What if?
What if Al Gore has prevailed in the US election in 2000? Does anyone really think George W Bush would be doing anything like this?
Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.
Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.
Note that Al Gore attended the forum after the Saudis had disinvited the Danish delegation over the Muhammad cartoons. No matter that these Danes did not represent the paper in question. They were Danes, and that was bad enough. Did Al Gore then refuse to attend to protest this racist move? Did Al Gore refuse to attend to make a stand for free speech, a theme he plays up a lot in his criticisms of the Patriot Act?
Of course not. Instead he delivers the anti-American screed just quoted to his Saudi buddies.
The Captain weighs in:
I'm stunned almost to speechlessness. We held mass roundups of Arabs? When? Where? What exactly were the "unforgivable" conditions of which Gore speaks? And as far as the visas go, when exactly did Saudis have a right to enter the United States at whim without any consideration of security? Perhaps the former VP has forgotten, but most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
Though history would no doubt have proceeded differently after 9/11 had Al Gore been president, in the immediate aftermath, a vetting of all Saudi citizens in the country would have occurred regardless.
It's just common sense given that 12 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Give the US credit for not performing a wholesale "roundup" -- it would have happened in many countries in the same circumstances. One country in which indiscriminate roundups would have happened? Saudi Arabia. Of that I have no doubt.
But back to the original thought. What if Al Gore won Florida in 2ooo?
I have to wonder if George W Bush and other senior Republicans would be popping up in the heart of the Islamic world to denounce America. Somehow I doubt it.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I'm pretty sure Mr. Gore was referring to the roundup of 'Arabs' (mostly Pashtun etc) in Afghanistan who were shuttled off to Cuba, which is arguably a horrible place. The bag guys may be bad, but that's no excuse for America to risk it's moral leadership. The US has to play ten times as cleanly as the other kids, especially while under the leadership of professing Christians. While Gore's methods and motivation may be iffy, it's really important that we ask why the Evil Liberal World thinks he has a point -- and not just shrug off their agreement as mere idiocy. Conservatives owe the War on Terror their best. In a war of civilizations, victory hinges on more than force, we must win the moral conflict as well, which - frustratingly - means being beyond reproach, since reproach is a weapon our enemies _will_ use whether they're right or wrong. If we are better then we must be better.
Posted by: Steve Tsuida at February 14, 2006 01:55 PM
Has Gore forgotten that the only planes flying in the US after 9/11 occured were those planes flying the Saudis OUT of the US?
There is no one as vile as a politician--they will say and do anything to justify their existance. Gore is a monster, just like the Saudis. Remember Bill Sampson at the hands of the Saudis?
Posted by: George at February 14, 2006 01:56 PM
Gore is a contemptible whore.
Angry: 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.
For a good book on KSA and the Faustian bargain the ibn-Saud clan made with the Wahhabists, I recommend:
Dore Gold's "Hatred's Kingdom".
Posted by: Reg at February 14, 2006 02:04 PM
Steve, you say "If we are better then we must be better." Have you really considered the import of this sort of sentiment? What you are proposing is that Americans must be inhuman. Beyond human. We MUST BE BETTER than everyone else in the world. We are not permitted to be normal. I believe this is a faulty premise that you should re-examine.
Posted by: Jack Wayne at February 14, 2006 02:04 PM
Oops. Fixed the count.
Posted by: Steve Janke at February 14, 2006 02:09 PM
You don't suppose that Mr. Gore was paid for his appearance do you? It seems that the job after leaving office is the speaking tour at whatever appearance fee exists?
Posted by: Sid at February 14, 2006 02:19 PM
Iam triple-doubly glad that Al Gore is a looser. I think that if this goes on much longer, a democrat hit team will be out to shut Gore up, before he sinks any hope of a democratic white house in 2008.
Posted by: Curtis at February 14, 2006 03:04 PM
We know that Carolyn Parrish was bought.
----------------------------------------
By David Frum Posted: Monday, March 3, 2003
ARTICLES National Post (Canada)
Publication Date: March 1, 2002
Now another visible public official--Mississauga MP Carolyn Parrish--has referred to the American people as "bastards." She delivered a graceless semi-apology on Thursday. "My comments," she said, "do not reflect my personal opinion of the American people"--leading James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal to wonder: "If the statement doesn't reflect her 'personal opinion,' what's she saying? That it's a statement of fact?"
Parrish's comments are of course appalling. But that's no surprise: She has been saying appalling things for a long, long time. This past June, for example, she joined a delegation of nine MPs on a trip to the West Bank and Gaza paid for by Palestine House, an anti-Israel organization. On her return, she told the sponsors of the trip: "You got your money's worth. You have nine members of Parliament who've come back completely and totally convinced that what's going on over there is a crime against humanity."
The "crime against humanity" to which Parrish was referring was the Israeli raid on Jenin--a battle that Palestinians claimed left hundreds dead. When Stewart Bell helped prove the falsehood of those claims for this newspaper, Carolyn Parrish assailed him for accepting a press award from B'nai B'rith. The prize, she argued, tainted his objectivity. Her own junketing, she wishes us to believe, affected her judgment not at all.
In September, Parrish gave an interview to the English-language edition of the Egyptian government-controlled newspaper Al Ahram, in which she complained that North Americans worried too much about accusations of anti-Semitism.
--------------------------------------------
Perhaps the infinitely wise Carolyn Parrish can tell the Muslim community that they worry too much about political cartoons.
Posted by: mikeh at February 14, 2006 03:19 PM
"Give the US credit for not performing a wholesale "roundup""
Can we give the US double credit for calling Bin Laden's relatives, warning them to leave the country, NOT questioning them, opening up airspace JUST for them and getting them out of the country before they could be questioned? Can we give 'em credit for that? Huh? Can we, can we?
Meet the new boss...
Posted by: Dave at February 14, 2006 03:22 PM
Dave, that is actually from Moore's deceitful movie and is not correct. See http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm and scroll down to "Saudi Departures from United States Deceits 11-14"
The quote:
Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying another when he describes how members of the Saudi elite were flown out of the United States shortly after 9/11.
If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the movie—and take careful notes in the dark—you’ll find he’s got his facts right. He and others in the film state that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after Sept. 13.
The date—Sept. 13—is crucial because that is when a national ban on air traffic, for security purposes, was eased
But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore’s failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore shows the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, "Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens."
But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."
Posted by: capt joe at February 14, 2006 03:49 PM
There isn't much point in correcting people who get their information from michael moore.
Posted by: Jay at February 14, 2006 04:12 PM
Davy, Davy, Davy. Michael Moore? What, was Al Franken too busy?
Posted by: Yukon Gold at February 14, 2006 05:18 PM
Hey Dave...
Meet the new Boss.....
The one who's going to put your old Boss in Jail.
LoL
Posted by: William Wylie Ajax,Ont. at February 15, 2006 09:10 AM
What makes me think Moore`s allegations are closer to truth than not is the fact that in lawsuit happy US of A neither Bush nor Chaney has brought a suit against Moore for deflamation. This fact makes me believe these allegations are true.
Posted by: Rick at February 15, 2006 02:26 PM
Rick,
Bringing a suit against Moore reinforces the idea that Messrs. Bush & Cheney are guilty. Bringing a suit also stifles open debate, since only the richest can shop for a judge who'll support them.
The great thing about Moore is his ownership of Halliburton stocks (Cheney got rid of all of his prior to 911). Those two facts placed together make life all the rosier.
Posted by: DaveO at February 15, 2006 04:14 PM
Rick,
One other point: Moore labels his films as documentaries - in order to have topcover of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. He's been sued before, he shopped for a judge to agree to 1st Amendmend, and the Dems have forced stare decisis as THE pillar of justice in America.
Posted by: DaveO at February 15, 2006 07:01 PM
if as it has been noted here more then once, that most of the hijackers were Saudis, why are western armies in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Posted by: at February 16, 2006 03:55 PM
 
|
|
