Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Al Gore was paid to speak at the Juddah Econimic Forum yesterday in Saudi Arabia and gave aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war. <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004544.htm" target="_blank">http://michellemalkin.com/arch ives/004544.htm</a> Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on 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. The former vice president said the Bush administration 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 Jiddah Economic Forum. I would like to point out that Al Gore has absolutely no evidence to support his accusations of unforgiveable conditions. In effect his treasonist remarks will only further provide the Islamic extremists to recruit more terrorists.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I don't think those comments meet the legal standard required to convict him of treason. You should have titled this topic, "Gore said some stuff I don't like."
Originally Posted By cape cod joe KT---------This is my hot button as I despise Gore even more than Teddy so I'll stop there as I'm in a great mood here. Whatever bad things you want done to him I'm on your side Tom.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <a href="http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/02/gorebot-attacking-america-from.html" target="_blank">http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/ 2006/02/gorebot-attacking-america-from.html</a> "Al Gore has travelled to the heart of the Wahabbi Muslim world and attacked the United States. One is almost forced to wonder whether he has completely lost his mind. Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on 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. The former vice president said the Bush administration 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 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." This is asinine both substantively and procedurally. Substantively, the idea that cracking down on Saudi visa applications is "playing into al Qaeda's hands" is laughable. Had we scrutinized Saudi visas a little more carefully in 2001, thousands of Americans who died on September 11 that year might well have lived. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on that day were Saudi nationals. If we had denied some or all of them visas, exactly how would that have "played into al Qaeda's hands"? Perhaps Gore is suggesting that notwithstanding the obvious benefits of our tough visa policies, if they irritate the House of Saud, or just the average wealthy Saudi, the Saudis will abandon the fight against al Qaeda out of pique. If so, his point is absurd. The House of Saud and al Qaeda are at war, and have been going at each other with hammer and tongs since May 2003. Whether or not some Saudis are offended by American visa policies, that inconvenience -- or indignity, even -- is nothing compared to the mortal threat of the jihadis. Procedurally, Gore's speech is repugnant. It is one thing to say such things to an American audience in an effort to change our policy. Whether or not one agrees with Gore on the substance, if he wants to change American policy to let in more Saudis the only way he can do that it is to campaign for that change among influential Americans. It is, however, another thing entirely to travel to a foreign country that features pivotally in the war of our generation for the purpose of denouncing American policies in front of the affected foreign audience. It is especially problematic to mess with Saudi political opinions, which are subject to intensive influence and coercion by internal actors and the United States, al Qaeda, and Iran, among other powers. Supposing that some Saudis were inclined to be angry over the American visa policy, won't they be more angry after Al Gore has told them that they're being humiliated? How is that helpful? Finally, Gore's outrage at the American treatment of Arab and Muslim captives may be genuine, and it may even be worthy of expression in the United States, where we aspire to do better than press accounts suggest we have done. But whatever nasty things we have done in exceptional cases in time of war, they pale in comparison to the standard operating procedure in Saudi Arabia. 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."
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Agree with him or not, heaven forbid Gore exercises his First Amendment rights. Don't ya just love how if you disagree with Adminstration policies, now you're guilty of treason??? I'll be very interested to see what happens if there's a Democratic President in January, 2009, what the likes of Malkin and all the other self-important, smug bloggers will do. Will THEY promise to move to Canada? Please?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom "Speaking from a country that sent us the majority of the 9/11 hijackers and from a conference that banned Denmark for daring to speak up against Islamist bullies, Al Gore this weekend blasted the United States for its "abuses" against Arabs: Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on 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. The former vice president said the Bush administration 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 Jiddah Economic Forum. No. The thoughtless way in which we handled Saudi visas before 9/11--handing them out indiscriminately like Pez candies through the State Department's kowtowing Visa Express program--was the mistake. A deadly mistake. 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." Let's cut through Gore's disgraceful slander and pander. The immediate post-9/11 detention of illegal aliens from suspect countries netted 762 aliens -- nearly all of them here illegally -- who were held while being investigated for possible ties to terrorism. I wrote about the Justice Department inspector general's report detailing the detentions three years ago: Squawk, squawk, squawk. The nation's leading liberal editorial writers were in full wing-flapping mode over Attorney General John Ashcroft again this week. The latest object of consternation: an internal Justice Department report regarding the post-September 11 detention of 762 aliens -- nearly all of them here illegally -- while they were investigated for possible ties to terrorism. Yes, the extensive report highlights a few significant civil liberties concerns. But as has been typical of the anti-Ashcroft Chicken Littles, the newspaper editorial attacks are rife with false claims, exaggerations and foolish belittlement of the continuing national security threats posed by lax immigration enforcement. The Los Angeles Times indignantly claimed that the feds "held most (detainees) for months without charges." False. If the Times editorial board had actually bothered to read page 30 of the inspector general's report -- rather than rely on the ACLU's talking points -- it would have seen that the inspector general found exactly the opposite. Almost all of the detainees received written word of their charges within 30 days or less. In fact, the report found only 24 cases out of the 762 where it took more than a month to serve notice of charges. And of those cases, the inspector general acknowledged that there were numerous legitimate reasons for delay, such as logistical disruptions in New York City after Sept. 11, including electrical outages, office shutdowns and mail service cancellation that slowed delivery of charging documents. As for alleged harassment and abuse of detainees, the inspector general's report stated that "we did not find evidence of a pattern of physical abuse of September 11 detainees" at one of two facilities investigated. At the other, 12 of 19 detainees claimed they were subjected to "some form of physical abuse." It does appear there was at least one brutish guard (since fired) who acted unjustly and that some detainees experienced uncomfortable conditions while in confinement. But none of the allegations of either physical or verbal abuse of detainees was sufficient to press criminal charges. The Washington Post attacked the Justice Department's cruelty in holding "people unfortunate enough to have a problem with their immigration status." Page 62 of the inspector general's report, for example, cites the purportedly outrageous delay in releasing an illegal alien who had come under suspicion because of his employment with a Middle Eastern airline. The detainee had been ordered kicked out of the country way back in 1995 for violating immigration laws, but defied the order for six years. In October 2001, he was arrested based on a lead received by the FBI. It took three and a half months for the FBI to clear him. What's more outrageous: that paperwork oversights and overloaded caseworkers led the FBI to hold this detainee for a little longer than necessary, or that hundreds of thousands of such deportation fugitives are considered by Post editorial writers and their ilk as "run-of-the-mill immigration cases" who should be left alone? The media elite may remain stubbornly oblivious to the dire consequences of winking at violations of immigration laws. The families of the murdered Sept. 11 victims can't afford that academic luxury. Yet, under the headline "Mr. Ashcroft's abuses," the St. Louis Post-Dispatch piled on: "Normally, immigrants with minor visa violations aren't arrested. But in the wake of Sept. 11, the Justice Department tried to deny the men bond and adopted a 'hold until cleared' policy." Do these critics really believe that turning all the illegal alien detainees loose before running thorough criminal and terrorist background checks would have been the ideal choice in the aftermath of Sept. 11? And wouldn't all these editorial know-it-alls be the first to complain if Ashcroft allowed the release of a single detainee who turned out to be a terrorist? The squawking never ceases. The notion that Saudis are entitled to unfettered visas to work, study, and do business in this country--the notion that entry into America is an entitlement and not a privilege--cost 3,000 innocent lives on Sept. 11, 2001. How much did the Saudis pay you to forget, Al? *** More blogger reax... Scott Johnson at Power Line dubs him "Al of Arabia." Captain's Quarters skewers Gore's sellout. Tigerhawk condemns Gore's betrayal on foreign soil. Instapundit: "Only Al Gore could come up with the idea of criticizing Bush for not sucking up to the Saudis enough. Sigh." Little Green Footballs has a photo reminder for Gore and notes that Gore has been doing the Arab-pandering speaking circuit for a while. Oblogatory Anecdotes calls him Al "Dhimmi" Gore. Judith Apter Klinghoffer notes other Saudi panderers at the Jeddah conference. Ankle Biting Pundits: Al gores the truth yet again. Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics is right: Ann Coulter's comments this weekend were dumb, but Al Gore's were truly insidious. Terry Jeffrey at Human Events Online has another reminder for Gore: Gore must not have read the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission. It concluded that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. These hijackers, the commission concluded, took advantage of weak U.S. immigration and visa enforcement. In fact, the hijackers submitted a total of 24 U.S. visa applications, of which 20 were retained in U.S. State Department files. “All 20 of these applications,†a 9/11 Commission staff report concluded, “were incomplete in some way, with a data field left blank or not answered fully.†“Three of the hijackers submitted applications that contained false statements that could have been proven to be false at the time they applied,†said the staff report, entitled “Entry of the 9/11 Hijackers into the United States.†“During their stays in the United States at least six of the 9/11 hijackers violated immigration laws,†said the report. According to the report, the 9/11 hijackers who were given visas to enter and stay in the U.S.: “Included among them known al Qaeda operatives who could have been watchlisted; Presented passports ‘manipulated in a fraudulent manner;’ Presented passports with ‘suspicious indictors’ of extremism; Made detectable false statements on their visa applications; Were pulled out of the travel stream and given greater scrutiny by border officials; Made false statements to border officials to gain entry into the United States; and Violated immigration laws while inside the United States.†Given these facts established by the 9/11 Commission, Gore’s statements in Jiddah criticizing stricter U.S. visa-law enforcement against Arab nationals after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks are not only foolish and un-American they are uninformed. We shall see if any Democratic leader calls him on it."
Originally Posted By bboisvert Article III, Section 3 - Treason Treason... is defined only as going to war against the USA, or aiding the enemies of the USA. <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html" target="_blank">http://www.usconstitution.net/ constnotes.html</a> I haven't seen evidence of treason here although I have seen what some would call libel.
Originally Posted By woody "I haven't seen evidence of treason here although I have seen what some would call libel." Can the United States sue Al Gore for libel? LOL!!! US versus Al Gore. The Florida recount was nothing compared with this.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Saudi Arabia is a fascist Monarchy. 16 of the 19 terrorist highjackers on 9-11 were Saudi citizens. Saudi Arabia financially sponcers terrorits groups including Al Qaeda and Hamas. The de facto terrorits group in the world is Al Qaeda, the leader of which Osama Bin Laden is a member of the Saudi Royal family. So sorry, not libel. Its treason to go to the belly of the beast and give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Originally Posted By bboisvert Does holding hands with a Saudi Prince at the White House count as aid or comfort? I won't even begin to count the ways that the Bush family is intertwined with the Saudis.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Saudi Arabia is a fascist Monarchy.<< Didn't seem to phase this fellow... <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/27/eveningnews/main691413.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2005/04/27/eveningnews/main691413.shtml</a>
Originally Posted By cape cod joe At this exact time in history, what I wouldn't give to have Georgey Patton as the President. Imagine a President who actually did precisely what Beau wants! Nuke em!))) He wouldn't take it that's for sure and our enemies couldn't possibly hate us any more than they already do.
Originally Posted By bboisvert RE 11 & 12 I was thinking about the title of this thread. Treason is a pretty harsh accusation.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Saudi Arabia is a fascist Monarchy. 16 of the 19 terrorist highjackers on 9-11 were Saudi citizens. Saudi Arabia financially sponcers terrorits groups including Al Qaeda and Hamas. The de facto terrorits group in the world is Al Qaeda, the leader of which Osama Bin Laden is a member of the Saudi Royal family. So sorry, not libel. Its treason to go to the belly of the beast and give aid and comfort to the enemy.<< Saudi Arabia is one of our allies. You can't commit treason by giving aid and comfort to an ally, can you? That's just silly.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip So you guys want gas for your freaking car or not? All Al was doing was trying to keep gasoline under $2.50 per gallon. Who really cares what he tells the Saudis? We never tell them what we REALLY think anyway.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "That's just silly." So is this thread. I was thinking of Bush holding hands with the Prince before but didn't have time to look for the picture. As long as that's out there, people like Malkin need to think twice before making fools of themselves. Again.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom The US has said that we will fight terrorist anywhere in the world where they are. Fact is Saudi Arabia is a sponcer of Islamic terrorism. Dosen't sound to me like they are a friend and ally. You can't be an ally of the US if your sponcering terrorism.
