February 13, 2006

On The Loose!

Someone has apparently let Al Gore out of whatever cage his handlers keep him in. On Sunday he turned up In Saudi Arabia giving a speech to mainly Arabs at the Jeddah Economic Forum. He spent much of the speech bashing the policies of his own country. So much for the adage that “politics stops at the water’s edge”. My question is: Do we consider Al Gore a domestic enemy or a foreign enemy to the United States? I think a good case could be made that he should be considered a foreign enemy to the US because his rationale and beliefs are so alien to what a reasonable American would think that I find it hard to believe that he hails from our country. During the speech he invented some facts that don’t exactly calm the tensions between Muslims and the West. He contended that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after Sept. 11. To detail this contention he said that Arabs have been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. First of all, the “rounded up” part is pure fantasy and I defy Al Gore to provide evidence to the contrary. The “unforgivable conditions” part sounds like something he stole from Dick Durban’s complaint about the treatment of terror suspects at the Gitmo camps. When Dick Durban outrageously compared American prisons at Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps, Soviet Gulags, and Polpot’s Prisons in Cambodia at least he was referring to reality, you know, as in something that actually occurred. On Sunday Al Gore simply dreamed up some complaints to level against his own country while oversees and his timing couldn’t be worse (or better depending on your perspective). With all of the anger over the “Cartoon Controversy” you’d think he might not seek to further inflame tensions between Arabs and the West. It’s the same old story with Al Gore. In his zeal to be anti-Bush he forgets himself, his country, and any decency and respect that he may have had. Al Gore is so embittered and delusional he’ll still be Bush-bashing long after the man is no longer even President.

Gore went on to compound his idiocy by complaining that the Bush administration has been “routinely blocking Saudi visa applications”. Who knows if this is even true but I hope we are applying considerably more scrutiny to visa applications from citizens of a country from which 15 of the 19 September 11th terrorists came from. Personally, it would be fine with me if all visa applications were denied from the entire Middle East! I’m certainly not concerned with the “routine blocking” of visa applications from Saudi Arabia, if that is even occurring. If Gore is using the same standard of veracity as his other complaints then he’s dreaming up this one as well.

Gore is truly a piece of work. This man was almost our President. I think I’d prefer a John Kerry or even a Howard Dean to be Commander in Chief than the delusional Al Gore, and that’s quite a statement.


Anonymous said...

"Personally, it would be fine with me if all visa applications were denied from the entire Middle East!"

Its hard to take any of the valid points you raise seriously when you so blatantly support discrimination, dare I say racism, like this. I think that maybe you, and not Al Gore, might be the one whose "rationale and beliefs are so alien to what a reasonable American would think that I find it hard to believe that he hails from our country". Either that or you don't really believe what you wrote and are just trying to ruffle some feathers.

Chris said...

It's evident that you don't like Gore. And that's your opinion to have. But to allude to the fact that he's a foreign enemy of America is shameful. Just because someone does not support George Bush it does not make them anti-American, or unpatriotic, or anything closely related to being an enemy of the state.

The Bush government has more ties to the Saudi royal family than anything close to Gore. Bush and Cheney constantly host the royal family at the White House and negotiate oil deals that both Bush and Cheney profit from, not to mention the terrorism that profits from the Saudi oil business.

There are much greater links between bin Laden and Saudi Arabia than anything Iraq had, and yet Bush calls the royal family his friends.

Have the opinions that you will. But please at least have some common bonds that aid this country away from the politics of personal destruction.

Jaz said...

Here we go with the race card again.

Ok, anonymous, let’s begin:
Discrimination is defined as: The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

Yes, I believe we should have the ability to discern who may or may not enter our country at any time under any circumstances. For student Visas, we are allowed to make the “fine distinction” between those who come from peaceful countries and those who hail from a country or region of the world where in the past many people have tried to kill us.

To be fair, you were probably referring to the definition of discrimination that reads, Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.

In an ideal world we could award student visas strictly based on merit. As a conservative, I am always inclined to prefer a system based on merit rather than say, affirmative action and racial quotas for example. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Far from it. If after 9-11 we were to be more “partial” towards students applying for Visas from countries which we have traditionally have had a good relationship with we are well within our legal and moral right to do so. What is this idea that we are obligated to educate the population of the world or obligated to let any foreign national into our country whenever they feel like it? Why do you feel that, in the interests of political correctness, we have to forfeit our right to determine who enters our country and when?
Newsflash! Life isn’t fair. If you hail from a country that can’t police its own population enough to the point where anti-American killers are brought to justice than you and your county officially lose the privilege to come and go as you please to and from America.

I love this double standard that only America has to labor under. If America determines who can enter our country then we get to be called “racists”, but if another country determines who gets to vote for example, such as Saudi Arabia not allowing women the right to vote, they are just referred to as culturally different. Oh isn’t that quaint, they behead people for crimes such as infidelity.

What if my sister wanted to attend the University of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia? Your politically correct moral relativism dictates that you would honor the decision of the sovereign people of Saudi Arabia not to educate a woman, while at the same time you would condemn America for exercising some discretion by barring possible terrorists from entry to our country on what ultimately is a security matter not a racial one.

Which brings me to you charge of racism. I’ve been hit with this straw man argument before. If you can characterize me as a racist than, just like you said, you get to discard or ignore any other valid points I may have.

Racism is defined as: The belief that a particular race is superior to others or A policy based on race.

First of all, if you use the second definition you do realize that racial quotas and preferences (such that occur within the framework of affirmative action) are racist policies. Affirmative action actually perpetuates the very idea that it seeks to abolish. Bill Gates, for example, has a scholarship that can only be awarded to African Americans. Of course, as a private citizen, he has the right to award his money in any manner he desires, but you do realize that this scholarship is a racist scholarship. There’s no way around that. Surely you don’t believe, like many people do, that racism can only be perpetrated by the majority. Racism simply is, like the definition says, “Policy based on race”.

I call this charge of racism a straw man argument because its easy to beat as a logical argument if I were to believe that certain populations of the world should be barred form entry into our country because I believe that they are intrinsically inferior to us. I don’t know how many ways I can say this but the color of a persons skin does not remotely enter my calculus when determining who may be granted a student visa. Your charge of racism is so off the mark, it is a straw man argument, and I find it offensive.

Again, why is it that we are obligated to educate the world’s population without being allowed to, under the dictates of political correctness, give any consideration to very valid and pressing security concerns? It’s such a cop out argument to incorrectly cite racism as the reason that we might be hesitant to allow possible terrorists into our midst. After 9-11, the party is over, all bets are off. We simply can no longer abide, in the interest of not appearing discriminatory, the unchecked and unabated movement from and to nations that have demonstrated a threat to us. It’s for these reasons I stand behind my original statement. To me it is a matter of security above all else, not a matter of race. I would prefer to judge a person based on their actions rather than the color of their skin, thank you very much. In the best interests of security sometimes we do have to “paint with a broad brush”, but it is the terrorists that should be blamed for this behavior not our racist inclinations as you suggest.

Jaz said...

And to MJ:

I am being flippant and provocative when I refer to Gore as an enemy of the state. I don’t honestly believe that he is an enemy of the state; I was merely attempting to be mildly amusing. (But if you’re a fan of Gore I can understand that such comment does not “amuse” you.)

You’re point about Bush and the Saudi’s are all accurate I suppose. But in that case I would ask Mr. Gore, “Which is it Mr. Gore? Has the Bush Administration been disrespectful towards Saudi nationals as you say or has Bush been too friendly to Saudi’s as alleged by the Michael Moore oil conspiracy crowd?”

I ask you this MJ: How can you abide Gore’s commentary that we are not friendly enough the people of Saudi Arabia while at the same time claiming that Bush and the Saudi’s are too cozy with each other? Either Gore is right or Michael Moore is right, pick your poison.

And finally, it is not Gore’s personality I have a problem with; it is his inappropriate behavior and the content of his remarks. The personal attack is a favorite tactic of the left, while conservatives generally try to be more substantive in their complaints. While you may consider my attempts at humor to be a personal attack, you seem to want to overlook the fact that my main argument lies in a substantive complaint regarding the content of Gore’s remarks and his inappropriate behavior.

fhold said...

I happen to agree with you for once, jaz (don't let it go to your head) in that I don't think it to be a classy move, nor a productive one, for Gore to talk sit about our government overseas. I firmly believe in being cynical about our own country, however, whichever party is in power. I think it is traditionally American to question decisions and policies if only as part of the larger, unwritten system of checks and balances.

As for the anonymous post (don't be a wuss and post anonymously), you have to consider the safety of this country's citizens. Though it isn't usually good nor productive to generalize or profile, there are situations which call for it. I used to get frustrated when I would get hassled by police when I was a teen, seemingly just because of the way I looked. Eventually, I understood the need for the police to assess a situation and, if in their opinion there was a chance of foul play, take action. The grey area is, of course, the ability of police to assess fairly and responsibly, but that confidence is needed for crime fighting to work. If I saw a sweating man with a trenchcoat in the middle of July walk into a bar with crazy eyes, don't you think I will be wary of him, even if he is not up to no good?

MJ, I think your last paragraph is succinct.

I still think Gore would have made a better president than Bush.

Chris said...

Jaz, maybe your attempts at humor did fly way over my head, and even after re-reading your main post, I still can't find the humor in it. It's so typical of the right to question someone's patriotism if they don't think George Bush walks on water.

But you are wrong to assume that I'm a fan of Gore. Because I'm not one bit. I think it was retarded of Gore to go to Saudi Arabia and do anything. I also think it's in just of bad of taste for Bush to host the royal family at the White House and for Bush and Cheney to do business dealings with a government that sponsors terrorism. Gore is now a private citizen, he can do what he wants. And if he wants to give speeches at business forums in Saudi Arabia, then so be it. His words or actions in no way represent the United States. Bush, on the other hand, the opposite applies to him. If it's wrong for Gore to do such, like you say, then it's even worse for Bush to do it as well.

Neither do I follow Michael Moore like you mention. This spectrum of either being with George Bush or Michael Moore is probably the laziest form of politics that I can ever recall taking place.

Al Gore is not anti-American and neither is George Bush. To disagree with one's politics is one thing; to levy personal attacks for someone's dissent is totally different. I'll never understand lazy politics.

But I do thank you for visiting my site and adding to the discussion there.

And fhold, thank you as well.

Anonymous said...

Where's Kent when you need him?

Jaz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jaz said...


I'm enjoying this debate and I am learning things but it’s too bad you feel I should not be allowed to rag on Al Gore. You probably find no humor in ragging on John Kerry or Howard Dean either despite the fact there is much humor to be found in the things they say and the way they act. I’m not levying personal attacks (if that’s even what I’m doing) against Gore because of his “dissent” I’m ragging on him because he engages in foolish behavior such as bashing his own country oversees and giving Arabs additional fodder to attack America over at a time when it is ill-advised, to say the least, to do so.

I’m sorry, but Gore’s behavior does not fall under the heading of “responsible dissent” and therefore he is not immune to rhetorical counter attack and general ribbing.

However, I am glad you’re not fan of the personal attack. You should instruct your fellow Bush bashers that it makes for more effective commentary to take issue with Bush’s policies rather than his personality. Hilary Clinton referring to the President as Alfred E. Numan is hardly a substantive or constructive criticism. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of the insults that Bush has had to endure, some of which you may have found amusing.

Kent said...

I don't have a problem with anyone not supporting President Bush.

What I have a problem with are people who lack the ability to look at a particular situation, in this case national security, and be able to clearly see what needs to be done to prevent another 9/11.

I also have a big problem with Americans making disparaging remarks about the President on foreign soil. It doesn't matter who it is, what they say, or where they speak. The indisputable truth is that it is un-American to rip your President, your Government, or your Nation's policies when you are not in America. Period. End of story.

When Al Gore makes these types of comments he certainly is not talking to friends of America. He isn't speaking to American citizens. He is speaking directly to the enemies of the United States. He is talking to Muslims, some radical, some not, and he is making scurrilous and easily disproven claims about the policies of President Bush, a man whom he despises.

AND he does so during a time of war, when Americans are dying for their country, spreading freedom and liberty across the Middle East.

AND he does so during a time of unprecedented Muslim unrest around the globe.

It seems to me that Gore's time and energy might be better spent by atoning for his 'Reinventing Government' work back in 1996 while still Vice President, which loosened FAA safety restrictions and made it easier for those 19 terrorists to hijack the planes that killed 3,000 people on 9/11.

Chris said...

I never said not to rag on Gore, in fact I said it's your opinion to have. I think you should be able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, where ever you want. Including overseas while bashing the American government. To me it's un-American when people try to define what freedoms constitute an individuals activism and worth as an American. Wanting to limit speech that is in disagreement with the president's is maybe as un-American as one can get.

Of course those are my opinions as well. But as long as Bush is allowed to host the Saudi royal family at the White House and other private gatherings, then any speech Gore gives is irrelevant.

Good to see Kent around. Now I know how you found me :)