Quantcast

An essay by Al Gore

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
N8 won't get past the first 2 lines....

Remarks by Al Gore
_ May 26, 2004
_
_
_ George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he
has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world.
_
_ He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House."
Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable
reputation as the most dishonest_President since Richard Nixon.
_
_ Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would
not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of
our allies, the role of Congress and_the courts, or what Jefferson
described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." He did not
honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in
designing_his invasion of Iraq. And now he will not honor our fallen
dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their
flag-draped coffins.
_
_ How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French
newspaper ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now"
and when we had the good will_and empathy of all the world -- to the
horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu
Ghraib.
_
_ To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration
sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided
America since the end of World War II._The long successful strategy of
containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption."
And what they meant by preemption was not the inherent right of
any_nation to act preemptively against an imminent threat to its
national security, but rather an exotic new approach that asserted a
unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore_international law wherever it
wished to do so and take military action against any nation, even in
circumstances where there was no imminent threat. All that is required,
in the view_of Bush's team is the mere assertion of a possible, future
threat - and the assertion need be made by only one person, the
President.
_
_ More disturbing still was their frequent use of the word "dominance"
to describe their strategic goal, because an American policy of
dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the_world as the ugly dominance
of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people.
Dominance is as dominance does.
_
_ Dominance is not really a strategic policy or political philosophy at
all. It is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate
their hunger for more power still by striking a_Faustian bargain. And as
always happens - sooner or later - to those who shake hands with the
devil, they find out too late that what they have given up in the
bargain is their soul.
_
_ One of the clearest indications of the impending loss of intimacy with
one's soul is the failure to recognize the existence of a soul in those
over whom power is exercised, especially_if the helpless come to be
treated as animals, and degraded. We also know - and not just from De
Sade and Freud - the psychological proximity between sexual depravity
and other_people's pain. It has been especially shocking and awful to
see these paired evils perpetrated so crudely and cruelly in the name of
America.
_
_ Those pictures of torture and sexual abuse came to us embedded in a
wave of news about escalating casualties and growing chaos enveloping
our entire policy in Iraq. But in_order understand the failure of our
overall policy, it is important to focus specifically on what happened
in the Abu Ghraib prison, and ask whether or not those actions
were_representative of who we are as Americans? Obviously the quick
answer is no, but unfortunately it's more complicated than that.
_
_ There is good and evil in every person. And what makes the United
States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule
of law and our carefully constructed system_of checks and balances. Our
natural distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and
democracy are what have lead us as a people to consistently choose
good_over evil in our collective aspirations more than the people any
other nation.
_
_ Our founders were insightful students of human nature. They feared the
abuse of power because they understood that every human being has not
only "better angels" in his nature,_but also an innate vulnerability to
temptation - especially the temptation to abuse power over others.
_
_ Our founders understood full well that a system of checks and balances
is needed in our constitution because every human being lives with an
internal system of checks and_balances that cannot be relied upon to
produce virtue if they are allowed to attain an unhealthy degree of
power over their fellow citizens.
_
_ Listen then to the balance of internal impulses described by
specialist Charles Graner when confronted by one of his colleagues,
Specialist Joseph M. Darby, who later became a_courageous whistleblower.
When Darby asked him to explain his actions documented in the photos,
Graner replied: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the
Corrections_Officer says, 'I love to make a groan man piss on himself."
_
_ What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of
random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the
Bush Administration policy that has_dismantled those wise constraints
and has made war on America's checks and balances.
_
_ The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the
abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war
and the abuse of the trust that had been_placed in President Bush by the
American people in the aftermath of September 11th.
_
_ There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of
what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with.
But instead of making it better, he has_made it infinitely worse. We are
less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and
righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our
country in_the 228 years of our existence as a nation -- because of his
attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees
with him.
_
_ He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and
city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his
arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at_stirring up hornet's nests that
pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and
culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing
policies that_have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men,
women and children, all of it done in our name.
_
_ President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is
"the central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in
the war on terror, but it has unfortunately_become the central
recruiting office for terrorists. [Dick Cheney said, "This war may last
the rest of our lives.] The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's
utter incompetence has_made the world a far more dangerous place and
dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United
States. Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic_Studies
reported that the Iraq conflict " has arguable focused the energies and
resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the
global counterterrorism coalition." _The ISS said that in the wake of
the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists
scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks.
_
_ The war plan was incompetent in its rejection of the advice from
military professionals and the analysis of the intelligence was
incompetent in its conclusion that our soldiers would_be welcomed with
garlands of flowers and cheering crowds. Thus we would not need to
respect the so-called Powell doctrine of overwhelming force.
_
_ There was also in Rumsfeld's planning a failure to provide security
for nuclear materials, and to prevent widespread lawlessness and
looting.
_
_ Luckily, there was a high level of competence on the part of our
soldiers even though they were denied the tools and the numbers they
needed for their mission. What a disgrace_that their families have to
hold bake sales to buy discarded Kevlar vests to stuff into the
floorboards of the Humvees! Bake sales for body armor.
_
_ And the worst still lies ahead. General Joseph Hoar, the former head
of the Marine Corps, said "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of
failure. We are looking into the abyss."
_
_ When a senior, respected military leader like Joe Hoar uses the word
"abyss", then the rest of us damn well better listen. Here is what he
means: more American soldiers dying,_Iraq slipping into worse chaos and
violence, no end in sight, with our influence and moral authority
seriously damaged.
_
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, who headed Central Command
before becoming President Bush's personal emissary to the Middle East,
said recently that our nation's current course is "headed over Niagara
Falls."

The Commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, Army Major General
Charles H. Swannack, Jr., asked by the Washington Post whether he
believes the United States is losing the war in Iraq, replied, "I think
strategically, we are." Army Colonel Paul Hughes, who directed strategic
planning for the US occupation authority in Baghdad, compared what he
sees in Iraq to the Vietnam War, in which he lost his brother: "I
promised myself when I came on active duty that I would do everything in
my power to prevent that ... from happening again." Noting that Vietnam
featured a pattern of winning battles while losing the war, Hughes added
"unless we ensure that we have coherence in our policy, we will lose
strategically."

The White House spokesman, Dan Bartlett was asked on live television
about these scathing condemnations by Generals involved in the highest
levels of Pentagon planning and he replied, "Well they're retired, and
we take our advice from active duty officers."

But amazingly, even active duty military officers are speaking out
against President Bush. For example, the Washington Post quoted an
unnamed senior General at the Pentagon as saying, " the current OSD
(Office of the Secretary of Defense) refused to listen or adhere to
military advice." Rarely if ever in American history have uniformed
commanders felt compelled to challenge their commander in chief in
public.

The Post also quoted an unnamed general as saying, "Like a lot of
senior Army guys I'm quite angry" with Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush
Administration. He listed two reasons. "I think they are going to break
the Army," he said, adding that what really incites him is "I don't
think they care."

In his upcoming book, Zinni blames the current catastrophe on the Bush
team's incompetence early on. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war, and its
later conduct," he writes, "I saw at a minimum, true dereliction,
negligence and irresponsibility, at worst, lying, incompetence and
corruption."

Zinni's book will join a growing library of volumes by former advisors
to Bush -- including his principal advisor on terrorism, Richard Clarke;
his principal economic policy advisor, former Treasury Secretary Paul
O'Neill, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was honored by Bush's father
for his service in Iraq, and his former Domestic Adviser on
faith-based organizations, John Dilulio, who said, "There is no
precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a
complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything, and
I mean everything, run by the political arm. It's the reign of the
Mayberry Machiavellis."
Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki told Congress in February
that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." But
because Rumsfeld and Bush did not want to hear disagreement with their
view that Iraq could be invaded at a much lower cost, Shinseki was
hushed and then forced out.

And as a direct result of this incompetent plan and inadequate troop
strength, young soldiers were put in an untenable position. For example,
young reservists assigned to the Iraqi prisons were called up without
training or adequate supervision, and were instructed by their superiors
to "break down" prisoners in order to prepare them for interrogation.

To make matters worse, they were placed in a confusing situation where
the chain of command was criss-crossed between intelligence gathering
and prison administration, and further confused by an unprecedented
mixing of military and civilian contractor authority.

The soldiers who are accused of committing these atrocities are, of
course, responsible for their own actions and if found guilty, must be
severely and appropriately punished. But they are not the ones primarily
responsible for the disgrace that has been brought upon the United
States of America.

Private Lynndie England did not make the decision that the United
States would not observe the Geneva Convention. Specialist Charles
Graner was not the one who approved a policy of establishing an American
Gulag of dark rooms with naked prisoners to be "stressed" and even - we
must use the word - tortured - to force them to say things that
legal procedures might not induce them to say.

These policies were designed and insisted upon by the Bush White
House. Indeed, the President's own legal counsel advised him
specifically on the subject. His secretary of defense and his assistants
pushed these cruel departures from historic American standards over the
objections of the uniformed military, just as the Judge Advocates
General within the Defense Department were so upset and opposed that
they took the unprecedented step of seeking help from a private lawyer
in this city who specializes in human rights and said to him, "There is
a calculated effort to create an atmosphere of legal ambiguity" where
the mistreatment of prisoners is concerned."

Indeed, the secrecy of the program indicates an understanding that the
regular military culture and mores would not support these activities
and neither would the American public or the world community. Another
implicit acknowledgement of violations of accepted standards of behavior
is the process of farming out prisoners to countries less averse
to torture and giving assignments to private contractors

President Bush set the tone for our attitude for suspects in his State
of the Union address. He noted that more than 3,000 "suspected
terrorists" had been arrested in many countries and then he added, "and
many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: they are
no longer a problem to the United States and our allies."

George Bush promised to change the tone in Washington. And indeed he
did. As many as 37 prisoners may have been murdered while in captivity,
though the numbers are difficult to rely upon because in many cases
involving violent death, there were no autopsies.

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.

David Kay concluded his search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
with the famous verdict: "we were all wrong." And for many Americans,
Kay's statement seemed to symbolize the awful collision between Reality
and all of the false and fading impressions President Bush had fostered
in building support for his policy of going to war.

Now the White House has informed the American people that they were
also "all wrong" about their decision to place their faith in Ahmed
Chalabi, even though they have paid him 340,000 dollars per month. 33
million dollars (CHECK) and placed him adjacent to Laura Bush at the
State of the Union address. Chalabi had been convicted of fraud
and embezzling 70 million dollars in public funds from a Jordanian bank,
and escaped prison by fleeing the country. But in spite of that record,
he had become one of key advisors to the Bush Administration on planning
and promoting the War against Iraq.

And they repeatedly cited him as an authority, perhaps even a future
president of Iraq. Incredibly, they even ferried him and his private
army into Baghdad in advance of anyone else, and allowed him to seize
control over Saddam's secret papers.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Now they are telling the American people that he is a spy for Iran who
has been duping the President of the United States for all these years.

One of the Generals in charge of this war policy went on a speaking
tour in his spare time to declare before evangelical groups that the US
is in a holy war as "Christian Nation battling Satan." This same General
Boykin was the person who ordered the officer who was in charge of the
detainees in Guantanamo Bay to extend his methods to Iraq
detainees, prisoners. ... The testimony from the prisoners is that they
were forced to curse their religion Bush used the word "crusade" early
on in the war against Iraq, and then commentators pointed out that it
was singularly inappropriate because of the history and sensitivity of
the Muslim world and then a few weeks later he used it again.

"We are now being viewed as the modern Crusaders, as the modern
colonial power in this part of the world," Zinni said.

What a terrible irony that our country, which was founded by refugees
seeking religious freedom - coming to America to escape domineering
leaders who tried to get them to renounce their religion - would now be
responsible for this kind of abuse..

Ameen Saeed al-Sheikh told the Washington Post that he was tortured
and ordered to denounce Islam and after his leg was broken one of his
torturers started hitting it while ordering him to curse Islam and then,
" they ordered me to thank Jesus that I'm alive." Others reported that
they were forced to eat pork and drink alcohol.

In my religious tradition, I have been taught that "ye shall know them
by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know
them."

The President convinced a majority of the country that Saddam Hussein
was responsible for attacking us on September 11th. But in truth he had
nothing whatsoever to do with it. The President convinced the country
with a mixture of forged documents and blatantly false assertions that
Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, and that he was "indistinguishable"
from Osama bin Laden.

He asked the nation , in his State of the Union address, to "imagine"
how terrified we should be that Saddam was about to give nuclear weapons
to terrorists and stated repeatedly that Iraq posed a grave and
gathering threat to our nation. He planted the seeds of war, and
harvested a whirlwind. And now, the "corrupt tree" of a war waged on
false premises has brought us the "evil fruit" of Americans torturing
and humiliating prisoners.

In my opinion, John Kerry is dealing with this unfolding tragedy in an
impressive and extremely responsible way. Our nation's best interest
lies in having a new president who can turn a new page, sweep clean with
a new broom, and take office on January 20th of next year with the
ability to make a fresh assessment of exactly what our nation's
strategic position is as of the time the reigns of power are finally
wrested from the group of incompetents that created this catastrophe.

Kerry should not tie his own hands by offering overly specific,
detailed proposals concerning a situation that is rapidly changing and
unfortunately, rapidly deteriorating, but should rather preserve his,
and our country's, options, to retrieve our national honor as soon as
this long national nightmare is over.

Eisenhower did not propose a five-point plan for changing America's
approach to the Korean War when he was running for president in 1952.

When a business enterprise finds itself in deep trouble that is linked
to the failed policies of the current CEO the board of directors and
stockholders usually say to the failed CEO, "Thank you very much, but
we're going to replace you now with a new CEO -- one less vested in a
stubborn insistence on staying the course, even if that course is, in
the words of General Zinni, "Headed over Niagara Falls."
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
One of the strengths of democracy is the ability of the people to
regularly demand changes in leadership and to fire a failing leader and
hire a new one with the promise of hopeful change. That is the real
solution to America's quagmire in Iraq. But, I am keenly aware that we
have seven months and twenty five days remaining in this president's
current term of office and that represents a time of dangerous
vulnerability for our country because of the demonstrated incompetence
and recklessness of the current administration.

It is therefore essential that even as we focus on the fateful choice,
the voters must make this November that we simultaneously search for
ways to sharply reduce the extraordinary danger that we face with the
current leadership team in place. It is for that reason that I am
calling today for Republicans as well as Democrats to join me in asking
for the immediate resignations of those immediately below George Bush
and Dick Cheney who are most responsible for creating the catastrophe
that we are facing in Iraq.

We desperately need a national security team with at least minimal
competence because the current team is making things worse with each
passing day. They are endangering the lives of our soldiers, and sharply
increasing the danger faced by American citizens everywhere in the
world, including here at home. They are enraging hundreds of millions
of people and embittering an entire generation of anti-Americans whose
rage is already near the boiling point.

We simply cannot afford to further increase the risk to our country
with more blunders by this team. Donald Rumsfeld, as the chief architect
of the war plan, should resign today. His deputies Paul Wolfowitz,
Douglas Feith and his intelligence chief Stephen Cambone should also
resign. The nation is especially at risk every single day that Rumsfeld
remains as Secretary of Defense.

Condoleeza Rice, who has badly mishandled the coordination of national
security policy, should also resign immediately.

George Tenet should also resign. I want to offer a special word about
George Tenet, because he is a personal friend and I know him to be a
good and decent man. It is especially painful to call for his
resignation, but I have regretfully concluded that it is extremely
important that our country have new leadership at the CIA immediately.

As a nation, our greatest export has always been hope: hope that
through the rule of law people can be free to pursue their dreams, that
democracy can supplant repression and that justice, not power, will be
the guiding force in society. Our moral authority in the world derived
from the hope anchored in the rule of law. With this blatant failure of
the rule of law from the very agents of our government, we face a great
challenge in restoring our moral authority in the world and
demonstrating our commitment to bringing a better life to our global
neighbors.

During Ronald Reagan's Presidency, Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan was
accused of corruption, but eventually, after a lot of publicity, the
indictment was thrown out by the Judge. Donovan asked the question,
"Where do I go to get my reputation back?" President Bush has now placed
the United States of America in the same situation. Where do we go to
get our good name back?

The answer is, we go where we always go when a dramatic change is
needed. We go to the ballot box, and we make it clear to the rest of the
world that what's been happening in America for the last four years, and
what America has been doing in Iraq for the last two years, really is
not who we are. We, as a people, at least the overwhelming majority of
us, do not endorse the decision to dishonor the Geneva Convention and
the Bill of Rights....

Make no mistake, the damage done at Abu Ghraib is not only to
America's reputation and America's strategic interests, but also to
America's spirit. It is also crucial for our nation to recognize - and
to recognize quickly - that the damage our nation has suffered in the
world is far, far more serious than President Bush's belated and tepid
response would lead people to believe. Remember how shocked each of us,
individually, was when we first saw those hideous images. The natural
tendency was to first recoil from the images, and then to assume that
they represented a strange and rare aberration that resulted from a few
twisted minds or, as the Pentagon assured us, "a few bad apples."

But as today's shocking news reaffirms yet again, this was not rare.
It was not an aberration. Today's New York Times reports that an Army
survey of prisoner deaths and mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanisatan
"show a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than
previously known.'

Nor did these abuses spring from a few twisted minds at the lowest
ranks of our military enlisted personnel. No, it came from twisted
values and atrocious policies at the highest levels of our government.
This was done in our name, by our leaders.

These horrors were the predictable consequence of policy choices that
flowed directly from this administration's contempt for the rule of law.
And the dominance they have been seeking is truly not simply unworthy of
America - it is also an illusory goal in its own right.

Our world is unconquerable because the human spirit is unconquerable,
and any national strategy based on pursuing the goal of domination is
doomed to fail because it generates its own opposition, and in the
process, creates enemies for the would-be dominator.

A policy based on domination of the rest of the world not only creates
enemies for the United States and creates recruits for Al Qaeda, it also
undermines the international cooperation that is essential to defeating
the efforts of terrorists who wish harm and intimidate Americans.

Unilateralism, as we have painfully seen in Iraq, is its own reward.
Going it alone may satisfy a political instinct but it is dangerous to
our military, even without their Commander in Chief taunting terrorists
to "bring it on."

Our troops are stretched thin and exhausted not only because Secretary
Rumsfeld contemptuously dismissed the advice of military leaders on the
size of the needed force - but also because President Bush's contempt
for traditional allies and international opinion left us without a real
coalition to share the military and financial burden of the war and
the occupation. Our future is dependent upon increasing cooperation and
interdependence in a world tied ever more closely together by
technologies of communications and travel. The emergence of a truly
global civilization has been accompanied by the recognition of truly
global challenges that require global responses that, as often as not,
can only be led by the United States - and only if the United States
restores and maintains its moral authority to lead.

Make no mistake, it is precisely our moral authority that is our
greatest source of strength, and it is precisely our moral authority
that has been recklessly put at risk by the cheap calculations and mean
compromises of conscience wagered with history by this willful
president.

Listen to the way Israel's highest court dealt with a similar question
when, in 1999, it was asked to balance due process rights against dire
threats to the security of its people:

"This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to
it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it.
Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its
back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and
recognition of an individual's liberty constitutes an important
component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day they
(add to) its strength."

The last and best description of America's meaning in the world is
still the definitive formulation of Lincoln's annual message to Congress
on December 1, 1862:

"The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise - with
the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.
We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.
Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history...the fiery trial through
which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest
generation...We shall nobly save, or meanly lose the last best hope of
earth...The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if
followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
It is now clear that their obscene abuses of the truth and their
unforgivable abuse of the trust placed in them after 9/11 by the
American people led directly to the abuses of the prisoners in Abu
Ghraib prison and, we are now learning, in many other similar facilities
constructed as part of Bush's Gulag, in which, according to the Red
Cross, 70 to 90 percent of the victims are totally innocent of any
wrongdoing.

The same dark spirit of domination has led them to - for the first
time in American history - imprison American citizens with no charges,
no right to see a lawyer, no right to notify their family, no right to
know of what they are accused, and no right to gain access to any court
to present an appeal of any sort. The Bush Admistration has even
acquired the power to compel librarians to tell them what any American
is reading, and to compel them to keep silent about the request - or
else the librarians themselves can also be imprisoned.

They have launched an unprecedented assault on civil liberties, on the
right of the courts to review their actions, on the right of the
Congress to have information to how they are spending the public's money
and the right of the news media to have information about the policies
they are pursuing.

The same pattern characterizes virtually all of their policies. They
resent any constraint as an insult to their will to dominate and
exercise power. Their appetite for power is astonishing. It has led them
to introduce a new level of viciousness in partisan politics. It is that
viciousness that led them to attack as unpatriotic, Senator Max Cleland,
who lost three limbs in combat during the Vietnam War.

The president episodically poses as a healer and "uniter". If he
president really has any desire to play that role, then I call upon him
to condemn Rush Limbaugh - perhaps his strongest political supporter -
who said that the torture in Abu Ghraib was a "brilliant maneuver" and
that the photos were "good old American pornography," and that the
actions portrayed were simply those of "people having a good time and
needing to blow off steam."

This new political viciousness by the President and his supporters is
found not only on the campaign trail, but in the daily operations of our
democracy. They have insisted that the leaders of their party in the
Congress deny Democrats any meaningful role whatsoever in shaping
legislation, debating the choices before us as a people, or even to
attend the all-important conference committees that reconcile the
differences between actions by the Senate and House of Representatives.

The same meanness of spirit shows up in domestic policies as well.
Under the Patriot Act, Muslims, innocent of any crime, were picked up,
often physically abused, and held incommunicado indefinitely. What
happened in Abu Ghraib was difference not of kind, but of degree.

Differences of degree are important when the subject is torture. The
apologists for what has happened do have points that should be heard and
clearly understood. It is a fact that every culture and every politics
sometimes expresses itself in cruelty. It is also undeniably true that
other countries have and do torture more routinely, and far more
brutally, than ours has. George Orwell once characterized life in
Stalin's Russia as "a boot stamping on a human face forever." That was
the ultimate culture of cruelty, so ingrained, so organic, so systematic
that everyone in it lived in terror, even the terrorizers. And that was
the nature and degree of state cruelty in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

We all know these things, and we need not reassure ourselves and
should not congratulate ourselves that our society is less cruel than
some others, although it is worth noting that there are many that are
less cruel than ours. And this searing revelation at Abu Ghraib should
lead us to examine more thoroughly the routine horrors in our domestic
prison system.

But what we do now, in reaction to Abu Ghraib will determine a great
deal about who we are at the beginning of the 21st century. It is
important to note that just as the abuses of the prisoners flowed
directly from the policies of the Bush White House, those policies
flowed not only from the instincts of the president and his advisors,
but found support in shifting attitudes on the part of some in our
country in response to the outrage and fear generated by the attack of
September 11th.

The president exploited and fanned those fears, but some otherwise
sensible and levelheaded Americans fed them as well. I remember reading
genteel-sounding essays asking publicly whether or not the prohibitions
against torture were any longer relevant or desirable. The same
grotesque misunderstanding of what is really involved was responsible
for the tone in the memo from the president's legal advisor, Alberto
Gonzalez, who wrote on January 25, 2002, that 9/11 "renders obsolete
Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and
renders quaint some of its provisions."

We have seen the pictures. We have learned the news. We cannot unlearn
it; it is part of us. The important question now is, what will we do now
about torture. Stop it? Yes, of course. But that means demanding all of
the facts, not covering them up, as some now charge the administration
is now doing. One of the whistleblowers at Abu Ghraib, Sergeant Samuel
Provance, told ABC News a few days ago that he was being intimidated and
punished for telling the truth. "There is definitely a coverup,"
Provance said. "I feel like I am being punished for being honest."

The abhorrent acts in the prison were a direct consequence of the
culture of impunity encouraged, authorized and instituted by Bush and
Rumsfeld in their statements that the Geneva Conventions did not apply.
The apparent war crimes that took place were the logical, inevitable
outcome of policies and statements from the administration.

To me, as glaring as the evidence of this in the pictures themselves
was the revelation that it was established practice for prisoners to be
moved around during ICRC visits so that they would not be available for
visits. That, no one can claim, was the act of individuals. That was
policy set from above with the direct intention to violate US values it
was to be upholding. It was the kind of policy we see - and criticize in
places like China and Cuba.

Moreover, the administration has also set up the men and women of our
own armed forces for payback the next time they are held as prisoners.
And for that, this administration should pay a very high price. One of
the most tragic consequences of these official crimes is that it will be
very hard for any of us as Americans - at least for a very long time -
to effectively stand up for human rights elsewhere and criticize other
governments, when our policies have resulted in our soldiers behaving so
monstrously. This administration has shamed America and deeply damaged
the cause of freedom and human rights everywhere, thus undermining the
core message of America to the world.

President Bush offered a brief and half-hearted apology to the Arab
world - but he should apologize to the American people for abandoning
the Geneva Conventions. He also owes an apology to the U.S. Army for
cavalierly sending them into harm's way while ignoring the best advice
of their commanders. Perhaps most importantly of all, he should
apologize to all those men and women throughout our world who have held
the ideal of the United States of America as a shining goal, to inspire
their hopeful efforts to bring about justice under a rule of law in
their own lands. Of course, the problem with all these legitimate
requests is that a sincere apology requires an admission of error, a
willingness to accept responsibility and to hold people accountable. And
President Bush is not only unwilling to acknowledge error. He has thus
far been unwilling to hold anyone in his administration accountable for
the worst strategic and military miscalculations and mistakes in the
history of the United States of America.

He is willing only to apologize for the alleged erratic behavior of a
few low-ranking enlisted people, who he is scapegoating for his policy
fiasco.

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."
 

zod

Turbo Monkey
Jul 17, 2003
1,376
0
G-County, NC
Who gives a rats ass about what Gore has to say......he's irrelevant (which is basically what the White House said about his comments) ;)
I wanna know what John Kerry has to say.....so far he hasn't said much about what HE'D do differently. He's criticized the current administration but that's about it. Time to lay some things on the table for us to look at John......please!
Al Gore is good for a laugh though :D
 

sshappy

Chimp
Apr 20, 2004
97
0
Middle of Nowhere
It's interesting that in response there are two attacks on Al Gore's credentials. For those who have forgotten, he was a vice president and very nearly a president.

Now how's about refuting some of the content (remember content)?

Of course, it's easier to obfuscate when you have no rebuttal.


Let the smoke-blowing commence:
 

zod

Turbo Monkey
Jul 17, 2003
1,376
0
G-County, NC
sshappy, I'm simply saying he's not running for President. I wanna hear from John Kerry. Had Kerry written this I'd be very interested in what it says. I am trying to make a voting decision and Al Gore is not remotely part of that equation, just as Ronald Reagan isn't......
I respect Al.....he invented the Internet!
 

sshappy

Chimp
Apr 20, 2004
97
0
Middle of Nowhere
Surely it's the content of the essay that is important, not the author?

I agree that you need to know what John Kerry says if you decide whether to vote for him, but that does not detract from the content of Al Gore's essay. This thread is about Al Gore's essay, not John Kerry's manifesto or campaign. This thread is about one of the most troubling periods of modern US and World history. It should not be diverted.
 

zod

Turbo Monkey
Jul 17, 2003
1,376
0
G-County, NC
fine, well, it took me until line 7 to find the first bit of b.s.

"Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention."

In order for the Geneva Convention to be followed both sides of a conflict must recognize and adhere to the rules of war set forth in that document. Iraq doesn't follow the Geneva Convention so we as a country are also not obligated to follow it's policy in the current environment. Nevermind that we aren't even fighting a country military force anymore. Since when are militia relevant in the Geneva Convention????

Al Gore's speech is left wing liberal smack.......just like if some old republican states man had wrote some big thesis on Clinton on the re-election year.......it'd be full of right wing propaganda.
 

sshappy

Chimp
Apr 20, 2004
97
0
Middle of Nowhere
Originally posted by zod
fine, well, it took me until line 7 to find the first bit of b.s.

"Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention."

In order for the Geneva Convention to be followed both sides of a conflict must recognize and adhere to the rules of war set forth in that document. Iraq doesn't follow the Geneva Convention so we as a country are also not obligated to follow it's policy in the current environment. Nevermind that we aren't even fighting a country military force anymore. Since when are militia relevant in the Geneva Convention????
There is no reason why the US should not honour the aspects of the Geneva convention which relate to POWs. The point is that the US is claiming the moral high ground and failing to occupy it. You are not on very stable ground if you justify your misdeeds on the grounds of others misdeeds beng equally bad or worse.

Did you stop reading as soon as you found something that you felt you could attack?
 

llkoolkeg

Ranger LL
Sep 5, 2001
4,335
15
in da shed, mon, in da shed
Originally posted by zod
sshappy, I'm simply saying he's not running for President. I wanna hear from John Kerry. Had Kerry written this I'd be very interested in what it says. I am trying to make a voting decision and Al Gore is not remotely part of that equation, just as Ronald Reagan isn't......
I respect Al.....he invented the Internet!
Al's being a good party man and taking one for the team. It's not as if he actually wrote that. He is acting as the opposition mouthpiece and saying those things for the party that Kerry can't risk appearing "unpresidential" by voicing. Kerry has to appear to be above it all.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
AG went from the grand stage of 9/11 and everyone loving us, to throwing away that goodwill to prison abuse. I stopped there, but really, I'm a democrat, but it sounded like he was just grinding his axe.

I would've liked it if he didn't focus on Abu so much and kept the big picture in sight.

AG... brevity brother, brevity!
 

sshappy

Chimp
Apr 20, 2004
97
0
Middle of Nowhere
Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Al's being a good party man and taking one for the team. It's not as if he actually wrote that. He is acting as the opposition mouthpiece and saying those things for the party that Kerry can't risk appearing "unpresidential" by voicing. Kerry has to appear to be above it all.
Fair enough, but it makes no difference to the content.

Let's address the issues, not the man.
 

golgiaparatus

Out of my element
Aug 30, 2002
7,340
41
Deep in the Jungles of Oklahoma
Originally posted by sshappy
It's interesting that in response there are two attacks on Al Gore's credentials. For those who have forgotten, he was a vice president and very nearly a president.
Now how's about refuting some of the content (remember content)?
Of course, it's easier to obfuscate when you have no rebuttal.
Let the smoke-blowing commence:
Yeah Al Gore is no moron... What he says just reaffirms what I have though about GW all along. He is a product of a spoiled childhood where he didnt have to care about anything but his own self... THe President of my company is the exact same... he is the son of a very smart and successful yet hard man who had absolutely no time for him so his happiness was bought. His life was bought and the leadership of the company was basically given to him...

Now the company is in the crapper because he makes quick decisions without thinking of the consequences, he barks and snarls like an animal and demands immediate, impossible results and when the results are not what he expected he gets mad at his team for not being able to do the impossible... why does he do this? Because he has no clue what is possible and what is not... He grew up watching his powerful father sternly tell people what to do without realizing that his father put a LOT of though into his decisions. Now he tries to be his father, but he is only him in image, no rational though goes into anything he does.

Anyway, its GW to a tee and Ive been making that comparison GW was elected.
 

golgiaparatus

Out of my element
Aug 30, 2002
7,340
41
Deep in the Jungles of Oklahoma
Originally posted by zod
fine, well, it took me until line 7 to find the first bit of b.s.

"Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention."

In order for the Geneva Convention to be followed both sides of a conflict must recognize and adhere to the rules of war set forth in that document. Iraq doesn't follow the Geneva Convention so we as a country are also not obligated to follow it's policy in the current environment. Nevermind that we aren't even fighting a country military force anymore. Since when are militia relevant in the Geneva Convention????

Al Gore's speech is left wing liberal smack.......just like if some old republican states man had wrote some big thesis on Clinton on the re-election year.......it'd be full of right wing propaganda.
All that matters is that if enough "big guns" keep coming out and making their extremely anti bush opinions public. It will help Bush lose the election.

Its funny how no one realizes that we actually have half of a country (and most of the world) that would rather see a complete unknown be in office than Bush.

Thats how bad he has fuhked up. The fact that not everyone can see this astounds me.

BTW my 82 year old grandfather is the most hard core republican I have ever met. He supports anything the military ever does because he is that loyal to it. He was a serving Colonel in 2 wars... He thinks bush is a complete joke and is actually speaking out agains the way that the military is being used... this is something unheard of, and if this man is skeptical about (a) a republican president and (b) the actions of the military... then you know its bad.
 

jmvar

Monkey
Aug 16, 2002
414
0
"It was a funny angle!"
didn't read the whole essay, I am about to leave the the US Open of MTB and I am too excited to sit still.

However, skimming through the essay I see a lot of points already stated by many parties before.....and coming from a has-been democrat that just bent over and had an election snatched from him 4 years ago, in my eyes the points loose credibillity even though I agree with most of them....I really don't like Al Gore and view him as weak.

did any one see the talks by Joseph Wilson? He made a lot of these points, I saw one of his talks on world link TV, do you guys get that channel?