« Link of the Day: Can't Out Deprecate the Self-Deprecators Edition | Main | An Opt-In Revolution? »
February 15, 2006
Gore's Speech
The hubbub over Gore's latest speech is really rather baffling. I've seen no compelling counterarguments to the actual points he raised (check Joe Gandelman for more on that), just breathless astonishment that Gore dared criticize American policies while on Saudia soil. It's weird. I had no idea that our culture's devotion to free speech and self-criticism (the same one the right's been rhapsodizing for the past few weeks) was only operative within our borders. Does the ideal simply lack a passport? What's the mechanism?
Also, so far as I know, none of the indignant hordes have actually, you know, read the speech. For a crew so instantly suspicious of the MSM, they sure are quick to accept an AP news story as an accurate, textured recounting of the full flavor and focus of an address. Skepticism for me but not for thee, I guess. To get an idea of the potential differences, read the AP story, which emphasizes Gore's policy critiques, and read the Arab News' recounting, where he calls for a "Century of Renewal." The speeches seem fairly different depending on the source. That's not to say the AP is wrong, but such indignation over a speech they've neither heard nor read seems a little, well, planned.
February 15, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/4268107
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gore's Speech:
Comments
The whole fake orchestrated righty reaction to this is just so typically... mockrageous!
Posted by: shingles | Feb 15, 2006 1:34:34 PM
You might notice Glenn Reynolds is ready with his "unbiased" comments.
Funny thing is, the location criticism is true. It might be good on one point that doesn't seem to have occured to the pundits : if he was trying to talk to people who weren't totally turned off America to "wait it out" and the current insanity would pass.
It does regrettably miss the point that the people at home need to realize that what is going on in their name is totally batshit nuts. How much willingness is there to listen is another question entirely.
Posted by: opit | Feb 15, 2006 1:53:59 PM
You've seen in and, I think, commented on it at length before...
'They' (and we too, I've seen), are quick to accept statements
that support the conventional wisdom as regards 'the opposition'...
In other words, if we hear something in the MSM or blogs that re-inforces
our negative view of 'them', we're more likely to accept it and pass it along,
whilst we're less willing to accept criticism of 'our side' and it views.
There are times I wonder if I'm looking at a discussion of politics, or of
religion....since religious arguments I've had with people before usually
degenerate into name-calling and ad hominem attacks, because people
stop talking rationally, and start talking on beliefs/faith. One cannot
argue points of Faith rationally, so the discussion ends with each side
essentially shouting it's points of faith at each other and dismissing them
as nuts and flakes.
This might be too passive for the more activist elements in our community, but I'm going to sit back and see where the chips fall, before I move one direction or another. What exactly did Gore say? In what context should it be taken? Punditry be damned...I'll make my own decision
Posted by: justadood | Feb 15, 2006 2:16:01 PM
"Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions."
Indiscriminately rounded up? Every single person rounded up after 9/11 had VISA or Greencard violations and had suspected ties to terrorists, just like the 9/11 hijackers!
What were the unforgivable conditions? American jails? Compared to Saudi jails?
Gore lied about how and why people were rounded up and how they were treated, he has given more aid to our enemy. I would not say he aided the enemy, even though he is a former VP talking bad about his own country on foreign soil, if he was telling the truth, but he lied. Therefore he is giving propaganda to the enemy.
By the way, I thought Michael Moore asserted that Saudi's got preferential treatment after 9/11. I guess the liberal wing of the nut job party needs to get their story straight. And only two Democrats could say two opposite things and still both be lying.
"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."
Before 9/11, the US VISA policy toward Saudi Arabia was so liberal that it allowed in 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. So Bush tightened that up.
Does anyone besides Gore believe there should be less scrutiny towards Saudi VISA applicants?
Al Gore is a fool. He is so bitter about 2000 that he has lost his mind. Don't you people get sick of having to defend his statements? But he, and Dean for that matter, are gold for conservatives. Them two remind America over and over why Democrats should not be in power.
Gore in 2008!
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 15, 2006 2:38:34 PM
The Rovian/Rightist/Post-Reaganist/Bu$hCoist methods are in Chapter 1 of the Republican Totalitarian Manual (year 2000 edition):
- Attack leadership figures of the disloyal, anti-American Democratic Party leadership at every opportunity
- Selectively quote or misquote every statement they make
- Emphasize how the Dem. leadership is allied with the enemy
- Ensure that they are portrayed as weak, ineffective and unmanly (or unwomanly, if necessary)
- Never discuss the content of their ideas, but do visciously attack their personal characteristics
- more that it too sickening to read....
They are just following their rules....
Posted by: JimPortandOR | Feb 15, 2006 2:50:02 PM
Does anyone have a link to the actual speech? I can't find it on the JEF website or anywhere else.
Posted by: Jack | Feb 15, 2006 2:50:31 PM
The hubbub over Gore's latest speech is really rather baffling.
Ezra, I suggest you spend a little less time trying to understand the hubbub and a little more time condemning it. You know it's an organized joke by a bunch of Bush-following loudmouths. I hardly see the point in trying to "understand where they're coming from" on this.
Posted by: Constantine | Feb 15, 2006 2:52:57 PM
Hey Jim,
If the Democratic leaders didn't make the statements, conservatives wouldn't have all the ammo.
America believes Democrats are weak on national security because of the things Democratic leaders say and policies they support. Don't blame the right for using Democrats own words against them.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 15, 2006 2:56:44 PM
Yes Captain toke....Gore and Dean are "CRAZY".....which in your world apparently means not being a lunatic fringe winger.....oh and F9/11 was referring to the Saudi aristicracy...you know..the ones hanging out with Bush and other giant business interests?....the ones with their own Lear Jets. Hmmm, maybe you should actually watch and/or pay attention more to the things you reference before you prattle off some half baked recycle BS.
On a saner note - I do believe that people on both sides of the fence tend to take anything from the Media Corps that reinforces their beliefs with little or no grains of salf...and vice/versa....however, that still leaves many regular people (the people that Captain Toke probably calls 'lunatic liberals') who have just tuned out major media because of the BS....and stopped paying attention all together.
Posted by: Zedd | Feb 15, 2006 2:59:22 PM
"F9/11 was referring to the Saudi aristicracy"
I did watch it and paid attention. That is how I know that it is still a lie. Richard Clark told Michael Moore it was bullshit before the film came out, but Michael Moore did not correct it. Do you know why? Because the whole film was bullshit. Michael Moore is a propagandist, he does not care about the truth. He cares about pushing an agenda.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 15, 2006 3:05:18 PM
Zedd,
The very beginning of F9/11 claims Gore actually won the 2000 election. The film starts out with a lie and goes from there.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 15, 2006 3:07:13 PM
Ah, a knowledgable government source told Michael Moore that an assertion in his movie was false and he failed to remove it. I see. Unforgivable and clear evidence of propaganda to promote an agenda. Even if that is true, shouldn't your high standards apply to say, for example, a presidential address to Congress?
And, for what it's worth, it's indisputable Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and Florida was certainly not as clear cut as right-wingers like to pretend. You know, it's funny that recently exit polls have suddenly become less reliable, and always in the favor of the GOP. But, hey, let's question the integrity of Michael Moore, because, you know, that's important.
Posted by: Magenta | Feb 15, 2006 3:20:39 PM
Yeah, ok, the location critique would be quite valid if Gore hadn't made these exact same points a million times in the US. This has been one of his themes since very early in 2002. If he's gone to Saudi Arabia, to a paid conference, and trotted out a whole new critique of the US Admin, then that would have been, well, cheap. That's not what happened. Any of the rich, American-educated professionals at the conference who cared enough to know already would have been aware of his positions on detentions, on VISAs.
Anyway, I think Gandelman is wrong. The problem for Gore wasn't location; it was what it always is: hyperbole. Succeeding in American politics requires using no adjectives at all: "terrible", "indiscriminately". Adjectives are for activists, not politicians, which is sort of a microcosm for why Gore is such a terrific activist and problematic politician :-)
Posted by: Laura | Feb 15, 2006 3:25:15 PM
"Any of the rich, American-educated professionals at the conference who cared enough to know already would have been aware of his positions on detentions, on VISAs."
But Al Jazeera got another soundbite from an American liberal. The common Arab now has confirmation from an American official (a former VP) that Americans abused Muslims and Arabs 'indiscriminately'.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 15, 2006 3:32:09 PM
Captain Toke:
So what does any of that - whether accurate or innacurate - have to do with your completely false claim that Michael Moore "asserted that Saudi's got preferential treatment after 9/11" and the inplication that it completely contradicted Gore's argument?
Well, I'll help you out since that was the cutch of my criticism towards you: Nada.
Your terrible arguments bely your lack of factual foundation.
Posted by: Zedd | Feb 15, 2006 3:32:24 PM
"your completely false claim that Michael Moore "asserted that Saudi's got preferential treatment after 9/11"
Let's read what you wrote.
"oh and F9/11 was referring to the Saudi aristicracy"
You say yourself "F9/11 was referring to the Saudi aristocracy". As far as facts, check out the one cited below. I know it is the Left's favorite fact.
Magenta,
Do you know why the Democrats are where they are right now? Because they believe the propaganda.
Check this out:
"In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted."
Correcting liberals with one hand wrapped around a big, fat giant doobie of the stickiest of the icky, just to make it fair.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 15, 2006 3:45:27 PM
ALGORE is a has-been politician who is now getting to do the speaking circuit. He is much more saleable if he keeps his name in the headlines and being controversial does just that.
The bottom line is GORE is helping no one other than ALGORE.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 15, 2006 3:50:14 PM
Has Captain Toke become to the 2000 election what Fred Jones is to gay issues?
Posted by: Constantine | Feb 15, 2006 4:07:50 PM
Has Captain Toke become to the 2000 election what Fred Jones is to gay issues?
Shorter Dean: "Don't confuse us with facts. It ruins the meme."
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 15, 2006 4:45:50 PM
If I can cut through all the vituperation for a moment… has can anyone respond to Toke's accusation that Gore lied about "indiscriminate" arrests?
Because that is the key point for me. Gore played into the existing dogma in parts of the Arab world that America hates Muslims and wants to destroy the Muslim world. The damage this could do to our foreign policy is significant.
What happened to "Politics stops at the water's edge"?
Posted by: Mastiff | Feb 15, 2006 4:49:00 PM
What happened to "Politics stops at the water's edge"?
Mastiff, it may be time to take a good, long look at the 2002 and 2004 election cycles.
has can anyone respond to Toke's accusation that Gore lied about "indiscriminate" arrests?
Yes, in that if we don't want people saying that our detention and incarceration practices since 9/11 have been inhumane and egregiously unjust, we shouldn't engage in inhumane and unjust (and unconstitutional) arrests and incarcerations. Re: Hamedi, Padilla, Gitmo
If the truth of our government's actions is too much for you to bear, welcome to the world the rest of us have been living in for the last five years.
Posted by: NBarnes | Feb 15, 2006 8:00:03 PM
Democrats are too readily inclined to believe propaganda.
You bring the funny, Captain Toke.
Posted by: Magenta | Feb 15, 2006 8:33:39 PM
Captain
Are you aware of the photos that are being sent all over the world from Australia ?
Or that the Brits, who try to maintain some semblance of reporting, are mad as hell about the crap pulled on them by their government re: necessity for war in Iraq ?
The clothes are off the Emperor and his p.r. machine is really going to have to work for a living : try as they might it doesn't do Dick for perceptions outside the country.
Perhaps it isn't such a bad thing for foreign people to think that perhaps someone in the U.S. has some clue that all is not well. Wasn't that part of "selling democracy" ?
Posted by: opit | Feb 16, 2006 1:19:23 AM
NBarnes, you will notice that I did not ask about whether our incarcerations were constitutional (though I believe they are), but whether they were indiscriminate.
Citing individuals who were intimately involved in al-Qaida operations (Padilla, Hamdi) or detention centers reserved for people captured on battlefields (Gitmo) as "proof" for Gore seems to undercut him rather efficiently.
Try to identify key terms before you hit the Autorant button, please.
Posted by: Mastiff | Feb 16, 2006 1:28:38 AM
opit,
Are those pictures altered and sent by the Australian vice prime minister (whatever they are called)? Are those Brits gov't officials spreading lies that would hurt Britain?
Al Gore told lies, on foreign soil, that feeds our enemy and helps them recruit. Al Gore gave the enemy propaganda. Lies = Propaganda
Al Gore aided our enemy.
Again I ask:
Indiscriminately rounded up? Every single person rounded up after 9/11 had VISA or Greencard violations and had suspected ties to terrorists, just like the 9/11 hijackers!
Please show me evidence of Muslims indiscriminately rounded up. If you can't, and Gore refuses to, then Gore lied and helped our enemy.
Gore or his handlers will not clarify his comments.
What were the unforgivable conditions? What were these conditions? Gore won't say. Do you think these people would have rather been in a Saudi jail? Egyptian jail?
I don't think he meant Gitmo since he was talking about right after 9/11. But even if he did, he lied again. A group of mostly Democratic congressmen went to Gitmo last year and they unamously concluded that the US Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is a model that should be replicated by the rest of the world.
Wow, no one can back up what Gore said, not even Gore.
Gore in 2008!
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 10:14:11 AM
Maybe you'd better look at selling the position that everything at Gitmo is first rate to silly people like Amnesty International and the UN.
Posted by: opit | Feb 16, 2006 10:42:00 AM
Well, Human Rights Watch recently submitted a report to the UN saying torture was going on a Gitmo, but no representative from Human Rights Watch has been to Gitmo, and when invited to go they refused! It seems like they are after the truth, huh?
Kennedy and Durbin made accusations before they went too. Kennedy and Durbin haven't said a word about Gitmo since they went there.
So you trust Amnesty International and the UN over US Democratic congressmen who have actually been to Gitmo?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 10:59:00 AM
Toke,
As to Florida 2000, there are two different conclusions depending on what question is asked. If all the votes had been recounted using the criterion mandated by Florida state law (namely, clear intent of the voter), Gore would have won. On the other hand, if only the disputed votes had been recounted, Gore would still have lost.
The analysis shows that more people voted for Gore than for Bush in Florida in 2000, but more votes for Gore were uncounted.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 11:20:43 AM
Toke says: So you trust Amnesty International and the UN over US Democratic congressmen who have actually been to Gitmo?
Actually, yes, I do.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 11:22:11 AM
Al Gore told lies, on foreign soil, that feeds our enemy and helps them recruit. Al Gore gave the enemy propaganda. Lies = Propaganda
Al Gore aided our enemy.
Surely George W. Bush and his war have been the most powerful recruitment aid for terrorism that has ever existed?
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 11:25:16 AM
Daryl,
Please show proof of your 2000 election assertion. If you want to make an arguement that caries weight, please back it up.
So you trust groups, we will leave their bias and agenda to the side right now, that has never been to Gitmo to assess Gitmo, over a group of critics who actually went to Gitmo and changed their mind about Gitmo?
Are you on Michael Moore's staff or do you just hate this country? The reason I say that is if you are going to believe foreigners who make accusations against this country with no evidence over US congressmen who have investigated the claims and debunked them, then you have an agenda against this country.
Again, please show your proof Gore won Florida in 2000, if you have any.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 11:33:03 AM
"Surely George W. Bush and his war have been the most powerful recruitment aid for terrorism that has ever existed?"
The Iraq war wasn't going on in 2001. How do you explain 9/11?
Fool.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 11:34:36 AM
If all the votes had been recounted using the criterion mandated by Florida state law...
But as I remember, Gore did not sue for that. He only wanted to cherry pick the Democratic counties.
Be careful what you ask for.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 16, 2006 11:36:32 AM
or detention centers reserved for people captured on battlefields (Gitmo) as "proof" for Gore seems to undercut him rather efficiently.
Posted by: Adrock | Feb 16, 2006 12:10:08 PM
I'd also like to add that his comments on Iran from the AP story are not only something I agree on, but would think conservatives would too.
Posted by: Adrock | Feb 16, 2006 12:11:34 PM
In case Captain Toke can't be bothered to click through Adrock's link, here's the key paras, based not on an NGO's say-so, but the transcripts of the relatively few Combatant Status Review Tribunals (obligatory under the Geneva conventions) that the US has actually undertaken:
Many of them are not accused of hostilities against the United States or its allies. Most, when captured, were innocent of any terrorist activity, were Taliban foot soldiers at worst, and were often far less than that. And some, perhaps many, are guilty only of being foreigners in Afghanistan or Pakistan at the wrong time. And much of the evidence -- even the classified evidence -- gathered by the Defense Department against these men is flimsy, second-, third-, fourth- or 12th-hand. It's based largely on admissions by the detainees themselves or on coerced, or worse, interrogations of their fellow inmates, some of whom have been proved to be liars.Thomas Wilner, a partner at the Washington law firm Shearman and Stearling who is representing six Kuwaitis at Guantanamo, summarized the evidence against them: "Bullshit hearsay.... The information in some cases is, at best, hearsay allegations [obtained] long after capture."
One thing about these detainees is very clear: Notwithstanding Rumsfeld's description, the majority of them were not caught by American soldiers on the battlefield. They came into American custody from third parties, mostly from Pakistan, some after targeted raids there, most after a dragnet for Arabs after 9/11.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Feb 16, 2006 12:32:05 PM
"Most, when captured, were innocent of any terrorist activity, were Taliban foot soldiers"
The Taliban foot soldiers are not enemy combatants? They are not dangerous?
Oh, let's believe the terrorist's lawyer. I think Saddam's lawyer said he is innocent too.
All I have seen is terrorist suspects caught on the battlefield were sent to Gitmo and there is some question as to how bad they are. Would you rather we leave them on the battlefield to shoot at Americans until we confirm 100 percent they are terrorists?
No one has proven any deplorable conditions at Gitmo. Gitmo is run more humanely than American prisons. Would the terrorists be better off in US federal prisons, or in Gitmo? Where do you think they get better treatment, at Gitmo or in US federal prisons(and if you are going to claim torture happened at Gitmo, please provide proof)? Where do you think they would be safer? Do you think there are a higher percentage of innocent US citizens in US prison, or innocent foreigners in Gitmo?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 1:04:20 PM
Toke,
My results were in the consortium's report on the Florida 2000. It was the same study that you are citing, just a different section. Read this in the Washington Post:
But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited -- the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard. But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or amore restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.
The fact that Gore received more actual votes in 2000 than Bush never made it to front-page news, although the other fact, that a limited recount would have confirmed Bush's victory, was widely reported.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 1:04:40 PM
Fred,
The point is that Gore received more votes than Bush in Florida. By most definitions of "democracy", that would make Gore the winner.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 1:06:21 PM
Toke,
The point is that terrorist recruitment has become much easier lately, thanks to Bush.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 1:09:14 PM
Toke writes: Are you on Michael Moore's staff or do you just hate this country?
No, I oppose Bush and his war because I love this country, and I feel that Bush is destroying it.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 1:13:23 PM
Daryl,
Your article assumes that the counties that had the recount stopped at the 537 vote lead for Bush and used the most 'generous' standards in evaluating the the disputed ballots in the rest of the counties. Don't forget, in the source I cite above, Bush gained over 1000 votes in the disputed counties. But if the same standard is applied to all counties in Florida, Bush won. Whether the standards are strict or loose as long as they are uniform for all counties in Florida, Bush wins in all reputable studies.
"The point is that terrorist recruitment has become much easier lately, thanks to Bush."
Well, if responding to an attack on our enemies ups terrorist recruitment, so be it. We can see how down to Earth our enemy is with the recent Mohammed cartoon riots. Let all the potential terrorists go to Iraq to be gunned down by US and Iraqi troops, it is better than them coming here again. And before you say anything about Bush lying us into Iraq, remember that Democratic senators made a stronger case for war than Bush, and the congress(Democrats and Republicans) voted to authorize war. And before you claim Bush lied to the congress, remember, Clinton and his staff made the same case in the late nineties. I have the quotes from Bill Clinton, Albright, Berger, as well as Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Rockefeller, etc. making the case for war if you want to see them.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 1:32:39 PM
Toke,
No, what you are saying is not true. If all the votes in Florida had been recounted according to the standard mandated by Florida law, Gore would have won. Bush wins if a limited recount of only select counties, but Gore wins if a statewide recount were done, following a uniform standard.
Well, if responding to an attack on our enemies ups terrorist recruitment, so be it.
The war in Iraq was not a response to an attack on the US.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 1:38:26 PM
Toke read the sentence again:
But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or a more restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.
Whether dimples are counted OR a more restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore. What you are saying is false. I'm not surprised that you are unaware of the facts, because the media did a poor job of telling those facts.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 1:42:08 PM
Er, Toke, the report says, that according to the government's own military tribunals, many of those in Guantanamo were not even Taliban footsoldiers (who, while "enemy combatants", were not "the worst of the worst" as Bush once said applied to everyone in Guantamo), but were sold to the US by Pakistanis and Afghanistanis for indiscriminate cash bounties. There are now several documented cases of people the US government admits are innocent of any crime or activity against the United States yet who have not been released. As for the "unforgivable conditions", the FBI themselves, when they visited Gitmo, said some of the techniques used by other agencies amounted to torture and were in violation of FBI guidelines.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Feb 16, 2006 1:55:18 PM
Daryl,
That is why we have the Surpreme court is to decide these issues......and they have. Just a note, if GORE had won, I would have been disappointed, but I would not do what the hard left is doing. Gore would be my president.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 16, 2006 2:43:26 PM
That is why we have the Surpreme court is to decide these issues......and they have. Just a note, if GORE had won, I would have been disappointed, but I would not do what the hard left is doing. Gore would be my president.
And what is the "hard left" doing? Plotting to overthrow the government?
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 2:57:44 PM
Daryl,
You are not considering absentee and military ballots
"Florida Supreme Court reverses lower court rejection of Gore contest, ordering statewide manual recounts of undervotes. Two Florida circuit court judges rule that about 25,000 absentee ballots from Martin and Seminole counties should not be thrown out."
"After absentee ballots are counted, uncertified results show Republican George W. Bush leads Democrat Al Gore by 930 votes."
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/FL/frameset.exclude.html
click on 'recount' and '12/8 ruling'
That is not a uniform standard. Gore tried to keep military and absentee ballots out.
Please provide a link to the Florida standards for counting votes.
Studies can speculate on whatever they want, but every single official recount says Bush won. CNN, USA Today and PBS are far from conservative sources and they all flat out say Bush won in their post election analysis.
Bush won. The quicker you and Al figure that out, the quicker you can move on. One more piece of evidence Bush won, he was inagurated, twice.
"There are now several documented cases of people the US government admits are innocent of any crime or activity against the United States yet who have not been released"
Please provide a link to these 'documented' cases.
"As for the "unforgivable conditions", the FBI themselves, when they visited Gitmo, said some of the techniques used by other agencies amounted to torture and were in violation of FBI guidelines."
A) Gore was talking about Muslims detained immediatly following 9/11 and
B) Isn't that the evidence Durbin cited when he called our troops NAZIs? Didn't he have to apologize for that?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 3:03:58 PM
Go get 'em,. captain!!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 16, 2006 3:10:14 PM
Toke writes: You are not considering absentee and military ballots
I'm quoting the conclusion reached by the consortium that actually studied the ballots. So don't talk about what I am not considering.
Studies can speculate on whatever they want, but every single official recount says Bush won. CNN, USA Today and PBS are far from conservative sources and they all flat out say Bush won in their post election analysis.
And I'm saying that you're wrong: Those very papers, in that very post-election analysis say that a statewide recount would have favored Gore. What the study shows, as I already said, was that a limited recount would have favored Bush, but a statewide recount would have favored Gore.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 3:13:57 PM
Daryl,
I will concede one point, only because the evidence I presented states this. Gore could have won in a statewide recount only if the most generous standards were used.
And I don't think Florida's ballot counting rules include those "most generous" standards.
"The study, conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, counted over 60,000 votes in Florida's 67 counties, tabulating separate vote totals in several standards categories.
While the USA Today report focused on what would have happened had the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount not been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Herald pointed to one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory -- a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards."
Now, if you have evidence that shows Gore would have won a statewide recount using any standard (strict or loose), please present it. If memory serves me correctly, only the loose counting rules helped Gore.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 3:22:32 PM
Oh, and here is some of what Gore did to make sure every vote was counted.
"In a November 20, 2000 letter, Florida Attorney General Robert A. Butterworth urged county supervisors of elections and county canvassing boards to count otherwise proper unpostmarked ballots if they were signed and dated on or before the date of the election and to revisit any ballots previously rejected for lack of a postmark.
Federal law does not require a postmark on military ballots. Representatives of the military postal service have stated that, while they endeavor to postmark mail, often mail does not get postmarked because it must be moved quickly from ships or other outposts.
A series of post-election lawsuits challenged the inclusion of overseas absentee ballots received after election day and the exclusion of ballots that did not bear a postmark. On December 8, U.S. District Judge Lacey Collier ruled in Bush v. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board that it is improper to exclude an overseas absentee ballot solely for lack of a postmark (and solely for lack of a previously filed absentee ballot application). In the consolidated Harris and Medina cases, Senior U.S. District Judge Maurice Paul ruled on December 8 that administrative regulation 1S-2.013 should be considered to supplant the Florida statute, in light of its history arising out of a federal court consent decree, and thus that overseas absentee ballots may be counted as long as they fall within the terms of that regulation. The Harris/Medina ruling was appealed on December 9 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit."
Do you really think Gore wanted every vote counted?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 3:37:11 PM
Here's the real deal.
The Supreme Court has looked at all of this and decided the winner. That winner is now in office.
So.....wanna go have a beer?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 16, 2006 3:44:01 PM
Toke writes: Gore could have won in a statewide recount only if the most generous standards were used.
Florida state law gives the standard as clear intent of the voter. By that standard, Gore would have won.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 4:02:55 PM
Here's the real deal.The Supreme Court has looked at all of this and decided the winner. That winner is now in office.
So.....wanna go have a beer?
I certainly agree--for all practical purposes, Bush won, whether or not that was the choice of the majority of the voting population.
Sure, I'll have a beer with you. But I have a strict rule---no shooting at quail while I'm drinking.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 16, 2006 4:05:42 PM
Well Daryl,
If one beer puts you under the influence, you may need to go drinking with the ladies.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 4:12:38 PM
Captain,
Try this link....I have many of these......all legal.
http://www.vtgunsmiths.com/arms/caniown.html
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 16, 2006 5:20:40 PM
Completely aside from partisan issues:
Does it worry anyone that we're quibbling about +/- 60 votes? The fate of the free world is being decided by sixty senile old people?
Instant. Runoff. Vote. We must go to IRV. Only then will this madness end.
Posted by: Mastiff | Feb 16, 2006 6:31:31 PM
Fred,
Good link, I did not know that. I thought you had to have a dealer's license. So as long it was manufactured before 1986, it is legal? Can it be a semi-auto manufactured before 1986 and converted by the buyer? Do you have to locate it yourself?
I used to have a machine BB gun that shot 3000 BBs per minute (it used freon). It was fun to shoot. I was king of the BB gun fights. It would kill a small animal. I never shot a fully auto gas operated (a gun that uses a cartridge) gun.
Thanks.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 6:33:35 PM
"Florida state law gives the standard as clear intent of the voter. By that standard, Gore would have won."
Again, you are believing the propaganda. They were counting overvotes as votes for Gore. Overvotes may have had a hole punched for Gore and a hole punched for Buchanan. Yet it was considered the 'clear intent' to vote for Gore because his name was punched while ignoring the hole punched for Buchanan. Luckily the Republicans had reps there to make sure those votes did not count.
The Democrats were trying to include votes that were not clear as votes for Gore. A lot of votes for Gore (as well as Bush) were overvotes where the voter punched the name of who they wanted and circle the candidates name or write it in, etc. Those overvotes were thrown out because most elections supervisors interpreted state law to say that a vote would be invalidated if a voter marked a ballot more than once in a contest.
Those are the rules.
What about the absentee ballots Gore tried to keep out because they weren't post marked? Was he following the 'clear intent' of the voter?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 16, 2006 6:52:24 PM
"Please provide a link to these 'documented' cases."
This is just the latest case, reported a few days ago: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.html
There are dozens of stories like this for Guantanamo alone, without even going into Bagram and Abu Ghraib. And thanks to Congress stripping away habeas corpus for Guantanamo, we may never find out if any innocents are caught up in the net in future.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Feb 16, 2006 8:54:42 PM
From the article:
"They shouldn't be there. Even the US military has found that the men, members of the besieged Uighur ethnic group, are not enemy combatants. But their ordeal in custody isn't over. Because they could face harsh treatment back in China - and the US doesn't want to set a precedent by granting them asylum here - they sit in a barracks-like detention center waiting for a country to give them a home."
Why are they subject to harsh treatment? We know they weren't captured on Chinese soil. I don't think China would be having any of that.
At least we aren't sending them home.
We have thousands of innocent people in US jails. Should we let everyone go to make sure no innocent people are incarcerated? As far as potential terrorists go, I would rather err on the side of caution.
The article leaves a lot out of the story. Like where were these Chinese Muslims when they were captured? What were they doing? Were these Chinese Muslims in Afghanistan? If so, why? Were they armed when captured? Why are they subject to harsh treatment at home?
If we were a less compassionate country, we would send them home.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 17, 2006 12:26:55 AM
Captain Toke,
No, you are wrong. They are not counting such votes as votes for Gore. They are counting an overvote as a vote for Gore if Gore received both a hole punch, and also a write-in vote. That's a clear intent to vote for Gore, which is the Florida standard.
And if it is propaganda, why is it buried deep inside an article titled "Bush still wins?" No, you've got it backwards. You are the one who is believing propaganda.
When all the votes are counted, Gore wins. That's what the study showed.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Feb 17, 2006 7:18:12 AM
"When all the votes are counted, Gore wins. That's what the study showed."
Daryl,
You are wrong!
One more time.
"the Herald pointed to one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory -- a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards."
Gore could only have won if votes were counted using the most generous standards.
That is not the standard Florida uses to count votes. That is the standard one uses when they want to count every vote for their candidate to win.
Gore lost, he lost Florida. By almost every scenerio and every way of counting, Bush won. But you want to use the one standard to count votes that would have let Gore win. "We found a way to count the votes that lets Gore win!" You can't change the rules after the contest.
Gore lost, get over it.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 17, 2006 12:14:37 PM
Captain,
Ask Daryl which Democratic politicians (besides Gore, of course) believe the election was stolen. Ask for names......
This will show all just how outside the mainstream these people are. When you can't find anyone of importance, not even within your own party, to agree with you, you are waaaaaaay....out there, buddy.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 17, 2006 1:24:19 PM
仓储笼
仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓库笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
杭州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
储物笼
上海仓储笼
南京仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
Posted by: judy | Oct 1, 2007 4:56:53 AM
