The Al Gore Lecture : All The Gory Details  (Part 2)

June 3, 2004

And Gore went on….

There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with.  But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse.  We are less safe because of his policies.  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.

He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us.  And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries.  And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name.

I know Al Gore isn’t the brightest bulb in the box, but let’s look at his comment logically.

Since 9/11, how many terrorist attacks have we had in our country?  I realize at any time I may have to eat my words, but the terrorists are cowards who live by the sucker punch.  Some on the left complain about the inconvenience caused by the raising and lowering of terror alerts, but since the cells depend on the element of surprise, it’s hard to carry out a mission when the whole world’s watching.

In the New World of international terror, no one is safe, but we are safer in a country that fights terrorism than one that willingly succumbs to it.  Al, do you think the Spanish who voted out a president that supported the war on terror, feel safer now with one who did what the terrorists demanded?

As for insulting a “religion and culture and tradition” that suppresses speech through intimidation, stones to death those who violate primitive edicts, and considers anyone not of their religion someone who should be killed, an insult should be the least of our worries.

President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror.”  It's not the central front in the war on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for terrorists.  Dick Cheney said, "This war may last the rest of our lives.”  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.  Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict " has arguable focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition.”  The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks.

The war plan was incompetent in its rejection of the advice from military professionals and the analysis of the intelligence was incompetent in its conclusion that our soldiers would be welcomed with garlands of flowers and cheering crowds.  Thus we would not need to respect the so-called Powell doctrine of overwhelming force.

There was also in Rumsfeld's planning a failure to provide security for nuclear materials, and to prevent widespread lawlessness and looting.

I beg to differ with the International Institute of Strategic Studies when we never heard of the successes (or failures) of Clinton’s Drive-By diplomacy.

Whether intentional or not, the Bush plan has demonstrated one little bit of sheer genius: the terrorists who were discreetly embedded in surrounded countries are flooding into Iraq to aid stalked and pinned-down murderous clerics who are being systematically picked off one-by-one.  At some point, some of these recruits will see that their lives are being wasted and maybe with some further reading of the Quran, will see that indiscriminate murder is not the path to the rivers of milk of honey.

No one foresees widespread lawlessness and looting.  When California Congresswoman Maxine Waters stood in front of the Parker Center chanting “No justice, no peace”, I don’t think she or anyone else expected the lawlessness that became the Los Angeles Riot.  If Rumsfeld even hinted that Iraqis would loot, the left would’ve called him insensitive and a racist.

You just can’t win with these people….

Luckily, there was a high level of competence on the part of our soldiers even though they were denied the tools and the numbers they needed for their mission.  What a disgrace that their families have to hold bake sales to buy discarded Kevlar vests to stuff into the floorboards of the Humvees!  Bake sales for body armor.

Don’t go there, Al.

Liberals have been badmouthing the military for decades.  Any chance they got to divert military funding for more important domestic programs, they did.  Before it became political suicide to do anything else, the military was the source of fear and loathing for the left.  Remember Clinton’s own written words on his personal loathing of the military.

Now Al cares.  We should all rest easier.

And the worst still lies ahead.  General Joseph Hoar, the former head of the Marine Corps, said, "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure.  We are looking into the abyss."

When a senior, respected military leader like Joe Hoar uses the word "abyss", then the rest of us damn well better listen.  Here is what he means: more American soldiers dying, Iraq slipping into worse chaos and violence, no end in sight, with our influence and moral authority seriously damaged.

Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, who headed Central Command before becoming President Bush's personal emissary to the Middle East, said recently that our nation's current course is "headed over Niagara Falls."

The Commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, Army Major General Charles H. Swannack, Jr., asked by the Washington Post whether he believes the United States is losing the war in Iraq, replied, "I think strategically, we are.”  Army Colonel Paul Hughes, who directed strategic planning for the US occupation authority in Baghdad, compared what he sees in Iraq to the Vietnam War, in which he lost his brother: "I promised myself when I came on active duty that I would do everything in my power to prevent that ... from happening again." 

As we learned in the O.J. case, one can always find an expert to bolster your personal agenda.  In this case, I believe these retired generals are speaking out of political partisanship rather than personal conviction.

To have any active duty general tell the Washington Post that he believes we are losing the war is nothing short of blasphemous.  Did that airhead figure in what effect his comments may have on the morale of the troops under him?  What would he have done to someone in his command that would say that to the press?

With the lowering of etiquette and elimination of professional courtesy initiated by Clinton, statements like these from past and present generals seem inevitable, yet still reprehensible. 

Noting that Vietnam featured a pattern of winning battles while losing the war, Hughes added "unless we ensure that we have coherence in our policy, we will lose strategically."

The White House spokesman, Dan Bartlett was asked on live television about these scathing condemnations by Generals involved in the highest levels of Pentagon planning and he replied, "Well they're retired, and we take our advice from active duty officers."

Couldn’t have said it better….

But amazingly, even active duty military officers are speaking out against President Bush.  For example, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior General at the Pentagon as saying, " the current OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) refused to listen or adhere to military advice.”  Rarely if ever in American history have uniformed commanders felt compelled to challenge their commander in chief in public.

The sickest aspect of this verbal insubordination is that it’s all politically driven for the sole purpose of ousting Bush.

During the fun days of Bosnia, do any of us remember the press soliciting these kind of questions to active duty soldiers?  As has happened in Iraq, how many reporters asked soldiers what they thought of Clinton after a few months in Kosovo?  If there is a more blatant example of the liberal media at work, please show me.

If the liberals really cared about the troops as they constantly reassure us they do (because deep down inside they don’t and they know we don’t believe a damn word they say), they would be very careful about the statements they solicit and the ones they print.

The enemy has access to the Washington Post as well.

The Post also quoted an unnamed general as saying, "Like a lot of senior Army guys I'm quite angry" with Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush Administration.  He listed two reasons.  "I think they are going to break the Army," he said, adding that what really incites him is "I don't think they care."

Again, Clinton once said he “loathed” the military.  No such comments from “unnamed” generals then.

I just can’t believe the whining coming from the top.  With the exception of Fox News, we are seldom shown the positive stories from Iraq.  You know, stories that may paint an overall different picture of what is really going on there.

No, we just get idiots like Gore and the media bitching and moaning about how evil the Bush Administration is, how incompetent the staff and the war plan is, with no regard for how this affects the troops and the enemy.

In his upcoming book, Zinni blames the current catastrophe on the Bush team's incompetence early on.  "In the lead-up to the Iraq war, and its later conduct," he writes, "I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption."

Is this a coincidence or what?

We have at least seven anti-Bush/Republican movies coming out before September.  We’ve had Richard Clarke’s book, Clinton’s soon-to-be-released book, and now another anti-Bush book from Zinni.  To any of you agents out there, I can have a book ready for publication around, let’s say, the summer of 2008…?

Seriously, the number of money-grubbing political hitmen/whores is growing.  Every time another American soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, I hope your printed words of insurgency encouragement make you proud.

Zinni's book will join a growing library of volumes by former advisors to Bush -- including his principal advisor on terrorism, Richard Clarke; his principal economic policy advisor, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was honored by Bush's father for his service in Iraq, and his former Domestic Adviser on faith-based organizations, John Dilulio, who said, "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, run by the political arm.  It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

I hate to keep referring back to the previous administration, but did Bill and Hillary allow departments to operate independently or did they micromanage almost every aspect of the day-to-day operations?  And what happened to the majority of whistleblowers against that administration?  Remember the media onslaught that would be directed, and run with as directed, by the last White House?  How many people who’ve spoken against Bush have had to retain lawyers?

If the Bush Administration is the reign of the “Mayberry Machiavellis”, then the Clinton Administration was the reign of the “Gotti Machiavellis.”

Which would you prefer?

Bob Parks