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

[bsnyder]

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.

Are you really as ignorant of this story as you're professing to be? Self-censorship by the major media in the U.S. out of fear of the violent reactions of muslim extremists doesn't concern you a bit?

 

[Charade]

Are you really as ignorant of this story as you're professing to be? Self-censorship by the major media in the U.S. out of fear of the violent reactions of muslim extremists doesn't concern you a bit?

Apparently not.

But they plastered that amputee cartoon all over the place. Obviously they didn't care how it affected anyone.

 

[eclectics]

Are you really as ignorant of this story as you're professing to be? Self-censorship by the major media in the U.S. out of fear of the violent reactions of muslim extremists doesn't concern you a bit?

Heavens be, I would never claim to be as intellegent as you. And the proof to back up your statement is what? I would love to read it.

 

[jekajekalynn]

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

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

That is tooooooo funny!! lol
You really boiled down the obsurditity of this thread...


I know I personally take great stake in what ex-vice presidents say .. What can I say... it is one of my hobbies!! Hmmmm... I wonder if Spiro Agnew is still alive ...

 

[bsnyder]

Heavens be, I would never claim to be as intellegent as you. And the proof to back up your statement is what? I would love to read it.

I wasn't commenting on my intelligence, nor yours for that matter, only on your apparent lack of knowledge (and curiosty) on this particular subject matter.

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.

They are reporting on the cartoons and the violence, because it's obviously "relevant" and newsworthy.

As for venturing a "quess" here are some of the major news outlets excuses...oops, I mean reasons, for not publishing the cartoons:

AP:
"'We don't distribute content that is known to be offensive, with rare exceptions. This is not one of those exceptions. We made the decision in December and have looked at the issue again this week and reaffirmed that decision not to distribute,' Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said in response to queries about the cartoons."

NBC:
"NBC has been airing a brief picture that shows only part of the cartoon. 'We felt that in order to convey the essence of the story, it was not necessary to show the entire cartoon,' said spokesperson Allison Gollust."

CBS:
"At CBS News, the decision was made not to run the cartoons. 'We could explain it, so we didn't need to show it,' says Linda Mason, CBS News senior vice president, standards and special projects, who compares the decision to one not to show dead soldiers. 'Any rendering of Muhammad is an insult to Muslims, and desecration is even worse,' she says, adding that the decision was made out of a desire not to unnecessarily offend, not because of the demonstrations or 'out of fear of retribution.'"

ABC:
"ABC News ran an image of a cartoon on various broadcasts last week but stopped in follow-ups. 'We understand the sensitivity of this issue, particularly among our Muslim viewers,' ABC News spokeswoman Cathy Levine said. 'We feel we can report this story now without needing to continually show the offending image.'"

Read more.

CNN (take 1):
"CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam."

CNN (take 2):
"CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself."

New York Times:
"New York Times editor Bill Keller said that he and his staff concluded after a 'long and vigorous debate' that publishing the cartoon would be 'perceived as a particularly deliberate insult' by Muslims. 'Like any decision to withhold elements of a story, this was neither easy nor entirely satisfying, but it feels like the right thing to do.'"

Washington Post:
"'They wouldn't meet our standards for what we publish in the paper,' said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, which ran a front-page story on the issue Friday, but has not published the cartoons. 'We have standards about language, religious sensitivity, racial sensitivity and general good taste.'"

Los Angeles Times:
"The Los Angeles Times sent this statement to E&P this afternoon: 'Our newsroom and op-ed page editors, independently of each other, determined that the caricatures could be deemed offensive to some readers and the there were effective ways to cover the controversy without running the images themselves.'" [This from the paper that ran an op-ed arguing that we shouldn't support the troops.]

USA Today:
"At USA TODAY, 'we concluded that we could cover the issue comprehensively without republishing the cartoon, something clearly offensive to many Muslims. It's not censorship, self or otherwise,' said deputy world editor Jim Michaels."

Boston Globe:
"This was a case of seeking a reason to exercise a freedom that had not been challenged. No government, political party, or corporate interest was trying to deny the paper its right to publish whatever it wanted. The original purpose of printing the cartoons – some of which maliciously and stupidly identified Mohammed with terrorists, who could want nothing better than to be associated with the prophet – was plainly to be provocative."

 

[Charade]

Obviously, none of them thought the amputee cartoon would offend anyone.

Hypocrites.

 

[bsnyder]

Obviously, none of them thought the amputee cartoon would offend anyone.

Hypocrites.

OF course they knew it would offend some. But they also knew that those offended wouldn't riot in the streets, kill innocent people and torch buildings. That's the real reason they don't want to "offend" by re-printing the cartoons.

 

[kydisneyfans]

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.

God bless your husband and pray for a safe return from the unjust war that changes name by the week.

Maybe Cheney should be deployed too since he is good at shooting people.

 

[LuvDuke]

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?)

Maybe you ought to put your money where your mouth is and enlist.

You're such a big supporter of the Bush administration and the Iraq war ............. but only from a safe distance. Typical Bushie.

 

[LuvDuke]

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!

I believe a new contest in is order.

Ding, ding, ding............we got a winnah here.

Joe's the first one to bring up Hanoi Jane. His prize: a military uniform which is the closest he'll ever get to one.

 

[LuvDuke]

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

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

Anytime one of the rightwing talking heads see that their bank accounts need a little infusion, they rouse the rabble by bringing up someone from the past. Works everytime.

Even when it comes to funerals: Unbelievably, a drug addict (Limbaugh) and a married man having phone sex (O'Reilly) telling the King family how they should run their mother's funeral.

And their devotees just go with it.

 

[simpilotswife]

It is highly inappropriate for a former U.S Senator, a former Vice President and a former presidential candidate to be on foreign soil, attacking US foreign policy, blaming it on the current administration in his hysterical tone, while we are at war!.

Why? He's right. Why should he lie to support our government?

 

[DawnCt1]

Why? He's right. Why should he lie to support our government?

No, he is NOT right. He is pandering to his audience.

 

[simpilotswife]

For the record, I said he has become a bit unhinged, and I stand by my assertion. That said, I don't believe his comments rise to the level of treason, just very poor judgement.

Again why? Would you prefer that he cover it up and pretend everything is hunky-dory?

 

[simpilotswife]

No, he is NOT right. He is pandering to his audience.

I disagree. It is not pandering to acknowledge the truth. If he stands up there and lies that would make him no better than our current administration.

 

[DawnCt1]

Again why? Would you prefer that he cover it up and pretend everything is hunky-dory?

Because our government has actually bent over backwards to be sure that no one's rights were violated. In 672 cases of arabs detained for immigration violations, there was only 13 mistakes. That is not intentional "abuse", those are mistakes. They happen every day to everyday Americans who were born and raised here. Mistakes happen. If anything, this administration has been criticized for screening little old ladies at airports and giving a quick pass over to those from middle eastern countries, so his arguement holds no water. I hope that Al Gore and you, has the same outrage for German Americans and Japanese American who were put in detainment camps by FDR during WWII.

 

[hubby_of_newtodisney]

We are engaged in the war against terrorism in which Iraq and Afghanistan are the battles. DH is being deployed to Iraq this week. Al Gore's rhetoric is NOT HELPFUL.

One simple thought for you in the babble of political jargon:

Our country was not founded on being helpful, or supportive of the people in power. It is based on rebellion and keeping those people in check!

 

[DawnCt1]

One simple thought for you in the babble of political jargon:

Our country was not founded on being helpful, or supportive of the people in power. It is based on rebellion and keeping those people in check!

No one disagrees on the power and the right to desent. The issue is where he has chosen to bash his country and create soundbites for Al Jazeera, in Saudi Arabia for thousands of dollars! It is at the very least, unbecoming behavior for an ex vice president to engage in. The man is an idiot. Furthermore, "not being helpful" doesn't just refer to the administration, it refers to the men and women who are deployed through out the theatre of operations, primarily in muslim countries.

 

[simpilotswife]

Because our government has actually bent over backwards to be sure that no one's rights were violated. In 672 cases of arabs detained for immigration violations, there was only 13 mistakes. That is not intentional "abuse", those are mistakes. They happen every day to everyday Americans who were born and raised here. Mistakes happen. If anything, this administration has been criticized for screening little old ladies at airports and giving a quick pass over to those from middle eastern countries, so his arguement holds no water. I hope that Al Gore and you, has the same outrage for German Americans and Japanese American who were put in detainment camps by FDR during WWII.

Forget mistakes. Can you say absolutely that there were no abuses against anyone detained? No abuses against people being held elsewhere? No you cannot.

We would be fools not to acknowledge what that power hungry goober and his enabling fascist groupies are doing.

And absolutely I would not have supported rounding up everyone as they did during WWII. I didn't realize that being a patriotic American meant that I had to.

 

[simpilotswife]

Is anyone here glad that the incoherent are not taking their backs?