Once more... Gore is Nuts!

Some friendly folks have accused me of ad hominem attacks and not addressing Gore's remarks. Do I really have to?
So to appease the crowds here are some serious issues that I have with Gore's remarks::

[George Bush] promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

I'm not sure how you quantify this? This is a big sticking point with liberals: Bush is a liar. I just don't see it. They'll point to some remarks in Poland and other remarks... but is he lying? They usually bring up the WMD issue and say "see, he lied." Let me remind you, a lie is something you do intentionally. I refer you to the excellent book by Bob Woodward. Bush is questioning Tenent in the Oval Office. He asks "Is this it? Is this all you have?" Tenent replies (twice): "It's a slam dunk."

Tenent wasn't the only one. We have Gore on the record years earlier saying that Saddam had weapons and "should be removed." More contemporaneously, we have the UK, France, the UN and Israel all saying he has weapons of mass destruction. In order to lie, George Bush must have know that he did not have weapons, and then told a "lie". He may be wrong, but that does not make him a liar.

The left is hounding the President that they did not act on the slim data they had prior to 9/11. Now they accuse the President of acting to rashly when we have loads of intelligence telling us there is a threat? Which way do they want it?

Granted, we have not found WMD and this is a problem. But it begs the question: we knew he had the WMD, so where is it now?

To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II.

So, according to Gore, the Bush administration actually set out, intentionally sought to "destroy" some etherial "policy consensus" that has existed since WWII. But does pre-emption "destroy" this policy or enhance it? I vote for the latter.

More disturbing still was their frequent use of the word "dominance" to describe their strategic goal, because an American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as dominance does...

Use of the word dominance? Where? I've searched for a while for this type of thing coming out of the mouth of Bush describing his strategies? In fact, a lot of people on the left have problems with Bush and the word dominance: Noam Chomsky, PSR and now Al Gore. PSR describes it this way: "The doctrine of dominance inherent in this Bush administration document [military strategy] is
reminiscent of an imperial mentality, which runs counter to the principles of
freedom and liberty upon which this nation was founded." The question at hand is: Dominance: good or bad. M Albright is upset that we are the only super power... so she's on the nay side. I myself think dominating something like a war is a good thing.

...is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger for more power still by striking a Faustian bargain...

So, the left-leaning types who despise organized religion have accused Bush of making a deal with the devil. On one hand they lambast Bush for the "axis of evil" phrase and then accuse him of being evil?!

We also know - and not just from De Sade and Freud - the psychological proximity between sexual depravity and other people's pain...

I'm sorry? So, the drive to "dominance" is now a Fredian attempt to satisfy some depraved sexuality? Do you have sources for this Mr. Gore. I think I'm safe in saying that this is outrageous
This is the professor we all know. So there's gotta be some type of sexual mantra behind the Bush madness.

What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances...

The natural consequences? All you can point to is a statement by Bush's attorney. I wonder if people would have problems with this scenario?

He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation -- because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him...

Can someone qualify this "attitude of contempt"? Where is it? Where has Bush said it? Is this just perception? Or is this just disagreement? Should we naturally acquiese to France, the UN? "Righteous indignation"?

...pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name...

The implication here is that we are purposely killing innocent people. What can you say of Ike or Roosevelt with their relentless bombings during WWI? Over Japan? If you answer... "they were wrong too..." then we have nothing to talk about.

The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States...

Granted, we have problems in Iraq... but incompetence? We have basically won the war. We've ousted the dictator and given freedom to millions of people... is that incompetence. I encourage you to read the debate between Spencer Ackerman and Mac Owens. Losing 700+ soldiers is a terrible loss... but let's put things in perspective... this is not incompetence. As far as making the world a dangerous place... yes, the threat of terrorism has increased because of our actions... but like a root canal, you can either put off the pain or get it taken care of. If our plan works the world will be safer and it is by far safer now that Saddam is gone.

These policies were designed and insisted upon by the Bush White House...

So the Bush administration insisted on sodomizing inmates with glow sticks?

George Bush promised to change the tone in Washington. And indeed he did. As many as 37 prisoners may have been murdered while in captivity, though the numbers are difficult to rely upon because in many cases involving violent death, there were no autopsies...

So George Bush was the one who killed these people? This is the whole mantra of Gore's argument: Bush created the aura and tone of torture and influenced the demise of the entire world because it. So a dozen people acting badly is the fault of Bush himself?

How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people...

Bush and Cheney were in those pictures weren't they? I saw them in the background.

In my opinion, John Kerry is dealing with this unfolding tragedy in an impressive and extremely responsible way.

By lambasting Bush and then going completely silent? I don't get it?

Eisenhower did not propose a five-point plan for changing America's approach to the Korean War when he was running for president in 1952...

So Bush is faulted for being specific? Do we not need a plan? Does our plan not need points? What is he trying to say here?

We desperately need a national security team with at least minimal competence because the current team is making things worse with each passing day. They are endangering the lives of our soldiers, and sharply increasing the danger faced by American citizens everywhere in the world, including here at home. They are enraging hundreds of millions of people and embittering an entire generation of anti-Americans whose rage is already near the boiling point...

Minimal competence? Has there been another attack in the US? Embittering a generation? Is that why the polls are so close?

These horrors were the predictable consequence of policy choices that flowed directly from this administration's contempt for the rule of law. And the dominance they have been seeking is truly not simply unworthy of America - it is also an illusory goal in its own right...

Dominance and contempt, these are the marching orders. But I get it now. Dominance cannot be achieved and it is wrong. This is the main issue between conservatives and liberals: Liberals don't think we can change the world and we think we can.

The president exploited and fanned those fears, but some otherwise sensible and levelheaded Americans fed them as well...

Like the majority of elected Democrats who voted for the use of force in Iraq.

This administration has shamed America and deeply damaged the cause of freedom and human rights everywhere, thus undermining the core message of America to the world...

In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as president...

So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.

Crazy... gone crazy.

UPDATE: Is the US realling winning the war? Or is it all bad news? Here are some stories that really give you a good picture about the positive things that are happening in Iraq:

See Part I and Part II (hat tip to Black Five)