if Gore's speech per se will have any effect on the election. However, it is clear that Americans are not pleased with how the Bush administration has handled themselves since around 2003 or so. Iraq is probably the one issue that will cost Bush the election and this speech really just brings that into focus in an eloquent and emotionally powerful way.
To back that up with hard numbers, please take a look at this poll entitled: California's View of the President and the War.
There is an article which accompanies this as well, but I think the graphs summarize the points very well.
California is definitely not the bastion of republican support these days. Outside of Orange County and some parts of Central CA, not many people give themselves that label. However, if you take a look at the top graph, I believe it clearly illustrates the Bush presidency.
Before Sept 11th, Bush was on his way to being a very mediocre president. The day after Sept 11th his approval rating shot up to about 75% and remained there throughout the Afghanistan campaign. The country and the world believed he was doing the right thing. Then it started steadily declining as we got more and more involved with Iraq.
Some of the other graphs on here are also interesting as well. Another key thing to take away is that the reason for this decline in support isn't due simply to Democrats and Liberals. Moderates, independants, nonpartisan and even some Republican voters are turning against Bush as well.
So back to California, while CA clearly isn't a republican stronghold it illustrates a national trend pretty well. The article correlates this to national trends polled by ABC and CBS.
Gore's speech is timely, truthful and from the heart, which is more than I can say for any Bush administration speech since 9/11.
Will it have an effect? Well it is still on the front page of CNN.
That is positive for the Kerry camp.
It was news enough to make its way into this forum, and as long as we don't start bashing one another will probably be debated into next week.
That is good for the Kerry camp.
MoveOn is doing a brilliant job of advertising for Kerry. 2 days on the front page, will be discussed over the weekend I am sure on TV, and it did not cost Kerry one single cent. Democracy is a beautiful thing, and is good for the Kerry camp.
It is nice to see Gore's passion. Now I am just waiting for the Gore/Dean screaming sound bites to hit the air waves.......
That is positive for the Kerry camp.
It was news enough to make its way into this forum, and as long as we don't start bashing one another will probably be debated into next week.
That is good for the Kerry camp.
MoveOn is doing a brilliant job of advertising for Kerry. 2 days on the front page, will be discussed over the weekend I am sure on TV, and it did not cost Kerry one single cent. Democracy is a beautiful thing, and is good for the Kerry camp.
It is nice to see Gore's passion. Now I am just waiting for the Gore/Dean screaming sound bites to hit the air waves.......
QUOTE(amf @ May 27 2004, 12:05 PM)
Instead of honestly dealing with the criticism, they have to deflect it and attack the messenger and try to duck any responsibility.
QUOTE
How dare they blame their misdeeds on enlisted personnel from a Reserve unit in upstate New York. 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.
How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison.
How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison.
And Gore wasn’t attacking Bush? What part of “blame their misdeeds, moral cesspool, incompetent, oh heck - the entire second paragraph” isn’t attacking Bush?!?!?!?
How do you deal with this type of criticism? In the first paragraph you have Al Gore making a statement that is intended from the onset to make people think Bush ordered torture in Abu Ghraib. And people here are moved to tears or believe this inflammatory rhetoric struck a chord?!?!?
Well I still left wondering when DTOM, Mustang, crazyinbama, Paladin, Paladin Elspeth’s son, overlandsailor and Titus received their “torture” orders from the Bush administration. I would like to see Al Gore ask them that question. I’d like to see him tell the majority of those serving in Iraq right now that they are participating in nothing more than a moral cesspool.
Will this speech have any impact at all on the votes cast in 2004?
I doubt it. Gore is a radical and anyone attending his speech would be voting for Kerry or Nader anyway.
As BH points out, this speech must be viewed by those undecided voters or it’s wasted. Since this Presidential race may be the most emotional election I’ve seen, then listing to an emotional charged speech could sway the fence sitters. Maybe they’ll let him repeat this at the convention
While in the minds of many he might be a has-been, he still has a support base. He did after all receive more popular votes that our current President-unelect.
While in the minds of many he might be a has-been, he still has a support base. He did after all receive more popular votes that our current President-unelect.
After perusing several stories about the Gore speech, I see that CNN reports that the GOP is dragging out that hoary old argument to discredit MoveOn:
How long are they going to beat that dead horse? The ads were solicited from the PUBLIC, and when MoveOn got the Bush/Hitler ad, they removed it. Where's the big, bad issue here? And is that the best they could come up with? Like amf said:
And Belladonna, I believe you missed the point entirely. Yes, the entire speech is an indictment of the Bush administration and its inept mishandling of the Iraq affair. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION are the ones responsible for the moral cesspool, etc. that the regular joes in the military are stuck in. Nowhere in the speech did Gore criticize the soldiers on the ground - in fact, he did the polar opposite. While I believe what the lower rank soldiers did at Abu Ghraib is inexcusable and displays the lack of a moral/ethical center, they were ALLOWED to do so by a chain of command that to this day denies any responsibility whatsoever. And unfortunately, the stench of the scandal spills over onto the military men and women who are just doing their jobs the best they know how. I don't know if any of the posters you targeted as "receiving torture orders" are even in the military or Iraq, but even if they are, it is naive to believe that the orders received in Iraq do not filter down from the Commander in Chief. Unless you posit that Bush, Rumsfeld, et al are not really in charge?
QUOTE
The Republican National Committee shot back with a statement saying that Gore's association with the group [MoveOn] "cast serious doubt on his credibility."
The GOP noted that two ads -- out of more than 1,000 -- submitted to MoveOn's anti-Bush advertising contest last year compared the president to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. At least one of those ads was temporarily posted on the Web site MoveOn.org, but the group took it down and disassociated itself from the ad. CNN article
The GOP noted that two ads -- out of more than 1,000 -- submitted to MoveOn's anti-Bush advertising contest last year compared the president to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. At least one of those ads was temporarily posted on the Web site MoveOn.org, but the group took it down and disassociated itself from the ad. CNN article
How long are they going to beat that dead horse? The ads were solicited from the PUBLIC, and when MoveOn got the Bush/Hitler ad, they removed it. Where's the big, bad issue here? And is that the best they could come up with? Like amf said:
QUOTE
Instead of honestly dealing with the criticism, they have to deflect it and attack the messenger and try to duck any responsibility.
And Belladonna, I believe you missed the point entirely. Yes, the entire speech is an indictment of the Bush administration and its inept mishandling of the Iraq affair. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION are the ones responsible for the moral cesspool, etc. that the regular joes in the military are stuck in. Nowhere in the speech did Gore criticize the soldiers on the ground - in fact, he did the polar opposite. While I believe what the lower rank soldiers did at Abu Ghraib is inexcusable and displays the lack of a moral/ethical center, they were ALLOWED to do so by a chain of command that to this day denies any responsibility whatsoever. And unfortunately, the stench of the scandal spills over onto the military men and women who are just doing their jobs the best they know how. I don't know if any of the posters you targeted as "receiving torture orders" are even in the military or Iraq, but even if they are, it is naive to believe that the orders received in Iraq do not filter down from the Commander in Chief. Unless you posit that Bush, Rumsfeld, et al are not really in charge?
Thanks, Wertz! 
Sooo... what do we have here? Apparently Algore has moved those on stage left to tears... I can understand why that might be true for CR, probably brought back your days on stage with Weird Al didn't it?
You all will be happy no doubt to hear that it also brought many of us on the right side of things (both figuratively and literally) to tears as well. Tears of laughter! That's the best impression of Algore I've seen since the days of Darrell Hammond! And Algore's timing is getting better as well. The last time he spoke in New York City, it was on one of the coldest days in NYC in years! The topic of that speech? Global warming! So we have a twist on Victor Victoria - Algore pretending to be Howard Dean pretending to be Darrell Hammond pretending to be Algore.... All that's left is a good nickname for the new Algore. Note to Chris Berman: How about Al "Blood and guts and" Gore? Needs work I think.... 
Anyway, on to the question. Algore is either a has-been or a never-was, not sure which. It's pretty pathetic when you don't even win your home state in a national election. His endorsement of Crazy Howie sure did ole Howie a huge amount of good in the primaries.
So now he has to seek out the angry left and hold an angerfest I guess. Oh well, it gives him something to do and what the heck, let's just call for the entire resignation of the Bush administration, then go after Rush Limbaugh! Note to Algore: Errr.... Rush doesn't work for the Bush administration.. 
As far as the "substance" of the speech is concerned, when has Algore ever had any substance? Ie. irrelevant.I do find it interesting though that so many on the left here are gushing over Algore like he's the second-coming or something. Note to the left: Algore is not your candidate for President this year. The 2000 campaign is over! Why aren't you gushing over John Kerry?
Why didn't he give that speech and move you all to tears? Perhaps that explains why, after over a horrible month for the Bush adminstration, and yes his poll numbers have gone down I would have been shocked had they not, but Kerry's haven't gone up. Man oh man, what's wrong with that guy? But, I digress and that's for another thread I think. 
Thanks again, Wertz, I owe ya one!
QUOTE(Beladonna @ May 27 2004, 09:55 AM)
Gore is a radical and anyone attending his speech would be voting for Kerry or Nader anyway.
Gore is radical???????? Boy the Republicans sure weren't using that word to describe him 3 1/2 years ago. First he is dull, and now he is radical.
Gore is still a predominant figure in the Democratic party. His enthusiasm alone helps Kerry. Gore has the right to attack Bush, just like you or I have that right.
We live in a country that allows us to jump up and down and scream bloody murder when we get angry. I think there are a lot of americans that feel anger towards our current administration, and I for one am glad that a person like Gore is speaking up. This is still a democracy, and if you don't like something, stand up and be heard. Not only is it your right, it is your duty.
Closed.
This is the perfect example of why we posted the announcement, FINAL WARNING.
The next topic like this-- started in an inflammatory fashion and continued throughout-- will see 30 day suspensions for all involved.
READ THE ANNOUNCEMENT AND LIVE BY IT IF YOU PLAN ON PARTICIPATING HERE.
This is the perfect example of why we posted the announcement, FINAL WARNING.
The next topic like this-- started in an inflammatory fashion and continued throughout-- will see 30 day suspensions for all involved.
READ THE ANNOUNCEMENT AND LIVE BY IT IF YOU PLAN ON PARTICIPATING HERE.
This is the final warning regarding constructive debate.
Everyone has been directed to read the announcement, and we are still having problems.
Members who disregard this announcement will be suspended for 30 days minimum.
We are a constructive debate forum, and we aim to keep it that way.
If you are not here for constructive debate, please leave now.
The Announcement
QUOTE
The uncertain nature of current events and the approaching Election have given rise to many tense situations on the forum over the last few weeks. In the last few days alone, many great discussions of pressing issues have been closed due to repeated belittling comments and excessive partisan rhetoric.
It's important to remember why you joined America's Debate. Most likely, it was because you wanted to participate in intelligent, informed debate in a civil fashion. These qualities make AD unique. We need you to help maintain these qualities. All the moderation in the world can't stop flame wars - everyone needs to renew their commitment to civil, intelligent, and informed debate.
So what does this mean for you? It means no more taking topics off-track to bash or defend Bush and his administration or Kerry and his campaign. It means not asking if others have 'actually read' your posts, or telling them that their ideas are laughable. It means no more seeking out certain "opponents" just to flame them. It means adding original and constructive ideas instead of just parroting the talking heads. It means citing your sources and supporting what you write. It means remembering that everyone here is a human and everyone invests the same time, sweat, and effort in their posts as you put in yours.
We have a fantastic community, but we had a tough week. Let's work together to get back on track and to keep America's Debate the Internet's most civil, informed and intelligent debate forum.
It's important to remember why you joined America's Debate. Most likely, it was because you wanted to participate in intelligent, informed debate in a civil fashion. These qualities make AD unique. We need you to help maintain these qualities. All the moderation in the world can't stop flame wars - everyone needs to renew their commitment to civil, intelligent, and informed debate.
So what does this mean for you? It means no more taking topics off-track to bash or defend Bush and his administration or Kerry and his campaign. It means not asking if others have 'actually read' your posts, or telling them that their ideas are laughable. It means no more seeking out certain "opponents" just to flame them. It means adding original and constructive ideas instead of just parroting the talking heads. It means citing your sources and supporting what you write. It means remembering that everyone here is a human and everyone invests the same time, sweat, and effort in their posts as you put in yours.
We have a fantastic community, but we had a tough week. Let's work together to get back on track and to keep America's Debate the Internet's most civil, informed and intelligent debate forum.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.