America Gored again. c/o 2006 WorldNetDaily.com What would you say about a former vice president of the United States, a candidate for the presidency, who lies about "terrible abuses" against Arabs by his country while addressing an audience in Saudi Arabia? That's what Al Gore did last weekend. And he did it during a time in which the Arab and Muslim world is already enflamed against the U.S. and the West because of the Muhammad cartoons. What would I say about Al Gore? How would I characterize him? Here's what I would say in a wholesome forum like this: He's irresponsible. He's a traitor to his country. He's a congenital liar who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the backside. He's an enemy of the American people. He's unworthy of American citizenship, let alone the high offices he has held and aspired to hold. He needs a keeper. He's producing enough hot air to make his doomsday predictions about global warming a self-fulfilling prophecy. He's one coconut short of a pina colada. Gore actually claimed Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions following Sept. 11. "The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah 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." Where is the press on this? Oh, I forgot...they are reporting OVER and OVER again about a hunting accident that effects NOBODY except the victim who was accidentially hit with bird (28 gauge) shot. Meanwhile, you have a former V.P. overseas committing acts of treason .
You could not be more wrong (well maybe YOU could). Al is a rare voice of sanity (and won the 2000 election).
If you post right after me...it is necessary to quote my entire post??...will you please wake up! We know where you stand as I am sure you find comfort in Gore's beliefs and who he speaks to. I, on the other hand, see Al Gore for what he is. What does the rest of the forum think?
Don't you even wonder how much he got paid for his speech. Or do you think he went over there for free. He got paid to tell them what they wanted to hear. Jimmy Carter has been on the oil well payroll for awhile as well. Just look it up. Your man is selling out his own people for pieces of silver
Not only not necessary but sometimes down right funny. And misquoting or paraphrasing Al Gore isn't any better. Anyway, I would have to hear the whole speech before I could really evaluate whether your comments are even close to the mark. I know your opinion on liberals and Democrats in general so I would find it hard to believe that you would put his comments in the best light. I do respect him for trying to open a dialog with a culture that has so few alternative voices. There have been abuses by the west of Arabs and vise versa but cultural gaps are widened without communication. Someone has to speak to the moderates in Arab society so that they can stand up and be among the voices that get heard. If he can contribute to that, I hope he gives lots more speeches. Besides could he really do a worse job that Bush's mouth piece Karen Hughes? What disaster she is. “Saudi women dispute U.S. envoy's notions Defense of their role in society surprises Bush aide Hughes” The audience -- 500 women covered in black at a Saudi university -- seemed an ideal place for Karen Hughes, a senior Bush administration official charged with spreading the American message in the Muslim world, to make her pitch. But the response on Tuesday was not what she and her aides expected. When Hughes expressed the hope that Saudi women would be able to drive and "fully participate in society" much as they do in her country, many challenged her. "The general image of the Arab woman is that she isn't happy," one audience member said. "Well, we're all pretty happy." The roomful of students, faculty members and some professionals resounded with applause. The administration's efforts to publicize U.S. ideals in the Muslim world have often run into such resistance. For that reason, Hughes, who is considered one of the administration's most scripted and careful members, was hired specifically for the task. Many in this region say they resent the U.S. assumption that, given the chance, everyone would live like Americans. The group of women on Tuesday, picked by the university, represented the privileged elite of this Red Sea coastal city, known as one of the more liberal areas in the country. And while they were certainly friendly toward Hughes, half a dozen who spoke up took issue with what she said. Hughes, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, is on her first trip to the Middle East. She seemed clearly taken aback as the women told her that just because they were not allowed to vote or drive, that did not mean they were treated unfairly or imprisoned in their own homes. "We're not in any way barred from talking to the other sex," said Dr. Nada Jambi, a public health professor. "It's not an absolute wall." The session at Dar Al-Hekma College provided an unusual departure from the carefully staged events in a tour that began Sunday in Egypt. As it was ending, Hughes, a longtime communications aide to President Bush, assured the women that she was impressed with what they had said and would take their message home. "I would be glad to go back to the United States and talk about the Arab women I've met," she said. Hughes, on this first foray, has churned through meetings in which she has tirelessly introduced herself as "a mom," explained that Americans are people of faith and called for more cultural and educational exchanges. Her efforts to explain policies in Iraq and the Middle East have been polite and cautious. As a visiting dignitary, she had audiences in the summer palaces in Jidda with King Abdullah, Crown Prince Sultan and the foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal. But mostly it was a day that underscored the uneasy Saudi-American relationship, fed by unsavory images the two countries have of each another. At the meeting with the Saudi women, television crews were barred and reporters were segregated according to sex. American officials said it was highly unusual for men to be allowed in the hall at all. A meeting with leading editors, all men, featured more familiar complaints about what several said were U.S. biases against the Palestinians, the incarceration of Muslims at Guantanamo Bay and the alleged U.S. stereotype of Saudis as religious fanatics and extremists after Sept. 11. Hughes responded by reminding listeners that Bush had supported the establishment of a Palestinian state and asserting that Guantanamo prisoners had been visited by the International Red Cross and retained the right to worship with their own Qurans. Americans, she said at one point, were beginning to understand Islam better but had been disappointed that some Muslim leaders had been "reticent" at first in criticizing the Sept. 11 attacks. "Now, several years later, we're beginning to hear other voices," she said. But it was the meeting with the women that was the most unpredictable, as Hughes found herself on the defensive simply by saying that she hoped women would be able to vote in future elections. Hughes also spoke personally, saying that driving a car was "an important part of my freedom." A woman in the audience then charged that under Bush the United States had become "a right-wing country" and that criticism by the media was "not allowed." "I have to say I sometimes wish that were the case, but it's not," Hughes said with a laugh. Several women said later that Americans fail to understand that their traditional society is embraced by men and women alike. "There is more male chauvinism in my profession in Europe and America than in my country," said Dr. Siddiqa Kamal, an obstetrician and gynecologist who runs her own hospital. "I don't want to drive a car. I worked hard for my medical degree. Why do I need a driver's license?" "Women have more than equal rights," added her daughter, Dr. Fouzia Pasha, also an obstetrician and gynecologist, asserting that men have obligations accompanying their rights, and that women can go to court to hold them accountable. Hughes appeared to have left a favorable impression. "She's open to people's opinions," said Nour al-Sabbagh, a 21-year-old student in special education. "She's trying to understand."
http://www.harrywalker.com/ This is one of the agencies that Al Gore and his wife are listed for hire to make a speaking engagement. Now who is going to hire Al Gore to make an anti-terrorist speech in the arab world. Gore is getting paid big bucks with his undermining the war on terror speeches. and guess what: CNN's Wolf Biltzer is also getting paid to say what he says. Now of course people get paid for public engagements but shouldn't it be a matter of concern when they are taking big bucks from people who hate us to blindside their own nation with undermining/dividing false and misleading statements. We are talking about payouts from the hundred thousands to millions per speech for the big guys. Then there are the consulant jobs or sitting on boards that are majority shared owned by middle east sponsering terrorist nations. Another way to get paid off. Look it up if you doubt my word.
The "war on terror" is a joke. The concept that you can have a war on a tactic in itself is just wierd. It is entirely likely that the people who are benefitting from this (Cheney=Halliburton, Bush=Carlyle Group) are the ones who allowed 9-11 to happen in the first place. Gore is SPOT ON with what he is doing. This creepy Republican group are FAR MORE DANGEROUS to America than a million Osamas.
I for one wouldn' t have believed this of old Al! That is until I seen the picture of him, not just holding hands, but with his arms around the shoulders of two of the top Arabs of the country. Either that or he was being supported by these two gentlemen because of the party they had all attended that evening before the meeting. Not a pretty sight!
How come you ignore that Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and others are being paid big bucks by the middle eastern muslims to make their speeches tailored to them and against us. They are paid speakers you know.
You still did not respond to the question. How do you feel that Al Gore and other leading democrats and news media people get paid big bucks to present speeches that undermine not only americans but the world's resolve to face up to the Saudi's, Kuwaits, and the UAE who are very powerful. Can you say traitors.
I believe that you are sincere in your belief that this "war terror" is the real deal. The simple fact that you accept that at face value does not mean that it is as you say. It is absurd beyond belief that you call the honorable parties in this situation traitors when Cheney (Hallliburton) and Bush (Carlyle Group) are enriching themselves, their families, and their associates at the expense of the lives and limbs of our soldiers. Further they have manipulated gullible Americans with a largely exaggerated threat of Muslim terrorism. Your point of view is so divorced from reality, and you have been so cynically manipulated that the only emotion I can muster for you is pity.
So this is what Gore has done: he has traveled to Jiddah to explain to the elites of an ugly and tyrannical regime that the big problem in the world isn't the oppression of Arabs by Arabs throughout the Middle East and North Africa, but the mistreatment of a few hundred Arabs in the United States. This is like visiting Moscow in 1970 and denouncing the United States in front of a bunch of Communist Party deputies for the killings at Kent State. Indeed, the differences in that comparison reflect badly on Gore. There is simply no defense for what Gore has done here, for he is deliberately undermining the United States during a time of war, in a part of the world crucial to our success in that war, in front of an audience that does not vote in American elections. Gore's speech is both destructive and disloyal, not because of its content -- which is as silly as it is subversive -- but because of its location and its intended audience. He should be ashamed. But he won't be. The leadership of the Democratic party should disavow Gore's Jiddah speech. But it won't, and neither will Danr.
Because you have NOTHING to support your views...nice stall as you try to search the empty vaults of your brain cells for logic and rational...keep searching because you have NOTHING except "anti-this" and "anti-that"...again...(yawn) it is getting boring. When are you going to offer something original to the argument? Gore's sole intention of speaking to islamic fundamentists was to fire them up against AMERICAN interests!! Here's a pic from when he was speaking to these "religion of peace" morans. Face it, what he did, just to line his pockets with speaking fees, would be no differant than if anti-war Americans went to Berlin to speak to the Nazi party about how "bad" German P.O.W.'s were being treated during World War II. Shame on him for this. What he did was treasonous...HANDS DOWN! You try to hide behind the word democracy, but you support people that want to bring it down. For that, I have a 'disdain' (your overused word) for people like you. Don't worry folks..."friendly fire" started for people like this.
That is fine with me, and all I can say is it's about time you and the rest of those like you came out of the closet!:kewl:
are you sereious? 1) I'd like to say right now that I am %100 percent straight, but even saying that because I'm a liberal is one the most ignorant things I have heard. 2) You took the exact words of a man much smarter than you and tried to use them as your own. That just proves your total and utter ignorance. 3) Telling me to "come out of the closet" doesn't mean anything, I agree with almost all of Michael Savage's opinions on foreign policy and would consider myself a "conservative" in that sense but making a totally off-base accusatory statement because I agree the liberal point of view on moderate socialism proves that you are an idiot. ps: I can't wait till he calls me a communist because I said socialism.
