Al's speech - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

0 posted 2006-02-17 05:39 PM

quote:
To my knowledge, Detroit was not emptied of Muslims. Being the largest concentration of Arabs and Muslims in the US, that would've been quite an undertaking. For whatever reason, mass media ignored Gore's inflammatory comments during a time of even higher tension than normal, and instead focused their energies on Cheney's hunting accident.

Did Gore say Arab Americans or Arabs?

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

1 posted 2006-02-17 05:59 PM

quote:
Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. -- Al Gore at Jeddah

Context was Gore describing the ethno-religio-political environment in the US immediately after 9/11. What that had to do with an Economic Council is beyond me, and despite Noah's assertions that Bush was not named by name, the word Administration was used...and I think we all know what and who that word references. I wouldn't mind seeing the full transcript of his second day address at the conference. Funny thing to me was why he was representing the US at this conference. All the other participants were heads of state, former heads of state, and former presidents, along with Mrs. Blair (PM Blair's wife). Albert Gore was the only former vice president. Though I know who paid for his trip, and it's of very little consequence, I do wonder how much he was paid for his unofficial capacity in representing the United States, seeing how I don't think he's currently on the State Department's payroll.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

2 posted 2006-02-17 06:13 PM

anonymous liberal

quote:
. Here's an excerpt from an NBC News article from May 2002 entitled "Caught in the Dragnet":

Across the nation, the Sept. 11 sparked
detentions of scores of Arab and Muslim
immigrants on technical violations of visa
regulations. These immigrants, many of
whom do not speak English and have little
family in the country, are left in jail for
months on end, some without legal
representation or even the knowledge that
they can demand it. . . .

Exact numbers of detainees since Sept. 11
are nearly impossible to come by. Figures
released by the INS show that 537
individuals were detained between Sept. 11
and Nov. 27. Of those, only 5 percent were
from countries outside of the Middle East,
South Asia and North Africa.

But legal aid organizations estimate that
thousands have been detained since Sept. 11.

I'm pretty sure I've already posted reporting on the policy (looking in phone books for Muslim sounding names etc.). Really, do people doubt that this happened?

quote:
Gore was simply addressing a widely-held greivance. Stories of such treatment have been chronicled in the Arab media for years. Not surprisingly, those who were mistreated and/or deported told their stories to friends, to family, and to various Arab and Muslim media outlets. Nothing Al Gore said was news to anyone in the Muslim world.

Given Al Jazeera reporting etc., doesn't it make sense to acknowledge that some abuse has occured? I would go further and argue that the details of this 'roundup' aren't as important as arguing that the American people are against torture, against being held without trial and so forth.

quote:
Far from fanning the flames of anti-Americanism, Gore was actually doing damage control. He was trying to de-fuse a source of strong anti-American sentiment by making it clear to his audience that the actions at issue were not condoned by most Americans.

Just curious, but how would anybody here go about defusing anti-American sentiment?

*I agree with the quoted sections (but not everything else), and it might open up some good discussion to look at the rest.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

3 posted 2006-02-17 06:20 PM

quote:
Funny thing to me was why he was representing the US at this conference. All the other participants were heads of state, former heads of state, and former presidents, along with Mrs. Blair (PM Blair's wife). Albert Gore was the only former vice president. Though I know who paid for his trip, and it's of very little consequence, I do wonder how much he was paid for his unofficial capacity in representing the United States, seeing how I don't think he's currently on the State Department's payroll.

At the anon Lib blog, one guy states it was funded by the bin Laden family. True or not, what interests me here is that, inadvertantly or not, we may be seeing old school politics (not Right/Left American stuff but multiple level diplomatic stuff).

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

4 posted 2006-02-17 06:32 PM

Naturally, I would've preferred someone from the State Department, since that's one of their primary roles, and not an American paid by the Bin Laden family to attend. And I do think Al-Jazeera will use select portions of Al's speech for propoganda purposes. Yes, there were some innocents caught in the post 9/11 dragnet, along with a whole slew of people with visa violations (illegal immigrants), but I don't think it was as epidemic as Gore was painting. Some 500 people out of 300 million, and I can't help but think 'ACLU' when I hear 'thousands detained' and 'legal organizations' in the same sentence.

If you don't think terrorist friendly media will use Gore's remarks of something which occurred over 4 years ago, well, the clerics were very quick to rile up their followers yet again by using the rereleased Abu photos from 3 years ago after an Australian media outlet reaired them. Same with the Danish caricatures published 5 months ago but only recenctly protested and used for instigation.

Probably took 5 months for all the Danish flag order to be filled and the organizational distribution finalized so the spontaneous protests could be successful.

Newsmax link Article on who sponsored.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

5 posted 2006-02-17 07:14 PM

Yet, isn't there a difference?

I don't buy the conspiracy theory, but look at how the two patterns of diplomacy work.

We have two versions of the carrot and the stick, but they're reversed.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

6 posted 2006-02-21 04:45 PM

All which Gore was speaking of wasn't only chronicled in the Arab media for years, it has been in our press as well.

************

1) Knight Ridder: June 15, 2003

"Even some government officials are worried. In a secret meeting of top Justice Department officials hours after the attacks, then-immigration chief James Ziglar rebuked those in the room for proposing a “roundup” of Arabs and Muslims. “I’m not going to be part of this if we’re going to do things that blatantly violate the law,” Ziglar declared, according to people there."

*

2) The Chicago Tribune: November 16, 2003

83,310: Number of foreign visitors from 24 predominantly Muslim nations who registered with the government after U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft required them to do so. (North Koreans also required to register.)

13,740: Number of those 83,310 who were ordered into deportation proceedings.

0: Number who were publicly charged with terrorism, although officials say a few have terrorism connections.

*

3) Associated Press: January 17, 2002

"The United States was cited for detaining more than 1,100 people, mostly Arab or Muslim men, as part of an effort to round up potential terrorists. “Only a small number of those in custody were believed to have links to terrorism,” the [Human Rights Watch] report said."

*

4) CBS: January 8, 2002

"More than 1,000 people have already been rounded up for questioning and Attorney General John Ashcroft has made no apology for the aggressive tactics. … But none of the people detained since the attack have been indicted for terrorism."

*

I just wanted to share that here, and it is also why I agree with the latest United Nations report in either charging all the detainees at Guantanamo of crimes connected to terrorism, or if they can't be connected to have them moved elsewhere, as well as having a full investigation of the prison and seeking interviews with both those operating the prison and detainees.

Clarity of exactly what's happening will only help us all, for Guantanamo is already an infamous facility as it is with many pictures and accounts of torture there, and if we don't seek resolve to these kinds of issues, it'll only encourage prolonging discomfort and rage among Arabs and Muslims and places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib will be seen worldwide as so much that America truly isn't.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

7 posted 2006-02-21 06:39 PM

quote:
places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib will be seen worldwide as so much that America truly isn't.

You can remove the ‘will’ part and replace it with ‘is’ - the damage has already been done.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

8 posted 2006-02-21 07:12 PM

You could be right.

The general point in sharing those sources was to show how Gore was simply just reiterating the reality. What he said was no new news whatsoever. We have to accept that there have been some wrongs conducted by some government officials like Ashcroft after 9/11, and now we just have to move forward and see to it our government is more responsible in cracking down on that razor-thin number of Arabs and Muslims who truly are bent on threatening our nation, seeing to it that we "let the eagle soar" like she's never soared before (couldn't resist, LOL!)

Those who were upset about Gore's speech and accused him of treason and encouraging inflammatory behavior among Arabs ought to be far more outraged of some far more important things happening, including the new United Arab Emirates deal to allow a state-owned business there to own six of our major ports without an investigation conducted into the national security implications to the deal, required under law. Especially crucial when the United Arab Emirates recognizes the governance of the Taliban, is where the banking system that funded the 9/11 hijackers is based, and hasn't cooperated in tracking down bin Laden's bank accounts among other things.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

9 posted 2006-03-21 07:27 PM

Gore'sheroism

quote:
One man who did care enough to "be about" leading people to safety was former Vice President Al Gore. Together with Greg Simon, head of the nonprofit FasterCures, Gore defied government bureaucracy, military regulations, and perhaps political interference to charter and accompany two airplane flights into New Orleans to rescue patients and bring them to safety at Tennessee hospitals. While other politicians appeared to be debating whether or not to leave their Labor Day vacations early or to be dithering with their consultants over the political ramifications of various actions and statements, Gore did what many of us watching television from our homes only wished we could do: He flew into New Orleans and rescued people.

If this was only a political move, we should all be more political.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

10 posted 2006-03-21 07:33 PM

Goreandthemedia

quote:
Disintermediation is a big word for a type of subtraction, the sort that excludes the middleman (the ¡°mediator¡±). As a dot-com term, it described producers selling directly to customers rather than working through established retail channels. In Gore¡¯s case, it describes a public figure distributing his words directly to the public rather than working through established media outlets.

The reason Gore sought this out, as former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, Gore¡¯s friend since 1961, told me, is that ¡°Gore wants to make change, not be part of the distortive, stifling process of the mainstream media.¡± Speaking into the cameras, the former VP had learned, was like talking into one of those gag gift bullhorns -- what came out had little relation to what went in. ¡°Gore¡¯s own view,¡± says Hundt, ¡°is that he sighed noisily in the debate and used the wrong telephone line to ask for money and the media said these are momentous events. Meanwhile, they ignore global warming and the failure to catch Osama and the destruction of the safety net.¡±

So Gore sought a way to bypass the filter. Every time he gives a speech under MoveOn¡¯s [gun], a guaranteed 3 million MoveOn members get the address blasted directly in their inboxes, where it can be read in full. From there, the speech gets e-mailed around, promoted on the blogs, passed from friend to neighbor -- what tech types call ¡°viral marketing.¡± At no point in this process does a news editor or television producer decide which sound bites will be emphasized for ratings. MoveOn allows him to speak on his own terms and individuals to distribute his speeches on theirs. It¡¯s Gore Unplugged, and everyone¡¯s got a ticket.

What's going on here?

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

11 posted 2006-03-21 10:17 PM

You mean the odd characters in the copy n paste quote? If so, that's something I've seen before when the source material uses different keymapping or special characters. One quote I used prior inserted a question mark for all verticle apostrophies, which had me going back in to edit all the verticles with the apostrophe on my keyboard.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

12 posted 2006-03-22 07:43 PM

Hmm, I don't have a strange characters in these quotes. I do often enough though and usually just chalk it up to the fact that my system's language is Korean.

No, what I wanted to do here is basically ask or imply two or three questions (and give Gore a plug for doing a good thing).

1. From what you've heard of Gore recently, do you have a different opinon of him?

2. Do you think his 'around the media' strategy is working?

3. Is he a viable candidate in '08?

My answer is yes to number one. I've always been lukewarm to the guy, but I do think he's a little more forceful to the guy.

No to number two, but I could be wrong.

And to three? Well, honestly, I think he'd be a better president than Hilary or anybody the republicans could put up. I just don't think this strategy will work.

The irony, of course, is that he's trying to steer around the 'liberal' media that should, all caricatures being equal, should fawn over him like, like republicans at a burning effigy of Ted Kennedy.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

13 posted 2006-03-22 07:56 PM

1: Though I'd wish Gore would drop the 2000 election hatchet (I do absolutely believe he truly won it and not Bush, but the damage has already been done and such and we must look ahead to stopping history from repeating itself) , I've generally approved of Gore to begin with and my opinion is very much the same.

2: No.

3: Highly unlikely.

************************

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

14 posted 2006-03-22 08:53 PM

Well, yes, I have a different opinion of him...I think he is much worse than I thought. He has always taken orders from the DNC...they say be an alpha male, he becomes one. They say back off, he does. He's really been little more than a puppet with someone else pulling the strings and putting the words in his mouth. Now I consider the man unAmerican and someone who will do whatever it takes to get ahead in popularity. Would they make him a candidate? I certainly hope so. It will insure a Republican victory. Why? Among other things, people will not forget that he went to a foreign country, an Arab country, and badmouthed his country and the administration running it. People will remember that he lied about the "Arab roundups" he painted with such flair and they will recognize him as a man not to be trusted. I would venture to say even many Democrats cringed at his manner in Saudi Arabia and would not vote for him. Let him run, by all means. This is nothing more than a new act of his, one of many hats he has put on to make a difference. He is a completely insincere individual without morals and a presidential run would spell disaster for the Democratic party.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

15 posted 2006-03-23 05:20 PM

quote:
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."

--Al Gore

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

16 posted 2006-03-23 06:12 PM

Good example, Brad. I would consider that a standard Gore speech. He basically said nothing at all.

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

I assume he's referring to soldiers who fought in wars since he spoke about their sacrificing so much. It's up to us to do the same? They protected our freedoms by fighting. Do we then don helmets and fix bayonets to march on the White House? What did he say here???

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes....so?

It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

What danger is our constitution in and what immediate steps does he propose to take? What intrusive overreaching is he referring to? Where has it been said Bush believes he need not live under the rule of law? Where has he broken the law?

It's all fluff....words thrown out that cannot stand under any scrutiny but with which he hopes to inflame opinion against Bush, absolutely nothing intellectual there at all. That's Gore. Hand him a speech and say read it. I believe the majority of people hearing this speech would just say "Huh?"

This is a man that would sit in the White House? Not in our lifetime....

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

17 posted 2006-03-23 06:47 PM

quote:
"[A]ny time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap ... a wiretap requires a court order."

- President Bush, April 20, 2004.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

18 posted 2006-03-24 06:54 PM

quote:
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

--Boston Globe

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

19 posted 2006-03-24 10:32 PM

...and that justifies Gore's speech calling Americans to arms to save their constitution from this madman?

Brad, this is no first. Geez, Congress has tried to change the constitution on points that interfered with them and, when they couldn't they just ignored it anyway. You can go all the way back to the Mccarthy era when the hollywood biggies were stripped of their rights of the 5th Amendment and jailed from refusing to respond to congressional hearings.

You would answer all the questions I asked about Gore's speech with that? That justifies his comments? Guess what? It doesn't and, what's more,it doesn't fly with the general public, either. They don't feel Bush acted to ignore or destroy the constitution or their rights. They think he acted in a way to protect America. I would have wanted my commander to act just as immediately as he did. It was clear thinking done when time was very important. Anyone bringing Bush up on charges? No, they just want Gore to make brainless speeches filled with innuendos they hope people will latch onto without thought. Those days are over. The public is too well informed with the internet and all. Forty years ago you could make speeches like that and get away with it. Now people know better and it just makes Gore sound like an ass....and the Democrats continue wondering why they lose elections.

Anyone hear anything about foreign ownership of ports lately?

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

20 posted 2006-03-24 11:05 PM

quote:
They don't feel Bush acted to ignore or destroy the constitution or their rights.

I do, Mike. I've said so many times in these very forums. And, yea, I'm part of that general public for which you presume to speak.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

21 posted 2006-03-24 11:21 PM

Fair enough, Ron. I stand corrected for presuming to speak for the general public. I do, however, believe that the majority of that general public do feel that way and they show it at the ballot box and they show it by the fact that there was no huge outcry at Bush's actions...actually, from most of the things I saw, there was general support at his quick and intelligent response.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

22 posted 2006-03-24 11:25 PM

You're absolutely right Mike.

If you modify 'general public' and make it 'Bush Supporters'.

You seem to be forgetting about the half of the general public that voted otherwise

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

23 posted 2006-03-24 11:53 PM

I would venture a guess,reb, that even a fair amount of those who voted against Bush did not consider his actions in this case unwarranted. If they did,we would have seen a much bigger reaction than we did. Actually we didn't even see one except from Congress, nursing its tweaked nose.

Do you feel that Gore's "call to action" was intelligently presented?

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.