|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gore, A Loser Who Is Still Sore | ||||||
| I don't know about you, but I am getting very sick and tired of politicians and other prominent newsmakers making brash statements without thinking twice about what they are saying. Many times, these statements are from the liberal side from people who are still crying over the 2000 presidential election and cannot seem to shake the fact that they lost. Today's little gem comes from none other than Al Gore himself, the major loser in 2000 and self-proclaimed creator of the Internet. Give me a break, Albert. | ||||||
| "[The Bush administration] have taken us much farther down the road toward an intrusive, 'big brother'-style government - toward the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book '1984' - than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America," Gore said to approximately 3,000 people in a speech given on Sunday in Washington. The speech, which was sponsored by extremely liberal organizations http://www.moveon.org and the American Constitution Society, featured "Freedom and Security" as the topic, and was chock-full of hypocrisy. | ||||||
| Let me first comment on this "big brother" theme. Gore really has some nerve to say that Bush and his staff are impinging on freedoms, "big brother" style, seeing as how his own wife, Tipper, was one of the individuals behind the spearheading of the "Parental Advisory" stickers on digital media that are so commonplace nowadays. Now, granted, a sticker on a CD or DVD is not the epitome of "big brother" by any means, in fact, in the grand scheme of things, it is relatively minor, and that is not what irks me. What bothers me is the blatant duplicity in Gore's statement. Who is he to talk about "big brother" when his own wife succeeded in establishing a watchful eye on the digital media children buy, something that should be the parents' job to begin with? What business is it of hers what CD some kid buys? Perhaps a more appropriate name for Tipper would be "big sister"? | ||||||
| In another portion of the speech, Gore commented on the U.S. and its role in Iraq: "In my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama bin Laden." Not too sharp on the uptake there, are you, Al? The war in Iraq was not waged to "get at Osama bin Laden," as Gore put it, it was the first step toward showing the world that the United States will no longer tolerate terrorist nations and supporters of terrorism. This argument that so many liberals put forth of Iraq not being related to terrorism is asinine! Iraq has supported numerous terrorist groups in the past, including Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, an Iranian fundamentalist group, and Abu Nidal Organization, a Palestinian terror group, among others. It was also widely documented that Iraq gave money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, calling them "martyrs." Where do people get the idea that Iraq was fought for nothing and had "no link" to Sept. 11, 2001, or terrorism in general? I just cannot figure this mentality out, can you? | ||||||
| Gore also talked of abolishing the Patriot Act, which was created to help fight terrorism across the country. Many people seem to forget that the Patriot Act passed "nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum," according to http://www.lifeandliberty.gov. What is paradoxical, though, is that Gore would even advocate the cessation of the Patriot Act, because as a politician, he must know that the first job of the government is to protect its citizens. This is precisely what the Patriot Act was produced for, to protect Americans from terrorism and prevent another Sept. 11 from ever happening! It is not only unsettling to me that so many people do not realize this crucial point, but that a man who almost became president three years ago seems to not even acknowledge it. Kind of makes you wonder where, exactly, Gore's priorities are, that's all. | ||||||
| I am going to close with something that will probably surprise and shock many of you reading this: I voted for Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. Shortly after Sept. 11 took place, however, I realized that Gore was not the right man for the job and I breathed a sigh of relief that he did not win, and that Bush was in office. After seeing what Gore said in his speech Sunday, I can say that my views were strengthened even more so, and it is quite clear to me that Bush is in the oval office for a reason - he is the best man for the job. | ||||||
| Copyright Gerry Wachovsky, 2003, and Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. | ||||||
| Back | ||||||