Do you agree with Al Gore's comments in Saudi Arabia

[shomymojo]

[shomymojo]

Do you agree with Al Gore's recent comments while in Saudi Arabia

[Journeyman]

For those of us outside the USA where his comments may not have been widely reported, *what were his comments**??

[tinner666]

Who's Al Gore?

[Silverback]

He is a bitter has been. He should sit down and be quite.

[nacktman]

J'man not sure what has the wingnut's panties in a wad.
Could be his calling for investigations into illegal wiretaps.
Could be the equating of the shrub's brand of fanatical fundamentalism with that practiced by islamic extremists.
Could be the call to support the troops and give them what they need to do their job, oh, and get them out of harm's way as quickly as possible.
Could be the rescitation of the Contitution, you know that it's "Just a ******* piece of paper" anyway.
Could be the theo-cons and neo-cons are trying to divert the glaring spotlight away from their foibles ... don't ya think?

[Naturist Mark]

It's pretty hard for American's to even KNOW what Al Gore really said because the US press is so dominated by wing-nuts and a cowardly compliant mass media. As usual, we have to turn to the Foreign press to get the straight story.: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>Gore says U.S. 'discrimination' against Arabs after Sept. 11 was wrong

Jim Krane
Canadian Press

Monday, February 13, 2006

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia (AP) - Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore told an audience 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. He said the administration of President George W. Bush was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jidda Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

On Iran, Gore complained of "endemic hyper-corruption" among Tehran's religious and political elite and asked Arabs to take a stand against Iran's nuclear program.

Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes but the United States and other western countries suspect Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

"Is it only for the West to say this is dangerous?" Gore asked. "We should have more people in this region saying this is dangerous."

Several audience members criticized the United States for what they described as "unconditional" U.S. support for Israel, saying U.S. diplomats helped Israel flout United Nations resolutions that they enforced when the measures targeted Arabs.

Gore refused to be drawn into questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"We can't solve that long conflict in exchanges here," Gore said.

Also at the forum, the vice-chairman of Chevron Corp., Peter Robertson, said Bush's desire to cut U.S. dependence on Middle East oil shows a "misunderstanding" of global energy supply and the critical role of Saudi Arabia.

In his state of the union address this month, Bush pledged to cut U.S. dependence on Middle East oil by 75 per cent by 2025.

"This notion of being energy independent is completely unreasonable," Robertson said at the economic forum, which opened Saturday.

Cherie Blair, wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, made a plea at the forum for women's rights, telling Saudi leaders that the dearth of women in the workforce was "undermining economic potential" of the kingdom.

Irish President Mary McAleese urged Saudi Arabia to learn from Ireland's economic transformation, which hinged on opening the country to the outside world and ushering women into the workplace.
© The Canadian Press 2006 [/list]

Doesn't sound so horrible to me.

It is facinating to watch the wing-nuts wax despotic over Al Gore - which they do whenever Gore makes a major speech. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Recent_speeches_by_Al_Gore) They are claiming he was drunk, off his medication, gone completely insane, paid off by Bin Ladin's family, etc.

Other speakers included the Lord Mayor of London and Cherie Blair - wife of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Presumedly they too were being paid off by al-Qaeda.

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Silverback:
He is a bitter has been. He should sit down and be quite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. I'm glad I live in the United States where freedom of speech is accepted by all.

What country are you in?

Qikdraw

[usuallylurk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Silverback:
He is a bitter has been. He should sit down and be quite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, anyone who opposes government policy should be "quite".

How do you feel about the current administration's educational policies?

[Journeyman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
It's pretty hard for American's to even KNOW what Al Gore really said because the US press is so dominated by wing-nuts and a cowardly compliant mass media. As usual, we have to turn to the Foreign press to get the straight story.: [LIST] <LI>Gore says U.S. 'discrimination' against Arabs after Sept. 11 was wrong

Jim Krane
Canadian Press...(snip)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Naturist Mark, for repeating the CP story here...I gotta start reading the daily papers before going to work in the a.m. -- I am behind in my current events, obviously.

But re: Gore -- I think *had* he won that election against Bush, the US wouldn't have found itself invading Iraq to "fight terrorism". And as you mentioned, what he said in his speech was not unreasonable. As a former vice-president, her certainly deserves to be heard.

With the way things have continued to unfold in Afghanistan, it's too bad US money and resources weren't used there to a better advantage. Our Canadian troops could undoubtedly use the help continuing to protect regular Afghans against the repressive Taliban.

[MJ_KC]

Makes me appreciate the fact that I did not vote for Gore in 2000.

[nacktman]

Thanks Mark for posting the piece.
Should have figured it was the truth that had the wingnuts in a tizzy.

[P.J.]

I respect the freedom of speech and our right to exercise it.

What I don't condone is for any bitter and washed out former statesman to berate our nation on the foreign stage. In my opinion, that's is disloyalty.

On the subject of the alleged bad treatment that Americans subject to the Arabians, what about the bad treatment that Saudi Arabia subjects non-Arabs (especially those who don't follow Islam)?

[nacktman]

P.J., the point is everywhere there is discrimination and mistreatment due to perceptions. We in America rail against such goings on everywhere but in our own backyard. In the article cited Gore chastised Iran and its methods as well during his speech, just a tidbit apparently overlooked by some.

[usmc1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
I respect the freedom of speech and our right to exercise it.

What I don't condone is for any bitter and washed out former statesman to berate our nation on the foreign stage. In my opinion, that's is disloyalty.

On the subject of the alleged bad treatment that Americans subject to the Arabians, what about the bad treatment that Saudi Arabia subjects non-Arabs (especially those who don't follow Islam)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. The stage from which it comes is totally irrelevant.

[shãybare]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif
I don't completely agree with all that he said so I didn't vote. It needed more options in my opinion.

I do however agree that he has the right to say what he believes to be true in the context of the setting.

[naturalmanwa]

I did not agree with all he said and did not vote. I think the US Constitution is one of our most valuable possesions and should be taken very serious. It is bought and paid for in human blood.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
I respect the freedom of speech and our right to exercise it.

What I don't condone is for any bitter and washed out former statesman to berate our nation on the foreign stage. In my opinion, that's is disloyalty.

On the subject of the alleged bad treatment that Americans subject to the Arabians, what about the bad treatment that Saudi Arabia subjects non-Arabs (especially those who don't follow Islam)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that it is right to mention human rights abuses by Saudi Arabia; however, that does not make it wrong to mention abuses by the U.S.

Is the idea that the U.S. should never had to admit it has not always acted properly. Indeed, I think one of the reasons that the U.S. has in the past 60 years beens such a great country is that it has been much more open about itself than other prior superpowers.

[namedun]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In his state of the union address this month, Bush pledged to cut U.S. dependence on Middle East oil by 75 per cent by 2025. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find that interesting, especially given his history of trying to find oil.

[usmc1]

While the retrograde Reagan Democrats are flailing out at old targets, the GOP loyalists are jumping ship.

GOP Columnist Authors Book Critical of Bush

By E&P Staff

Published: February 14, 2006 3:27 PM ET

NEW YORK Republican commentator Bruce Bartlett, who writes a column for Creators Syndicate, has authored "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." It's slated to be published Feb. 28 by Doubleday.

The New York Times noted Monday that the book -- when in manuscript form -- led to Bartlett's dismissal last fall as a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank.

Bartlett was a domestic policy aide under President Reagan and a deputy assistant treasury secretary under the first President Bush.

[curmudgeon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
While the retrograde Reagan Democrats are flailing out at old targets, the GOP loyalists are jumping ship.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tend to doubt that Bruce Bartlett is attacking Bush from the left. There are many who disagree with him from the right -- particularly his seeming disregard for spending. I doubt there has ever been a President who had not exercised a single veto in 5 years. You really need to take this into account in interpreting the typical approve/disapprove polls. I have answered "disapprove", but believe me, that does not mean I wish that either Gore or Kerry was President.

[ncnudlady]

What he said was true. Handwringing and putting your hands over your ears will not change it.

We would be better off as a nation if the person elected was serving as president instead of the imbecile play acting now.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In his state of the union address this month, Bush pledged to cut U.S. dependence on Middle East oil by 75 per cent by 2025. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find that interesting, especially given his history of trying to find oil. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't you hear? He didn't actually mean that literally...

Link (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13767738.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation)

One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

It sounded liek he meant it definately, not just as a bed-time story.

Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

Link (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/31/sotu-bush-wanted-renewable-energy-cuts/)

Doesn't sound like he means this either...

SOTU: Bush Wanted Renewable Energy Cuts
Bush said: “The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources – and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.”

FACT — BUSH PUSHED FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY CUTS IN LATEST BUDGET: President Bush’s FY06 budget request for the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) energy efficiency and renewable energy programs envisioned “reductions totaling nearly $50 million - an overall cut of roughly four percent.” [Renewable Energy Access, 2/28/05]

FACT — BUSH REJECTED BIPARTISAN PLAN TO SET GOALS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY: Last year, President Bush “oppose[d] efforts to include a national renewable energy requirement for utilities in Congress’ broad energy legislation.” According to the Union of Concerned Scientists it “is a cost-effective, market-based policy that requires electric utilities to gradually increase their use of renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, and bioenergy,” to between 10 and 20 percent by 2020. A 10 percent standard “would have virtually no impact on electricity prices and could save consumers as much as $13.2 billion.” [Reuters, 2/10/05; Union of Concerned Scientists; Union of Concerned Scientists]

FACT — BUSH ENERGY BILL CONTAINED LITTLE ON RENEWABLE ENERGY: The energy bill supported and signed by President Bush dropped a provision that would have required utilities “to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity through renewable fuels by 2020.” [New York Times, 7/26/05]

Qikdraw