Gore to Address "Constitutional Crisis"

[zimv20]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060113/cm_thenation/149140_1)


It sounds as if Al Gore is about to deliver what could be not just one of the more significant speeches of his political career but an essential challenge to the embattled presidency of George W. Bush.

In a major address slated for delivery Monday in Washington, the former Vice President is expected to argue that the Bush administration has created a "Constitutional crisis" by acting without the authorization of the Congress and the courts to spy on Americans and otherwise abuse basic liberties.

Aides who are familiar with the preparations for the address say that Gore will frame his remarks in Constitutional language. The Democrat who beat Bush by more than 500,000 votes in the 2000 presidential election has agreed to deliver his remarks in a symbolically powerful location: the historic Constitution Hall of the Daughters of the American Revolution. But this will not be the sort of cautious, bureacratic speech for which Gore was frequently criticized during his years in the Senate and the White House.

Indeed, his aides and allies are framing it as a "call to arms" in defense of the Bill of Rights and the rule of law in a time of executive excess.

The vice president will, according to the groups that have arranged for his appearance -- the bipartisan Liberty Coalition and the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy -- address "the threat posed by policies of the Bush Administration to the Constitution and the checks and balances it created. The speech will specifically point to domestic wiretapping and torture as examples of the administration's efforts to extend executive power beyond Congressional direction and judicial review."

Coming only a few weeks after U.S. Representative John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced resolutions to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and to explore the issue of impeachment, Gore in expected to "make the case that the country -- including the legislative and judicial branches and all Americans -- must act now to defend the systems put into place by the country's founders to curb executive power or risk permanent and irreversible damage to the Constitution."

Don't expect a direct call for impeachment from the former vice president. But do expect Gore to make reference to Richard Nixon, whose abuses of executive authority led to calls for his impeachment -- a fate the 37th president avoided by resigning in 1974.

Gore's speech will add fuel to the fire that was ignited when it was revealed that Bush had secretly authorized National Security Agency to monitor communications in the United States without warrants. Gore will argue that the domestic wiretapping policy is only the latest example of the administration exceeding its authority under the Constitution.

With a Congressional inquiry into Bush's repeated violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act scheduled to begin in February -- and with Bush already preparing to pitch an Nixon-style defense that suggests it is appropriate for the executive branch to violate the law when national security matters are involved -- Gore will articulate the more traditional view that reasonable checks and balances are required even in a time of war. And he will do so in a bipartisan context that will make it tougher for Republican critics to dismiss the former vice president's assertion that the Constitution is still the law of the land.

Former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, the Georgia Republican who served as one of the most conservative members of the House, plans to introduce Gore. Barr, an outspoken critic of the abuses of civil liberties contained in the USA Patriot Act critic who has devoted his post-Congressional years to defending the Bill of Rights, refers to the president's secret authorization of domestic wiretapping as "an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws."

Count on Gore, who has pulled few punches in the speeches he has delivered in recent months, to be at least as caustic.

[blackfox]

My curiousity is piqued - anyone have an idea if it will be broadcast (live or otherwise)? Either on Network, Cable or Internet? I would like to check it out.

[leekohler]

Wow. Color me impressed. It's about time.

[Sayhey]

My curiousity is piqued - anyone have an idea if it will be broadcast (live or otherwise)? Either on Network, Cable or Internet? I would like to check it out.

CSPAN (http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/fullschedule.csp?timeid=212004090358) has it scheduled to be broadcast Monday at 12:00 EST.

[Mike Teezie]

CSPAN (http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/fullschedule.csp?timeid=212004090358) has it scheduled to be broadcast Monday at 12:00 EST.

Crap, I'll be at work. Hopefully someone can Tivo it.

[solvs]

Why do they always wait until after they've lost to start showing some guts? And humanity? Better late than never, I guess. :rolleyes: If this was the Gore that ran for office in 2000, I would have gotten off my butt and voted for him.

Let this be a lesson to you Dems... when you run for office, act like you have nothing to lose. Don't listen to some commitee, playing it "safe". Prove you have balls. We like that.

[Thomas Veil]

The cynic in me says that words and speeches aren't going to do thing to stop this "president". They bounce off him like so many pebbles.

However, if Gore's speech stirs people to anger -- gets them to at least write their congressmen, or better yet actually march in protest -- then maybe something positive will happen.

[mactastic]

Well, in addition to the spinal implant, the Democratic party desperately needs some of it's senior members who aren't seeking higher office to come out forcefully on issues like this. It helps provide political cover for elected officials who want to make the same points, but who's ass is hanging in the wind if they do -- ie John Murtha.

I mean, Christ, how long did it take to get a handful of Democrats on the record as saying if they knew then what they know now they wouldn't have authorized Bush to go to war? Over 2 YEARS! :rolleyes: Even Kerry wouldn't say it until long after the election...

[Sayhey]

I agree with you mac, but to be fair Gore and Carter have been doing this for years now. They just get dismissed as cranks by most of the media. Clinton (Bill, that is) is the guy who really needs to speak out forcefully, and while he has said a few things, he has largely refrained from taking on Bush. That may change on this spying scandal.

With Democratic elected officials, the current Congressional leadership, especially Reid and Pelosi, are head and shoulders above the last crop. With Daschle and Gephardt it became more of a question of "just how far should I bend over, Mr. President?"

To me the real problem is in the statements of 2008 contenders and a couple of "mavericks" (i.e. Lieberman and Nelson) who still think Bush is right on the war. Among the contenders for 2008, Clinton's (Hillary, that is) refusal to strongly come out for ending the war is the most troubling. If only because she is the presumed front runner. I take succor in the leadership of Feingold. If Russ begins to emerge as a real alternative to Hillary, we will have a much more forceful Democratic response out there - even if Clinton wins the nomination.

Perhaps the most disappointing response is coming from that mythical sector of Senators, the "moderate" republicans. I've yet to see a meaningful challenge to the Bush on the spying (read Imperial President) or on the war. The only thing that comes close is McCain's torture amendment, and we saw just what impact that had on Bush in his remarks. The worst has been Specter and his kissass approach on Alito. Pro-Choice Republicans my foot! When it comes to the most important vote to save abortion rights in a generation they all meekly go along with the far right.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I agree with you mac, but to be fair Gore and Carter have been doing this for years now. They just get dismissed as cranks by most of the media. Clinton (Bill, that is) is the guy who really needs to speak out forcefully, and while he has said a few things, he has largely refrained from taking on Bush. That may change on this spying scandal.

Right or wrong, Clinton is the one that should be leading the Democratic Party in its debate. Despite his troubles, he is still better regarded than Bush is now.

Carter in the long term may go down as one of the better leaders during and after the fact.

Whether it was a blow job in the WH, or the wiretapping by the current administration - the people as a whole seem not to truly care here in the US. I have been impressed in the past with the actions of the people in European nations that do national strikes, and fill every plaza when they feel they are not being represented by those they elected.

IMO, we as a nation take for granted our rights and privileges. Outside of 9-11 we have not suffered the destruction that many in Europe has faced for so many more years.

The number of us that either lived in the Depression or were the next generation of those that did, are dwindling. Sacrifice is not something that about 70% of this nation knows. At least in the Depression Era or WW II concept.

Just look at how Londoners responded after the Kings Cross bombings. Or how the people of Madrid bounced back after their terrorist attack.

[mactastic]

I agree with you mac, but to be fair Gore and Carter have been doing this for years now. They just get dismissed as cranks by most of the media. Clinton (Bill, that is) is the guy who really needs to speak out forcefully, and while he has said a few things, he has largely refrained from taking on Bush. That may change on this spying scandal.

With Democratic elected officials, the current Congressional leadership, especially Reid and Pelosi, are head and shoulders above the last crop. With Daschle and Gephardt it became more of a question of "just how far should I bend over, Mr. President?"

To me the real problem is in the statements of 2008 contenders and a couple of "mavericks" (i.e. Lieberman and Nelson) who still think Bush is right on the war. Among the contenders for 2008, Clinton's (Hillary, that is) refusal to strongly come out for ending the war is the most troubling. If only because she is the presumed front runner. I take succor in the leadership of Feingold. If Russ begins to emerge as a real alternative to Hillary, we will have a much more forceful Democratic response out there - even if Clinton wins the nomination.

Perhaps the most disappointing response is coming from that mythical sector of Senators, the "moderate" republicans. I've yet to see a meaningful challenge to the Bush on the spying (read Imperial President) or on the war. The only thing that comes close is McCain's torture amendment, and we saw just what impact that had on Bush in his remarks. The worst has been Specter and his kissass approach on Alito. Pro-Choice Republicans my foot! When it comes to the most important vote to save abortion rights in a generation they all meekly go along with the far right.Sure individuals have been speaking out, but the organized effort at providing cover includes think-tanks, media exposure, and the money support to keep it all rolling. What the right has working for them.

[zimv20]

anyone manage to listen to a live broadcast? i was unable to, but i just finished reading the speech (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_0116.html).

well said, imo. lots of good bits, but my favorite came near the end:
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
still can't believe we got bozo bush instead of the eloquent mr gore.

[blackfox]

anyone manage to listen to a live broadcast? i was unable to, but i just finished reading the speech (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_0116.html).



I watched it (via streaming media). Evidently there was a little trouble with the satellite feed, so Rep. Barr was unable to make his intro of Mr Gore.

As for Gore, I liked the speech also, although Gore was a little uninspiring in his delivery, though he gained considerable enthusiasm towards the end, which reminded me of the bearded Gore from a few years back - full of fire.

I wonder how the Administration and/or the GOP will play this speech - if indeed they even give it acknowledgement. It would be fairly hard to pin the "partisan politics" label on the speech as it was obviously anything but.

I found the section of Gores' speech concerning the decline of the Senate to be particularily interesting - not because it was surprising - but because it was quite frank - and imo, therefore quite pragmatic.

Talk about a State of the Union address...

[zimv20]

Talk about a State of the Union address...
indeed. for once, i'd like to hear something other than "strong" at the end of "The state of our union is". i recommend "imperiled".

fwiw, abc world news tonight did do a segment on the speech. i noted, however, that it was short and they used gore's image and speech as background only, while elizabeth vargas gave a summary over top. i don't think a 10 or 15 second soundbite was asking too much.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Republicans will resort to name calling and swiftboating this subject into so much crap that in the end the typical TV watching, junk food eating fat arse American will think its gospel and that Gore is the Enemy.:rolleyes: Our Govt has gone down the tubes when a draft dodging president/vice president are pushing for torture,spying on americans without warrants.

[mactastic]

I've already heard a couple versions of "Oh he's still sore about losing the '00 election."

[zimv20]

and here's (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gore17jan17,0,1301835.story?coll=la-story-footer&track=morenews) the RNC reaction:

Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the speech demonstrated Gore's "lack of understanding of the threats facing America."

She added: "While the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger."

interesting how she says "Democrats" instead of "Al Gore". the article also says the WH had no comment. at least not one they'll make directly, it seems.

[xsedrinam]

I've already heard a couple versions of "Oh he's still sore about losing the '00 election."
I don't know exactly what it is about Gore that bugs me. Whether it's his delivery and body language which seem to stifle his content, or what. I can both see and accept Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, even George Sr. as needed voices of the statesmen who have mellowed with years of experience and their positions for better or worse I can at least hear and resonate where it fits. I just can't hear Gore.

[zimv20]

I just can't hear Gore.
it's too bad. i'm hard pressed to think of anyone more qualified or able to lead this country.

have you read the speech? maybe words on the page will work better.

[xsedrinam]

it's too bad. i'm hard pressed to think of anyone more qualified or able to lead this country.

have you read the speech? maybe words on the page will work better.
Ya, that's the paradox. I read an article (can't remember which one) a couple of months ago having to do with integrity issues and the slippery slope politics in general is on, and thought it was well written and provided food for thought. It's the "man" himself and, though I've never met him, I've held to a general principle in rhetoric that "meaning is in people". I admit to needing to look harder at the whys and whats of it, but it's had not so much to do with content as with delivery. Maybe after all these years, I really do listen at a 7th grade level. :eek:
Added edit: Is there any chance we'll see a Hillary/Gore ticket? I think the Democratic Party has some major identity challenges to overcome in presenting any credible ticket for '08.

[blackfox]

Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the speech demonstrated Gore's "lack of understanding of the threats facing America."
Well, there's today's irony award recipient.
I must say, whatever your political stripe - the things at stake right now - civil liberties, threats of international and domestic terrorism, integrity of our system of governance (to name a few) - seem to be given a back seat once again to rhetoric - which should give pause to us all.

Although portions of Gore's speech made explicit or implicit references to the Bush Administration (negatively) it was in relation to a larger series of points - to those serious threats - which I would think everyone would agree deserve some consideration - as they are NOT partisan.

I would've thought a more appropriate response from our current Administration would be to address those points with the consideration they deserve - and to make their case for their actions in reference to that context - do we as citizens not deserve as much? From any Administration?

[solvs]

I don't know exactly what it is about Gore that bugs me.
It's not just you. I can't stand Bush, but Gore has always rubbed me the wrong way. Nobody likes the smartest guy in school. Especially if he is too cocky. But if this was him in '00, I would have voted for him.

(for the record, I didn't vote for Bush either. Didn't vote at all because I didn't really feel it necessary, especially being in CA at the time. Almost voted for Nader, but I'm glad I didn't. If only we knew huh)

[takao]

still can't believe we got bozo bush instead of the eloquent mr gore.

that has been a mystery from the beginning ;)

that aside he gets extra kudos for voice acting as himself in Futurama

[XNine]

Gore...Bush... is there a difference in the level of stupidity?

I think we should jsut impeach Bush, strike Gore from ever speaking again, and get George Carlin in office where someone who actually knows what the hell is going on can take charge.

[zimv20]

strike Gore from ever speaking again
are you taking issue with his speaking style or his words?

[aquajet]

Gore...Bush... is there a difference in the level of stupidity?

I think we should jsut impeach Bush, strike Gore from ever speaking again, and get George Carlin in office where someone who actually knows what the hell is going on can take charge.

Gore may sound like a robot when he speaks, but he always has something thoughtful to say. And while I don't agree with everything he says, he's infinitely more qualified than either Bush or Carlin.:rolleyes:

[blackfox]

With the comments surrounding Mr. Gore's poor speaking style/delivery (which I too notice) - it is a terrible shame that something like that should disqualify a man who is otherwise very competent as a potential leader.

I am reminded of the Presidential Primaries (2000 iirc), where Bill Bradley - who was obviously articulate and intelligent - actually had those qualities held against him - as though his lack of great looks and theatricality should actually matter.

If you go for shallow considerations - well, you've seen what we got.

[solvs]

With the comments surrounding Mr. Gore's poor speaking style/delivery (which I too notice) - it is a terrible shame that something like that should disqualify a man who is otherwise very competent as a potential leader.
Nothing wrong with being articulate, or wooden, but it creates the impression that the speaker is uncaring and disconnected. Gore came off as cocky and arrogant during the 2000 elections, whereas Bush made it seem like he cared. Of course, now we know that unlike Clinton, he was just acting, but that is the perception. As I said, if Gore had been as passionate then as he is now, he might have done better. Especially if George was as he is now.

[XNine]

With the comments surrounding Mr. Gore's poor speaking style/delivery (which I too notice) - it is a terrible shame that something like that should disqualify a man who is otherwise very competent as a potential leader.

I am reminded of the Presidential Primaries (2000 iirc), where Bill Bradley - who was obviously articulate and intelligent - actually had those qualities held against him - as though his lack of great looks and theatricality should actually matter.

If you go for shallow considerations - well, you've seen what we got.


Except he's still a better speaker than Bush.

ZimV and Aquajet: I'm against his style. See my previous sentence. Although, wasn't he the one that mispelled potato? Then again, Bush did have a picture of him taken reading a children's book upside down... Who's worse? I can't really tell.

[zimv20]

ZimV and Aquajet: I'm against his style.
understood. i don't think style matters, though.

wasn't he the one that mispelled potato?
that was dan quayle who misspelled it.

[XNine]

understood. i don't think style matters, though.


that was dan quayle who misspelled it.

Ah, thank you. That was a long time ago and I think I was like 12 when that happened anyway. Ah well.

[aquajet]

ZimV and Aquajet: I'm against his style. See my previous sentence. Although, wasn't he the one that mispelled potato? Then again, Bush did have a picture of him taken reading a children's book upside down... Who's worse? I can't really tell.

It's one thing to speak like an arrogant Speak & Spell™ about matters relating to the Constitution. It's quite another to read a children's book upside down.

[xsedrinam]

It's one thing to speak like an arrogant Speak & Spell™ about matters relating to the Constitution. It's quite another to read a children's book upside down.
It does give pause, however...

[aquajet]

That's depressing.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Well we are stuck unless by some chance a lighting bolt strikes Dubya but then we would be stuck with a bigger draft dodger like Cheney and then if something happened to him another draft dodger Hastert. What a bunch of scum we have running our country. The Republican draft dodgers

[XNine]

Well we are stuck unless by some chance a lighting bolt strikes Dubya but then we would be stuck with a bigger draft dodger like Cheney and then if something happened to him another draft dodger Hastert. What a bunch of scum we have running our country. The Republican draft dodgers


Hey, be fair, Clinton dodged the draft too. Course, he did get head and that's always a plus, BUT HE DID IT TOO! :p

[Dont Hurt Me]

Hey, be fair, Clinton dodged the draft too. Course, he did get head and that's always a plus, BUT HE DID IT TOO! :pTrue, im not republican though use to be nor democrat but independent. It just amazes me we have elected the folks with the least character, the least honor to run our corrupt Govt. Perfect isnt it.

[Sayhey]

Gore...Bush... is there a difference in the level of stupidity?


Let's see -- 2000+ US dead in Iraq, tens of thousands Iraqi dead, ballooning deficits, collapsing civil liberties, degradation of the environment, .... shall I go on?

Really, what Gore has against him is that people don't like his manner of speaking. Gore has a stilted speaking style in which it appears he works too hard to pitch his voice in just the right manner to convey the "proper" emotion. It's like a bad DJ doing funky ads; until you get the fact he mostly really believes in what he's saying, and just never got the hang of speaking in a "natural" voice in public. It's an important skill for a President to have, but it doesn't substitute for substance. Gore has substance, if no style.

[mactastic]

It's an important skill for a President to have, but it doesn't substitute for substance. Gore has substance, if no style.
And what do Americans prefer? ;)

[atszyman]

True, im not republican though use to be nor democrat but independent. It just amazes me we have elected the folks with the least character, the least honor to run our corrupt Govt. Perfect isnt it.

As a general rule we should stop electing anyone who wants the job...

It was stated in another thread, politics should be like jury duty. Something everyone should do, but no one wants to...

Maybe politicians should be paid like jury duty and get like $6 a day for the work they do...

[zimv20]

And what do Americans prefer? ;)
no substance. substance makes us feel inadequate.

[aquajet]

It was stated in another thread, politics should be like jury duty. Something everyone should do, but no one wants to...

I think that's a terrible idea. Clearly there are plenty of people who have no business in politics. I'm one of them. ;)

[Thomas Veil]

That's depressing.To be fair, that picture with Bush holding the book upside down is a fake. We had a whole thread about it prior to the election.

If you go for shallow considerations - well, you've seen what we got.I heard a lot of Bush voters talk about what an "average guy" Bush is. They seem to feel his stupidity makes him seem more like them. No argument there.

[Sayhey]

And what do Americans prefer? ;)

I like to think substance can win over style with no substance, but, then again, we are the only nation that produced a group that would call themselves the Know Nothing Party (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_050800_knownothingp.htm). And one doesn't have to go that far back in history to see the power of anti-intellectual sentiments. Just witness the jibes of "egghead (http://www.who2.com/adlaistevenson.html)" applied to Stevenson in the '50s. Not that one has to be a genius to have substance, but the selling of our politicians does focus on many of the most superficial traits - our Governor in California being maybe the best example of all.

PS - if you haven't watched the whole speech, you owe it to yourselves to do so. It is a speech of substance on the most important issues facing this country. And, btw, Gore does a fairly good job in his delivery.

[atszyman]

I think that's a terrible idea. Clearly there are plenty of people who have no business in politics. I'm one of them. ;)

But the fact that you are here shows that you might be inclined to research a decision and try to understand both sides before figuring out what's best for the citizens of this country. Which is better than about 90% of our current crop running this country whose allegiances lie in this order :

1. Big re-election donors
2. Political Party
3. U.S. citizens

which is unfortunately completely backwards from the way it should be.

[XNine]

Let's see -- 2000+ US dead in Iraq, tens of thousands Iraqi dead, ballooning deficits, collapsing civil liberties, degradation of the environment, .... shall I go on?

Really, what Gore has against him is that people don't like his manner of speaking. Gore has a stilted speaking style in which it appears he works too hard to pitch his voice in just the right manner to convey the "proper" emotion. It's like a bad DJ doing funky ads; until you get the fact he mostly really believes in what he's saying, and just never got the hang of speaking in a "natural" voice in public. It's an important skill for a President to have, but it doesn't substitute for substance. Gore has substance, if no style.


Alright, Bush wins in the stupidity race.

I am not a dem or a republican by any means, I think both sides have horrible agendas.

However, I am happy that SOMEONE, ANYONE is standing up and taking aim at the President for breaking the law. How in the hell do we start the impeachment process? Seriously... LEt's get Bush out.

[Dont Hurt Me]

atszyman has it right, Donators,Party then a very distant 3rd is pretending to do the peoples work. I love how the republicans are scrambling on undoing some of Bush's boondogles just before elections. Border security is still a joke and though Bush & Rice talk up a lot of spin they just have done little after 5 years of the war on terror. If we are at risk they sure as hell have done little on the border and on immigration reform yet the republicans run the whole govt so whats the problem? America isnt on the politicians agenda except during election. Its discraceful as an American to hear Bush wants to spy and torture yet the border is still open. The president just added a few hundred agents and that took 5 years! and he only did that because it was jammed down the administration throat by other republicans. There is no one in Govt looking out for the people and this was the prime reason our forfathers drew up the Constitution and Bill of rights only they didnt forsee Corporations taking it over with lobbiest and paid for politicians.

[blackfox]

I like to think substance can win over style with no substance, but, then again, we are the only nation that produced a group that would call themselves the Know Nothing Party (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_050800_knownothingp.htm). And one doesn't have to go that far back in history to see the power of anti-intellectual sentiments. Just witness the jibes of "egghead (http://www.who2.com/adlaistevenson.html)" applied to Stevenson in the '50s. Not that one has to be a genius to have substance, but the selling of our politicians does focus on many of the most superficial traits - our Governor in California being maybe the best example of all.


You know all of this makes me seriously wonder if we have the National character to elect the kind of leader that we might really need.

With the decreased attention spans, media saturation and lobbying/fundraising influence - would it be possible to elect an FDR, a Truman or a Lincoln? All were Presidents who dealt with a country facing severe problems in need of answers, and none were that telegenic.

This is not to say that Gore is necessarily that kind of Leader, but he does bring the point to mind...

[solvs]

Hey, be fair, Clinton dodged the draft too.
Ah, but he did it because he's a hippy and was against the war. ;) And the wars that he was responsible for during his presidency didn't go as bad as the ones during Bush's. Bush didn't exactly draft dodge, but even worse, he pretended to be pro-war and used his daddy's influence to get him a cushy gig as far away from combat as he could. And even then he didn't show up. Now he's trying to portray himself as a war hero, and infers that those who actually are are unAmerican traitors. Much worse. Cheney just made up excuses not to go.

Look up what Al Gore was doing during Vietnam, I think you'll be surprised.

[aquajet]

However, I am happy that SOMEONE, ANYONE is standing up and taking aim at the President for breaking the law. How in the hell do we start the impeachment process? Seriously... LEt's get Bush out.

Write your Senators. In fact, write all of them. Not that it'll help, but at least you can feel a little better.

[solvs]

And now Kerry is (finally) fighting back. Here he responds to something said by Chris Mattews (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/19.html#a6780) (among others) about Bin Laden sounding like Michael Moore and the Dems:

"You'd think the only focus tonight would be on destroying Osama Bin Laden, not comparing him to an American who opposes the war whether you like him or not. You want a real debate that America needs? Here goes: If the administration had done the job right in Tora Bora we might not be having discussions on Hardball about a new Bin Laden tape. How dare Scott McClellan tell America that this Administration puts terrorists out of business when had they put Osama Bin Laden out of business in Afghanistan when our troops wanted to, we wouldn't have to hear this barbarian's voice on tape. That's what we should be talking about in America."

[skunk]

"This Administration puts terrorists out of business"? Excuse me, but I thought the US put Bin Laden in business.:confused:

[Sedulous]

Hey, be fair, Clinton dodged the draft too. Course, he did get head and that's always a plus, BUT HE DID IT TOO! :p

Difference is that Bush is more than willing to send others off to die so Dick Cheney's stock stays nice and high (and yes, I know his stock is frozen, but only until he is out of office, or of course, they just ignore that law too).

[Sedulous]

"This Administration puts terrorists out of business"? Excuse me, but I thought the US put Bin Laden in business.:confused:

no, no that was George Bush 1, we are at Bush 2.

And coming in Fall 2008, Bush 3: The Revengencing.

[solvs]

Difference is that Bush is more than willing to send others off to die so Dick Cheney's stock stays nice and high
Not to mention Clinton was against the war. And when he did send troops during his presidency, he did a far better job than BushCo. Being a conscientious objector is one thing, but being a chickenhawk is just being hypocritical.