 Quote:
Originally Posted by tadpole256  
Gore Blasts Bush in 'The Assault on Reason'
He doesn't assail any Democrats by name. Bush, however, he names. Over and over.
"President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years," Gore charges, regarding the warrantless surveillance program. He argues that the president does not need the enhanced domestic surveillance powers he has sought and received, often in secret, but that the competent use of the information already available would have been sufficient. Such as, for instance, the fact that Sept. 11 terrorists Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar were already on a State Department/INS watch list.
He does not flatly state that Sept. 11 would not have occurred during a Gore administration. But, he writes, "Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable, it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes."
Then, using a study from the Markle Foundation, Gore shows how better and quicker analysis -- not the increased data sought by the Bush administration -- would have led to other hijackers. Salem Alhazmi, then Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi. And so on.
But instead, Gore writes, incompetence rules the day and Bush has pushed for Orwellian powers a la "1984." Gore Launches Searing Attack on Bush
|
The only assault on reason is that being committed by good ole Algore.
Gore is saying that the President has violated the law for 6 years, and Algore states that the President does not need the powers he sought and received. Let's see if we can following the lies of Algore. First he clearly states that the President sought and received the powers he is using. Last time I checked in order for a President to be granted powers they have to be given by the Congress or the Courts. Hmmm by Algores own admission this has happened, therefore there is no way the President could have broken the law. But what can expect from the man who invented the internet (another lie by the way).
So much for reason!!!!!
dmk Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles
-Russell Kirk- |