Fisking the Gorebot: Part 3

Part 1
Part 2

Continuing with the crazy Algore MoveOn speech, we have the beginning of his "everyone should resign" rant:

In my opinion, John Kerry is dealing with this unfolding tragedy in an impressive and extremely responsible way.

Wait a couple days, then see if you still think that.

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.

Too bad Kerry wants to apologize for all the horrible tragedies we caused and then go back to treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Because that sure worked well in the past.

Kerry should not tie his own hands by offering overly specific, detailed proposals concerning a situation that is rapidly changing and unfortunately, rapidly deteriorating...

So why are you criticizing Bush for not having a plan?

...but should rather preserve his, and our country's, options, to retrieve our national honor as soon as this long national nightmare is over.

The nightmare will be over when the terrorists are dead.

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.

Neither did Bush. He proposed a five-point plan for finishing what we started.

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."

Unfortunately, when a business enterprise encounters problems, its competitors don't blow up the building they're in. And I really don't think Kerry's plan of "using the same strategy that led to 9/11" is going to make us a whole lot safer.

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.

Or, if the other option is a leader who has no idea how to handle terrorism, we can keep the current one.

That is the real solution to America's quagmire in Iraq.

Why am I not surprised that he used that word?

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.

I'd be more worried about Al Qaeda's "attack before an election" technique than Bush's supposed failures. But I guess that real threats aren't as important as political points.

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.

And now, we reach the point where Gore totally loses it...

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.

Great! Let's completely dismantle the current administration before the election, rather than waiting to do it the American way. How patriotic.

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.

I had no idea that killing terrorists transports them here.

They are enraging hundreds of millions of people and embittering an entire generation of anti-Americans whose rage is already near the boiling point.

You're talking about yourself, right?

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.

Successful war plan=Bad Secretary of Defense. O...kay.

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.

And who should take his place? I think we'd be in even more supposed danger with no secretary of defense, or with one that has little to no experience and has to take over in the middle of the war.

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

Notice how he gives no examples, but expects people to accept this as fact. Baaah. Baaaah. Why do I suddenly have the urge to buy a sweater?

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.

Oh, so being a "good and decent man" is a sign of competence? Tell that to Jimmy Carter.

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.

And yet, you're against the spread of democracy because you think the president and his administration are evil.

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.

Yeah, let's cave in to this nebulous international emotion. That'll give us a great image as a nation of weaklings. Terrorists would never attack a weak nation.

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?

We never had a good name. When you're on top, people are jealous. Unless you want to sacrifice our authority to the "international community," you have to deal with the fact that some people hate us. I will once again use the analogy of "popular kids vs. nerds." Everyone hates the nerds, but they go on to be the influential ones, while popular people often end up in prison.

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.

"But first, let's force everyone to resign so we can get a head start!"

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....

THE BILL OF RIGHTS?! Did you just pull that out of your @ss?

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.

And you're really helping by blathering on about how horrible we are. It's almost as if you want people to hate us.

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."

And everyone capable of independent thought realized that this was, indeed, the case, which is why the soldiers in question were reported by their peers and punished accordingly.

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.'

Yeah, because I'm sure terrorists are always well-behaved and don't require any additional force to restrain them.

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.

Notice the jump from "this was done by the military" to "this was clearly done by Bush." Does Dubya practice some sort of astral projection now?

These horrors were the predictable consequence of policy choices that flowed directly from this administration's contempt for the rule of law.

...Said the guy who needed the Supreme Court to convince him that the Constitution is valid.

And the dominance they have been seeking is truly not simply unworthy of America - it is also an illusory goal in its own right.

What frickin' dominance is he talking about? We got rid of the frickin' dictator, in case you missed it.

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.

All right, that's it. WE'RE NOT DOMINATING ANYONE. We went into a country that was in the grip of a raping, murdering, fascist dictator, and now we're in the process of eliminating his brainwashed minions so the real Iraqis can govern themselves. We're only "dominating" people who wanted to continue the reign of terror. This "conqueror" crap makes me want to vomit.

A policy based on domination of the rest of the world...

Great, now Bush is a megalomaniacal James Bond villain who wants to take over the world. SHUT YOUR F**KING MOUTH, YOU F**KING LOON.

...not only creates enemies for the United States and creates recruits for Al Qaeda...

Al Qaeda recruits are created when women show their f**king ankles in public.

...it also undermines the international cooperation that is essential to defeating the efforts of terrorists who wish harm and intimidate Americans.

Allow me to translate: "It's essential to combat terrorism, but we can't invade other countries or use force, because that might hurt their feelings. Therefore, we can only use diplomacy and make friends with the whole world if we want to be safe. Break out the marshmallows and firewood, because we're gonna sing 'Kumbaya!'"

Unilateralism, as we have painfully seen in Iraq...

I just realized that if we're really a global community like Gore says, any action is unilateral. Heh heh. What an idiot.

...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."

WE DIDN'T GO IN UNILATERALLY. I think that everyone should've walked out on him the second he made that fantastically flawed claim, but I know that they all believe it too. That Kool-Aid must be friggin' delicious. Maybe they stir it in giant tinfoil bowls.

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.

What exactly would a "real coalition" entail, anyway? I have a feeling that we could have the support of every single human being on the planet except the American left, and they would call it unilateral because they didn't like it.

Our future is dependent upon increasing cooperation and interdependence in a world tied ever more closely together by technologies of communications and travel.

That's why we're killing people who use communication and travel for evil. You know, like flying civilian airliners into buildings.

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.

F**K!!!! F**KITY F**K F**K F**K!!!!!! Now he thinks that we should lead?!!! Even after he just said that we can only act when the rest of the world gives us their approval? F*************************K!!!!!

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.

Oh no! They're "mean!" Someone get little Albert his apple juice so he'll shut up.

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."

What does that prove, except that we have the final decision in matters of fighting terror? We haven't resorted to purposely slaughtering non-combatants like our enemy, so I don't see the problem here.

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."

Well, you know what? For us, that "fiery trial" was 9/11. We're preventing it from happening again by wiping Al Qaeda off the face of the Earth. Some Americans will die in the process, but if they don't, millions more will.

Oh, and one more thing: LINCOLN. FOUGHT. A. WAR. TO. PRESERVE. THE COUNTRY.

Way to refute your own points.

Posted by CD on May 27, 2004 09:15 PM
Category: