Cynical Nation

He's right. I wish I had voted for him. He forgot one thing... We would not have had 9/11.

We would not have had 9/11

The Arab calendar is a lunar calendar. The 12 months are:
Muharram (30 days)
Safar (29 days)
Rabi'a al-Awal (30 days)
Rabi'a ath-Thani (29 days)
Jumada al-Ula (30 days)
Jamada Ath-Thaniya (29 days)
Rajab (30 days)
Sha'aban (29 days)
Ramadan (30 days)
Shawwal (29 days)
Dhul Qa'dah (30 days)
Dhul Hijjah (29 days: 30 days in a leap year)

(I'm calling February "Dhul Hijjah" from now on! I bet it'll drive the chicks CRAZY, they love exotic accents.)

Barry,
I am sorry to say, but you are completely blinded. What Gore said is true. Do you still support Bush after all that? After all the damage he has caused to the country by running a completely incompetent administration? After all this cronyism and corruption? How can you?

By the way Gore did not say "routinely torturing people". Go and look at the transcript of his talk. This reference comes for a subsequent republican distortion, attempting to make Gore sound like an extremist. Is part of the regular distortion of the truth that we get frequently from the leaders of the republican party of today and the white house these days.

Blue, the AP reports the "routinely torturing people" as a direct quote. It wasn't in the transcript of his speech, because it was part of a question-and-answer session afterwards. If you can provide any evidence that he didn't say it, or that it's a "Republican distortion," please provide it and I will print a retraction.

i agree that AP reports it like this, but there may be a misquote. What I heard on the radio this morning was that the comment for the "routine" torture was extracted from the Republican response from Tracey Schmitt, see below (also from AP), and that was not the words that Gore used.

Tracey Schmitt, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called Gore's comments "fictitious rants that border on dangerous." "To accuse Americans of participating in 'routine torture' is absurd and reveals that while Al Gore may no longer be a leader in his party, he still embodies the maniacal anger that guides Democrat leaders in Washington today," Schmitt wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

In any case, I can not prove it at this point as it was only from the radio.

By the way Barry, you did not answer my question. Do you still support Bush after all that?

What does that mean, Blue? I support him on some issues and oppose him on others, which you should already know, given how long you've been reading this blog. Many of us political junkies are not all-or-nothing absolutists. I don't feel the need to support Bush at every turn simply because I am a Republican. It seems, by contrast, that many of his critics *do* feel compelled to oppose him at every turn. If Bush issued a statement condemning the drowning of puppies, some of you guys would find some excuse to bitch about it.

As a shark fisherman, I strongly object to your snarky condemnation of the practice of puppy drowning.

It's perfectly natural for puppies to drown when immersed in water. Quit trying to subvert nature!

Barry,
In what issues do you STILL support Bush? My point is that he has been disastrous in pretty much everything, including things that he might had good intentions (i.e. Iraq war). Do you agree that OVERALL he has caused damage to the country?

> My point is that he has been disastrous in pretty much everything...

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of absolutism I'm talking about.

And in terms of what I "support" Bush on? It's pretty much "taxes and terror," as it has been since the inception of this dumb blog. I guess I'd also add judicial appointments, at least up until Miers.

But I think much of what you refer to as "supporting" Bush is merely defending him against the hyperbolic and hysterical excess of the attacks by his enemies.

And in terms of whether he'll leave the country better off, on balance, than before? I honestly don't know. I think he (with some help from the Republican Congress) has done grave damage to the cause of conservatism. As a conservative myself, I can't see that as a good thing.

Ok, I can understand your support for his tax cuts being a conservative (although so far that has only created a HUGE deficiit without stimulating the economy).

However, tell me what he has accomplished in the war against terror. Going into Afganistan was the absolutely right thing to do and it was a success. However, ANY president, democrat or republican, would had done that.

Beyond that though, he has been a complete failure in the war of terror. For these reasons:
1. It seems more and more that going into Iraq was a huge error (despite his idealistic intentions).

2. He damaged our relationships with several other western allies, which made us weaker in the overall war against terror.

3. He damaged the intelligence agencies by placing his cronies or by ignoring competent people because they were not "loyal" to him.

So explain to me why is Bush good in the war against terror?

God, this is getting tiresome! It will perhaps come as no surprise that I disagree with all three of your assertions above. It's not that I don't find fault with how Bush has executed the WoT -- I frequently have -- but I don't accept your conclusions. The man is far, far from perfect, but in 2004 I made a deliberate decision to stick with him, because I thought his opponent projected weakness, and was unable even to articulate a coherent message on the war. If McCain had been running against Bush, I'd have tossed Bush out like yesterday's garbage. But if I had to make the choice I made in November again today, I'd do exactly the same thing I did then.

We agree on Mc Cain. I could easily vote for McCain, and in fact in the past I did once, in a primary. What you are missing here is that the republican establishment hates McCain and in fact they perceive him as a "Democrat" and an "enemy" !!!
McCain is in the rational part of the country. Bush is in the irrational one.

Don't feel bad, Barry, I voted for him as well in 1988.

Al Gore has become the Helen Thomas of politicians these days which is sad.

Thanks, Mal. I was living in South Carolina at the time, and everyone always voted in the Democratic primaries, simply because the Republican primaries were always a moot point. :-)

Al Gore is a great person and what he says is ALL true. If he were president the coyntry would not be in the disastrous situation that we are now. Is really sad to think where we were in 2000 and where we are now.

"Al Gore is a great person and what he says is ALL true"

You mean like : "He BETRAYED this country! He played on our fears!" ?

Sorry, BW, only an embittered partisan would accuse the president of this, especially given the poor intel which most of our allies agreed upon was accurate and the piss-poor job we now know that the CIA did in all of this.

Was Bush wrong on WMD?

Yep.

As was the CIA, Britain, France and Germany if I recall.

The man lost what shred of decency he had when he conceded and then reneged on election night 2000.

Hell, even the Clintons want nothing to do with him.

BTW, a presidential candidate loses his desire to run again when they lower him into the ground (see McCain, John; Kerry, John and divers others).

Actually,
I insist. Gore is right. He simply now has the guts to say the truth and say things the rest of the Democrats are afraid to say.
There is no question that Bush and rest "...played on our fears!". The intelligence was wrong and they knew it BEFORE they took the country to war. They had at least Joe Wilson's report in their hands at that time.

....."As was the CIA, Britain, France and Germany if I recall".

You have short memories. France and Germany desperately tried to STOP the war in the security council before it started. In fact the security council listened to them. Bush (and Blair) started the war in violation of the UN security council resolution. Thats the reason that war was ILLEGAL, at least by the UN law.

Bush et al took the country to this war because they thought the could transform the middle east. To do that they had to deliberately lie and to ignore the United Nations. If they had easily won and real democracy was emerging, people would be willing to forget. But thats certainly not the case. I personally think we should pull out of there immediately.

What "UN security council resolution" are you talking about? My recollection is that that the US and UK went to war despite failing to obtain a definitive UNSC resolution, not in violation of one.

fact check time!

They went to war without a UN resolution and with the vast majority of the members of UN security council opposing it. It was a 100% illegal action that demonstrated full disregard for the UN.

"Illegal" and "without UNSC approval" are not synonymous, Blue.

And BTW, I have complete contempt for the U.N. myself, so you're not likely to sway my opinion with this argument. ;-)

You may have complete contempt for anyone and anything you want. Thats your right. However, international law is based on the decisions of the UN (which we are supposed to be leading instead of trying to discredit them). So, this was violation of the international law by any definition.

Considering the fact that the UN is constantly trying to pass resolutions to make Israel stop being a country, despite the fact that the UN MADE it one, and that all the land in Israel was legally owned by the Jews prior to the country's inception, I really doubt that we should be listening to anything they had to say. France is a pitiful shell of its former self, and Germany has no right to dictate to anyone ANYTHING about human rights. Just because they're Europe does not make them right. It seems to me that to many people think just that only because Europe SAYS they are better than us, it makes it true.

Guy,
You have no idea what you are talking about. The UN is not anti-Israel and never was. Thats a ridiculous statement. Of course and Israel legally owns the land and the UN has been very supportive of Israel, as it should.

What you dont understand is that the United States is supposed to be leading the UN and not trying to undermine it. The actions of the Bush administration violated international law and the function of the UN. That was a terrible mistake of this administration, resulting for their wish to invade Iraq.

Actually, I know exactly what I'm talking about. The UN has repeatedly threatened to pass resolutions demanding that Israel give its land to the Palestinians. Anti-Semitic acts in France doubled in 2004. 1500 plus in 03, 3100 plus in 04. Anti-Semitism in Germany has reached pre-WW2 levels. Any organization that listens to these countries over us does not deserve the privilege of our support. Yet we still give it. Who's the actual villain?

BW, you really shouldn't make the mistake of confusing the will of the UNSC with international law. If you did, you'd have to hold Bill Clinton a war criminal for his bombing of Kosovo.

Well, the difference there is that the whole NATO was involved and supportive. Here we were isolated going in, ignoring both the security council and, essentially, the whole world (with the exception of a couple of european goverments). Do you still believe it was the right move to invade Iraq?

Yes. Do you still believe the U.N. is the sole arbiter of international legality? Was Clinton's bombing of Kosovo legal or not?

Well you have a good point. I dont think Clinton's bombing of Kosovo was legal and I think he made a mistake getting involved there. However, he had a real broad coalition involving the whole NATO and what he did at the end worked with no US casualties. So, I naturally find what did he did far more acceptable than the Iraq disaster. I think the UN should be the sole arbiter of law and the US should be leading the UN.

So, because we had others say yes, that makes it right? Explain the thinking and the logic behind that reasoning. Just because we were only going into Iraq with the UK doesn't mean it was wrong simply because Europe has too short term a memory to repay the blood debts they certainly owe us.

No, you are very wrong. Europeans have a much longer history than we do and they are the only reliable allies that we have. The reason they were against the Iraq was is more than obvious. Look at the outcome so far.

This war was wrong. It made us less safe and distracted us from the real war on terror.

Yes, Europe does have a much longer history, if you wanna play this game. A much longer history of religious intolerance, of racism, anti-Semitism, hateful colonialism, in-fighting, and hatred of neighboring countries. Boy, that sure is something to be proud of and want to follow. This wasn't a distraction from the war on terror. Syria is out of Lebanon. Women can vote in all democratic Arab countries. With Arafat dead, Israel and the Palestinians have been able to sit down peacefully and talk like adults, setting a border for a Palestinian nation. Man, am I pissed we didn't listen to Europe. The only "reliable" allies we have are ourselves, because we are the only nation like us in the world, and England, because they grew up, and faced the music when their nation was on the decline. France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Italy, and the rest, despite their rich histories (the good parts), still think Europe is the center of the western world, and that we should bend over every time they think it. No deal.