one little problem with gore's speech

i posted this idea on the first speech thread but it seems to have gone unnoticed. i thought it was worth a try out on the big board.

the ideas is simple. there is a glaring omission is gore's speech. he says nothing about the official (white house) story of 9/11.

gore is obviously going out of his way to have us believe that bush has been "misleading" us since he came into office, twisting info righ and left (mostly right). he points to the dissconnect between just about everything bush has said and done, on the one hand, and the real world and truth, on the other.

yet he says nothing about 9/11. in one section he talks about bush shifting intelligence resources away from finding osama, from which i infer that he supports the official story on 9/11 and the invasion of afghanistan.

what gives? would gore have us believe that everything out of bush's mouth is a lie EXCEPT the 9/11 story? i would find such a conclusion on gore's part to be disingenuous at best. this may seem like a small thing to some but it is a huge point to me. i think anyone who has taken even a cursory look at the unanswered questions re 9/11 must conclude that the official story is AT BEST misleading in its incompleteness. and how can you talk about bush without talking about 9/11?

why was the 9/11 story not mentioned and what does it say about gore's ultimate believability/trustworthiness?

i'll check back in the morning to see if anyone cares. goodnight.

Speech of it's own.

After all, this President has claimed the right for his executive branch to send his assistants into every public library in America and secretly monitor what the rest of us are reading. That's been the law ever since the Patriot Act was enacted. If we have to put up with such a broad and extreme invasion of our privacy rights in the name of terrorism prevention, surely he can find a way to let this National Commission know how he and his staff handled a highly specific warning of terrorism just 36 days before 9/11.

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html
9 M mp3

That is exactly what I was looking for ... I remembered hearing up but was frankly far too lazy to look it up. :hi:

:-)

Gore quite clearly said "They got a specific warning and did nothing. Why?"

Two years ago yesterday, for example, according to the Wall Street Journal, the President was apparently advised in specific language that Al Qaeda was going to hijack some airplanes to conduct a terrorist strike inside the U.S.

I understand his concern about people knowing exactly what he read in the privacy of the Oval Office, and there is a legitimate reason for treating such memos to the President with care. But that concern has to be balanced against the national interest in improving the way America deals with such information. And the apparently chaotic procedures that were used to handle the forged nuclear documents from Niger certainly show evidence that there is room for improvement in the way the White House is dealing with intelligence memos. Along with other members of the previous administration, I certainly want the commission to have access to any and all documents sent to the White House while we were there that have any bearing on this issue. And President Bush should let the commission see the ones that he read too.

After all, this President has claimed the right for his executive branch to send his assistants into every public library in America and secretly monitor what the rest of us are reading. That's been the law ever since the Patriot Act was enacted. If we have to put up with such a broad and extreme invasion of our privacy rights in the name of terrorism prevention, surely he can find a way to let this National Commission know how he and his staff handled a highly specific warning of terrorism just 36 days before 9/11.

In other words, "We know that they knew. We know when they knew it. What else is there to know?"

regarding 9/11, in concert with all the *other* lies Al listed point by point in his speech yesterday. So the only *reasonable* conclusion one can draw from this is ... get ready for it .... Gore is an untrustworthy bastard. He also didn't mention black box voting. I guess that means Al is complicit in vote fixing, too ... shall we take him out back and beat the shit out of him?

Sue

inflate the 911 issue.

In my opinion, * orchestrated and intentionally held back the
airforce from shooting down those planes.

But my statement means nothing without all the hard evidence it
takes to try a court case.
There is alot of evidence, but it is all in the hands of
Ashcroft and the Supreme Court!!

What benefit would it be to Gore to Label "911-Wag the Dog" on * ?

NADA..........It is up to you, me and all the millions of
people to set them straight.

The Justice System is in their hands, you know the one where
truth and justice are irrelevant in all cases.

Well.....people are hurting economically and at this moment in time that takes priority.
As time goes on Gore will step forward on this....
Like placing him infront of the WORLD COURT where truth and justice
does prevail!!!!
You can't put all your eggs in one basket!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=151550&mesg_id=151550


jus' trying to help,
dp

It was #1 on his list of untruths told by the administration.

"1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country
and forcibly remove him from power."

most Americans cannot even begin to wrap their minds around a Reichstag fire or LIHOP scenario from the person occupying the oval office (and his advisors)...which is not the only place the official white house story leads to, but it's where it leads many people on DU

So many times on this board, politicians get criticized for being...politicians.

If you don't think that what Gore said was frank and courageous in the face of what Ambassador Wilson and General Shinseki, for instance, or Congress with late night sessions and strong-arm voting tactics..well, what can I say. I'm not in those trenches, but I can understand why politicians take certain stances at certain times.

However, Gore DID mention the Aug 2000 briefing.

He DID mention the energy policy task force.

He DID mention the secretive and unaccountable way in which Bush has tried to avoid democracy.

He DID state, outright, that we've been Bushwhacked.

If Gore's speech does not get publicity, it's not because he didn't lay out important issues for democracy.

he called for Congress to investigate the issues mentioned above. don't you think that the Aug 6 prez briefing would lead to an investigation of events of 9-11 as well?

I get tired of all the complaints.

Why not realize you can make a greater difference by focusing on how to support those politicians who are trying to get rid of the Bush junta.

quote Gore back to your reps, for instance, or in a letter to your editor.

I thought Al Gore's speech was incredibly organized and most importantly, brilliantly executed in a fashion that avoided the dreaded "liar, liar pants on fire, lie, lied, and dared to lie..." words (which the right-wingers immediately crab hold and run with).

He's given me new examples of how to express myself by saying that Bush "gave the wrong impression" instead of leading off with "Bush lied..." IMO Al Gore should double up on his body guards too.

We need to drive these points he outlined home and work to end the myths which this administration has engraved into the minds of all TOO many Americans. Hats off to Al Gore! (we need more of this!) We should repeat his words often (after all, the more you hear something the more you believe it - let's give GWB a taste of his own medicine). NOW, let's hope the party stands behind Gore's lead.
"We have lots of work to do".

or how he says it, it's always wrong with some people. Oh well, what the hell, he can't please everyone. Instead of people complaining I think we all should be out repeating over and over and over and over again EVERY word he spoke and EVERY point he was trying to make about the lying, thieving, crooked, manipulating appointed president and members of the Bush crime family.

Which is a bit more than the wrong impression but still not quite an out and out lie. Or maybe that's just the way my mind works, I don't know.

and I noted some of the very powerful words he chose to use. "Catastrophe" really sticks out in my mind--applied it to economy.

Gore rocks, he should be in the WH, we'd be in much better shape right now.

BTW, a belated welcome to DU! :hi:

Julie

or for that matter, there weren't many then.
Hey Dean meetuppers/ how's that internet?
But for the most part, we get Arnold, Chimpy, Newt, Trent Loot, Holy Joe, Zell.... We get propaganda for the powerful.
Today Karl Rove way over the top. He gave the world those going away butt shots of big belt buckled Chimpy, Dumsfeld, Cheeney, ad nauseum....blatantly homoerotic video, but then there was Connie. Connie's butt undulated just righteously enough to excite me, her face has always has made me shrivel up, but her butt was so..... was it a TV trick? Can I say better than J Lo?

I love Al Gore, but in a patriotic way. Almost a Three Musketeers way. But Connies butt filmed by artists inspired by Leni Reistenfueher.... It was propaganda nirvana. I was tempted, but.... i'm a small "d' democrat...

....or are you really that shallow? :shrug:
:wtf:

one little problem with gore's speech...this won't surprise you coming from me it was a excellent speech friend and I appreciate his VOICE and our fight to win in 2004! :-)

The REAL problem with Gore's speech is that no one knows about it but us.

.....his "courtly" phrasing reminded me of the way the Brits in Parliament talk to and about Tony Blair. Dripping with polite sarcasm and innuendo. Every word is a shiv. Skewering and basting and grilling W. It was brilliant.

and thanks for pointing out the parts i missed or misinterpreted.

i apologize. i read through pretty quickly and missed a few things.

btw, i think the parts of the speech where he does clearly call bush's veractiy into question are excellent. it was this missing piece that threw me off.