Is Al Gore a traitor or has he simply lost his mind?

[Planogirl]

Come on Joe. This administration is very buddy-buddy with the Saudis. The only question is whether they should be.

 

[eclectics]

No kidding.

Maybe he should bring Hanoi Jane and Jimmuh Carter with him next time.

To think this loser almost became president. Hey big Al how 'bout some details on all these supposed atrocities against the Arabs. Are you lying or merely exaggerating?

We all know about free speech, but he still should speak like a responsible adult, especially during times of war. (What, did Al miss his Bush Bash speaking chance at a certain recent funeral?)

Hanoi Jane???? LOL, why all the cons seem to have this persistent desire to go back in time for every argument is beyond me. Okay, I'll bring Nixon into everything I post and we can really have a waste of time!

 

[JudicialTyranny]

 

[Planogirl]

JudicialTyranny, do you really want to play the picture game? I KNOW that I could come up with much worse pictures of President Bush quite easily.

 

[Charade]

This is interesting. The world (including the US) is tripping over itself not to offend Muslims by restricting the publishing (either self imposed or restricted by the government in some cases) the cartoons that have inflamed (the already inflamed) Muslims that already hate America (based mostly on propaganda) but Al Gore is free to speak his mind regardless of the impact it might have on Americans or the already inflamed Muslims and people are defending his right to do so.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[JCJRSmith]

And what does this have to do with the US govenment supposedly commiting atrocities against Arabs after 9/11??

Government abuses?

Try this one - espcially page 4 and 5

http://www.aaiusa.org/PDF/JZtestimony111803.pdf

Here is another:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0627-03.htm

Those should do for a start.

 

[eclectics]

This is interesting. The world (including the US) is tripping over itself not to offend Muslims by restricting the publishing (either self imposed or restricted by the government in some cases) the cartoons that have inflamed (the already inflamed) Muslims that already hate America (based mostly on propaganda) but Al Gore is free to speak his mind regardless of the impact it might have on Americans or the already inflamed Muslims and people are defending his right to do so.

You can't make this stuff up.

Which American newspaper has censored what it's cartoonists could print?

 

[Planogirl]

I don't think that his speech will incite the Muslims. If anything, it might just pacify them to admit that even the big mighty U.S. might make mistakes. It definitely wasn't a case of making fun of their religion.

I know, you can't make that up either. Sigh...

 

[Charade]

You're back with a new name??

If you don't like Bush holding hands with a Saudi? How about FDR and Churchill with Stalin. Yes, with diplomacy you do have to actually meet with heads of state from other countries.

From what I've heard, holding hands is something cultural in the Arab world and had nothing to do with helping an old man.

 

[yeartolate]

If Dawn can have free speech, so can Al Gore.

 

[Planogirl]

If Dawn can have free speech, so can Al Gore.

But Dawn isn't saying it in the Arab world! I think that is what someone else will say so I'll say it first.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

This is interesting. The world (including the US) is tripping over itself not to offend Muslims by restricting the publishing (either self imposed or restricted by the government in some cases) the cartoons that have inflamed (the already inflamed) Muslims that already hate America (based mostly on propaganda) but Al Gore is free to speak his mind regardless of the impact it might have on Americans or the already inflamed Muslims and people are defending his right to do so.

You can't make this stuff up.

Well said!

Children freely speak their mind.
Adults (should) speak responsibly.

Does Al really think he is being responsible?? How much attention does he crave??

 

[Charade]

Which American newspaper has censored what it's cartoonists could print?

I didn't say any American news outlet has done it. I've read/heard about it happening elsewhere in the world.

But aren't you curious as to why that image isn't being printed by major US news outlets? The only two I'm aware of that published the images are the Philly Inquirer and the National Review. And the Inquirer had Muslim protests to deal with the next day.

 

[yeartolate]

I just don't see it - is Al Gore really on anyones radar?

He is on my radar as much as Dan Qualye is................

 

[superbird]

Come on Joe. This administration is very buddy-buddy with the Saudis. The only question is whether they should be.

How much Saudi money did Clinton get to help build his library????

 

[Planogirl]

How much Saudi money did Clinton get to help build his library????

This all started because some people think that Gore shouldn't have made a speech in front of Saudis. I personally see nothing wrong with that. However, IF it is wrong then it's probably wrong for Bush to hold hands with the Saudi leader too.

See the difference?

 

[eclectics]

I didn't say any American news outlet has done it. I've read/heard about it happening elsewhere in the world.

But aren't you curious as to why that image isn't being printed by major US news outlets? The only two I'm aware of that published the images are the Philly Inquirer and the National Review. And the Inquirer had Muslim protests to deal with the next day.

First of all, you said "The World (including the US)". If you are now taking that statement back, I will withdraw the question. Secondly, not reprinting some other country's cartoon is not censorship either. It's their choice (the operable word here being choice). I'm sure if they wanted to reprint it, they would, and could, as is their right to do. I wouldn't venture a guess as to why they aren't. Maybe someone can dig up an editorial from some of them as to why not.

 

[Charade]

First of all, you said "The World (including the US)". If you are now taking that statement back, I will withdraw the question. Secondly, not reprinting some other country's cartoon is not censorship either. It's their choice (the operable word here being choice). I'm sure if they wanted to reprint it, they would, and could, as is their right to do. I wouldn't venture a guess as to why they aren't. Maybe someone can dig up an editorial from some of them as to why not.

I'm not taking anything back. I was just answering your question because I wasn't making myself clear.

In some cases (I'll try to dig up the links) censorship did happen. But NOT in the US (to be clear again). Call it self control or self censorship but the majority of US news outlets (print and television) did not reprint or display the cartoons. I'm asking why. Can we assume that it was because they (the US news outlets) didn't want to add fuel to the fire? The Philly paper and National Review said it was because it was necessary to fully report the story.

Yes, the operable word is choice. They chose not to.

But they also chose to reprint that (IMO) awful cartoon with the quadruple amputee soldier to represent the stretched too thin army.

Gee, I wonder why one and not the other?

 

[va32h]

I don't think Al Gore is a traitor or insane, and my husband will be leaving soon for his third deployment in this undeclared war on Al Qaeda/Iraq/Terror/Hussein/Bin Laden/Whatever-the-Hell-We-Are-Calling-It-This-Month.

 

[eclectics]

I'm not taking anything back. I was just answering your question because I wasn't making myself clear.

In some cases (I'll try to dig up the links) censorship did happen. But NOT in the US (to be clear again). Call it self control or self censorship but the majority of US news outlets (print and television) did not reprint or display the cartoons. I'm asking why. Can we assume that it was because they (the US news outlets) didn't want to add fuel to the fire? The Philly paper and National Review said it was because it was necessary to fully report the story.

Yes, the operable word is choice. They chose not to.

But they also chose to reprint that (IMO) awful cartoon with the quadruple amputee soldier to represent the stretched too thin army.

Gee, I wonder why one and not the other?

I would never venture a guess as to why the news orgs choose to print or not to print. They have the freedom to do either, but their main obligation is to print the relevant news. If other countries choose to censor their press, that is their business. If the Philly paper chose to explain why they reprinted it, that is their perogotive. If there is any editorial from a paper that did not reprint, I would be interested in reading it, rather than assume an opinion as to why they didn't. If it was "self control", it kind of deflates the cons never ending argument that the nasty liberal press will do anything to discredit and cause trouble for this administration.