Al Gore has attracted lightning from Republicans of all stripes for his recent comments before an Arab audience in Saudi Arabia. Gore was one of many featured speakers from around the world at the recent Jeddah Economic Forum.
Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at US 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."
"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jeddah 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."
"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."
All these things said by Gore are true. That can't be denied.
And as for Gore's statement that those actions don't represent the majority of Americans, I hope it's true that the majority of people in this nation do not feel hatred for and suspicion of all Arabs and are in support of these abuses. Even those who are attacking Gore admit that, yes, we did these things, we rounded up perhaps as many as a thousand but it was only a small number who were detained indefinitely (a month or more) without charges - just a couple dozen - and it was understandable after the 9/11 terrorist attack.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported "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." Charges of some physical abuse was acknowledged by the inspector general's office but said, as for alleged harassment and abuse of detainees, "we did not find evidence of a pattern of physical abuse of September 11 detainees" at one of two facilities investigated. At one other, 12 of 19 detainees claimed they were subjected to "some form of physical abuse." There was at least one brutish guard 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 inspector general's office claimed. Of course that was their judgment and not the detainees.
The statements made by Al Gore are considered over the top by many of the right wing who are avowed enemies of Gore or anyone who criticizes Bush and his administration calling those criticisms "anti-American" and "treasonous". In fact, columnist Cal Thomas actually charged Gore with treason posting this definition of treason in his column: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
He even went as far to compare Gore to Nazi's saying, "For Gore to make his anti-American remarks in Saudi Arabia is at least as bad as what Nazi sympathizers said in this country and abroad leading up to and during World War II."
Thomas is hatemongering, divisive and disgusting! But then, he has books to sell and readers who expect him to be irrational and rabid.
C'mon, Cal, even you are bright enough to see that Al Gore's remarks fall extremely short of treason. You are aren't you?
First of all, according to this definition, Cal Thomas seems to consider Saudi Arabia, an enemy. I didn't know Saudi Arabia was a declared an enemy of the US - are we at war with them? Are they part of the expanding axis of evil? Is this more classified information leaked from Chaney's office?
I'm confused. Is this the same Saudi Arabia of which the Bush family holds the royal family in such high esteem? The same country whose Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, and his wife are very close to the entire Bush family, Prince Bandar coming and going into the Oval Office as he wishes, a guest of Bush Senior at Kennebunkport, the Prince's wife inviting a lonely Bush daughter over for Thanksgiving dinner, and so on? And, if so, why would Thomas and the others pile on Gore for "pandering" to the Saudi's when the Bush family have whored themselves to the Saudi royal family for many years and have close business ties with them that helps feed both family's huge fortunes? Is the president's father, ex-president George H Walker Bush, guilty of treason because of business dealings with Saudi Arabia? If Saudi Arabia is the enemy wouldn't weapons and oil deals with the Saudis constitute "aiding the enemy"?
Is the event where Gore spoke recently the same as the annual Saudi event held in 2002 where Neil Bush, Dubya's brother spoke? The same "enemy" that Neil Bush pandered to for money to support a private business venture when he spoke before an audience that included the Saudi Bin Ladin Construction Group and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal?
On the other hand, Al Gore was scheduled to speak at this same event where Neil Bush spoke but pulled out because he thought it was improper to speak to them considering the fact that most of the terrorists that committed the 9/11 terrorist act were Saudi's and an investigation into Saudi Arabia's involvement was in progress.
But that didn't stop Neil Bush. Is he and the entire Bush family, including Cheney and all the other war profiteers who are in bed with the Saudi royal family, more guilty of treason by Thomas's standard of aiding the enemy? Why would these crimes be any less than the few words of apology that Al Gore spoke in an attempt to relieve tensions between the mid-east and the US. ?
What a conundrum for those who oppose the policies of the current administration. If you criticize the president "during a time of war" you are guilty of treason.
Even though terrorists have existed since the beginning of civilization, by declaring a continuing war with a group of multinational "terrorists" of unspecified identity and of various or unknown countries of origin, we are at war in perpetuity. Therefore, the office of the president has unlimited powers and can breach the law and our constitution as he or she sees fit in the interests of "national security". Congress now has no say in the matter. How does that differ from a police state, a dictatorship?
George W Bush says he will do whatever he deems necessary to protect our nation, that this is the job of the president. Is it possible this could mean putting future national elections on hold since undoubtedly, the office of the president will naturally come under severe criticism from the opposition parties? Since the president has unlimited powers in time of war and he has declared we are at war for the foreseeable future, criticism of the president which reaches fever pitch during an election would distract the president and embolden the enemy - therefore no more elections until we have conquered all terrorists. Make sense to you?
Let me once again thank Ralph Nader for what he did for our country in 2000. Or I should say - to our country.
Gary
Al Gore's Diminished Capacity by Cal Thomas
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/calthomas/2006/02/16/186908.html
Bush Advisers Cashed in on Saudi Gravy Train
by Jonathan Wells, Jack Meyers and Maggie Mulvihill
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm
For much, much more on Bush and the Saudi royal family simply Google Bush and Saudi royal family.
No comments:
Post a Comment