May 29, 2004

GROANING MAN

The Boston Herald launches into Al Gore:

He never mentioned Nicholas Berg. Or Daniel Pearl. Or a single person killed in the World Trade Center. Nor did former Vice President Al Gore talk of any soldier by name who has given his life in Iraq. And he has the audacity to condemn the Bush administration for having "twisted values?"    

Gore spent the bulk of a speech before the liberal group MoveOn.org Wednesday bemoaning Abu Ghraib and denouncing President Bush's departure from the "long successful strategy of containment."

Yes, the very same strategy that, under Gore's leadership, allowed al-Qaeda operatives to plan the horror of Sept. 11 for years, while moving freely within our borders.

Gore even had the audacity to defend the perpetrators of the prison abuse - by name - while denouncing President Bush for humiliating" our nation.

How dare he.

There's more. Meanwhile, Al Gore’s groan man Google count is currently running at seven -- outpointing grown man by three.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 29, 2004 02:48 AM
Comments

Gore/Dean '08 - YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Oktober at May 29, 2004 at 03:00 AM

Now we know why Gore dropped out/flunked out of divinity school, he has no moral compass.

Posted by: perfectsense at May 29, 2004 at 03:41 AM

Oktober: LMFHO!

Posted by: CurrencyLad at May 29, 2004 at 03:46 AM

"long successful strategy of containment."

That has to be the most absurdly false statement any politico has made since 9/11. Gore has become the ultimate self-parody.

Posted by: Spiny Norman at May 29, 2004 at 04:34 AM

I guess this is why Gore continually seemed wooden. It took a continual application of will to keep himself from seeming like a raging madman. And I guess it’s why he’s had such a strong habit of speaking slowly & with seeming condescension. He had to be careful to get right a less leftist-sounding script in which he did not believe & which didn’t come quite naturally to him. He never took seriouly the putting into practice of real democratic thought & instead regarded it as what one has to do to get power. Meanwhile, his “real” ideas, which he seldom got to try out in practice, were coffeetable leftist brochure detritus. Since the 2000 campaign he has said that he wishes he had ignored image consultants & had just “let ’her rip”—obviously now his guiding policy.

Posted by: ForNow` at May 29, 2004 at 04:37 AM

Typo, I meant “let ’er rip.”

Posted by: ForNow at May 29, 2004 at 04:39 AM

Al should've stuck with the earthtones.

Posted by: Sean M. at May 29, 2004 at 05:03 AM

Maybe someone here can clue me in what they meant by the strategy of containment being "the very same strategy that, under Gore's leadership, allowed al-Qaeda operatives to plan the horror of Sept. 11 for years, while moving freely within our borders".

Let's see, what else.

"Gore even had the audacity to defend the perpetrators of the prison abuse - by name - while denouncing President Bush for humiliating our nation.

How dare he."

The only one he defended was the whistleblower. "How dare he?" He was right.

"How dare Gore say that Americans have an ``innate vulnerability to temptation... to use power to abuse others.'"

How dare he say that? He didn't say it. Read the transcript of the speech - he said every human being has an innate vulnerability to temptation.

"And this man - who apparently has so much disdain for the nature of the American people - wanted to be elected to lead it?"

The "disdain for the nature of the American people was not in Gore's speech, only in the misleading paraphrases in this editorial. What Gore actually said can be found here.

This Herald piece is an extraordinarily badly written editorial.

Posted by: blacker64 at May 29, 2004 at 06:43 AM

Even better, blacker, watch it live, kind of has a different effect.

Posted by: Sandy P at May 29, 2004 at 09:48 AM

As I said earlier guys, this man may have been President.

Scary.

Posted by: Quentin George at May 29, 2004 at 10:10 AM

Thanks for the advice, Sandy, but unfortunately watching it live is no longer an option.

Incidentally, did you think watching Gore's performance instead of reading the words would somehow make the blatant falsehoods in the Boston Herald piece come true somehow?

Posted by: blacker64 at May 29, 2004 at 01:04 PM

No, but it allows you to understand via tone and expression the thought he is attempting to convey while carefully parsing his words. Gore is a joke. He has got to be on Bush's campaign as a paid consultant - this speech only helps Bush.

Posted by: JEM at May 29, 2004 at 01:16 PM

Maybe someone here can clue me in what they meant by the strategy of containment being "the very same strategy that, under Gore's leadership, allowed al-Qaeda operatives to plan the horror of Sept. 11 for years, while moving freely within our borders".

Many have tried, I'm sure. I'm equally sure that all have failed. At this point, giving you clues is no longer anybody's job but your own. Good luck.

Posted by: Brian Jones at May 29, 2004 at 01:17 PM

I've kind of been enjoying responding to my moonbat friends with a guttural "Hooooooooooooooowwwwwww daaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrre yooooooooooooooooooouuuuuu" though. Makes the peace-loving veins in their peace-loving foreheads throb like cicada wings, it does.

Posted by: Brian Jones at May 29, 2004 at 01:19 PM

I have a deep satisfaction of figuring out Al Gore long before 2000 election. This was achieved with the help of two rather worshipful articles in the New Yorker. They both contained extensive quotes from Al Gore, from which I have leaned that in this man's opinion all social problems stem from Cartesian dualism and can be solved by application of Mandelbrot fractals. Or words to this effect.

Which told me that a) Al Gore has not a first clue about social problems, Cartesian dualism or fractals; b) is self important, dimwitted idiot.

After that I started paying attention to him and soon realized that, in addition to being an idiot he is a central-planning fanatic who is convinced that he knows What Is Best For Us. He would make old Soviet Commissars proud.

So, I was not really surprised at his latest rant. Still, it was fun to watch.

Posted by: Katherine at May 29, 2004 at 02:56 PM

Katherine, to amplify on your post.....

I work for the Federal government. When Algore was Veep, he decided he Needed To Reinvent Government. This is the opposite of his "invention of the INTERNET" in two ways. First, Algore actually did Reinvent The Government. Or try to. Second, the INTERNET actually works, unlike his "reinvention".

One specific example was the supervisory ratio. Vice President Gore, with his [sarcasm] extensive executive experience and training [/sarcasm] decided that the Federal agencies had too many supervisors. So The Veep decided to "flatten the supervisory chain", ostensibly to put more federal employees to work, thereby increasing productivity. I think. Algore certainly didn't propose any reductions in pay grades.

Attend me. The supervisory ratio is a measure of the number of employees one person supervises. At that time, my agency had a supervisory ratio of 1 supervisor to 4 employees. That this might be a reasonable figure if one evaluates the type of work performed is immaterial. The Veep and his Panel Of Experts (TM) decided that the ideal supervisory ratio target for the agencies 10:1, or 1 supervisor gets 10 employees. Why this number? I don't know; I never found a reasonable answer other than "It's our goal! We must reach it! Allah Ahkbar!"

The silly thing about this was how most agencies responded. Instead of reorganizing and converting supervisors into workers, most of them just changed titles. Pre-Reinvention, the lowest level supervisor was officially a supervisor, documented in title and job description.

Post-Reinvention, a supervisor officially became a "Team Leader"; the branch, section, or office became a "Team". The title and job description were edit accordingly. However, the "Team Leader" had exactly the same duties as before. There were no other changes.

Who was it that said, "A difference that makes no difference is no difference"? There you have the total impact of Algore's Reinvention Of The Government.

The agencies even had to report in the supervisory ratio to Algore's team. I recall that the final ratio proudly reported upwards for my office was 9.781:1, or some such. I kept on looking around for blood, wondering who had lost 0.219 parts of their body (unless amputees were included somehow -- it really was that silly).

This was Reinvention Under Algore. And it is a major reason why I voted for Bush so hard that the county courthouse shook when my ballot arrived.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 04:39 PM

"Maybe someone here can clue me in what they meant by the strategy of containment being "the very same strategy that, under Gore's leadership, allowed al-Qaeda operatives to plan the horror of Sept. 11 for years, while moving freely within our borders"."

"Many have tried, I'm sure. I'm equally sure that all have failed. At this point, giving you clues is no longer anybody's job but your own. Good luck."

No, Brian, nobody has tried, and that includes you. I'm assuming that that is because you can not show such a connection - that abandoning the policy of containing Saddam would have prevented 9/11. If you can think of one - instead of a wimpy "how can you not see it?" response - then feel free to take a stab at showing it.

Posted by: blacker64 at May 30, 2004 at 02:52 AM

Blacker, I see you don't show any proof of your assertions either. Typical troll tack, guys; he'll just draw you into a pointless argument.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 30, 2004 at 03:24 AM

Shhh, Andrea, my brain is spinning overtime trying to figure out what Blacker's question is. I *think* he thinks I have to prove that I could have prevented 9/11 by voting for W instead of Clinton in 1996, but I'm not sure.

Posted by: Brian Jones at May 30, 2004 at 04:43 AM

Thank you for an interesting insight, Real JeffS. I am sure that government also managed to spend copious amount of extra money on this important "reorganization".

That’s one of the reasons why I think that government should really operate part-time. Remember Clinton’s impeachment hearings: all 3 branches of government tied up. Those were good times. No laws passed! Economy soared!

Posted by: Katherine at May 30, 2004 at 06:13 AM

courtesy of my dear friend gunslinger, may i present...

Gorezilla

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 30, 2004 at 07:03 AM

Mr. Bingley: bwah! :D

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 30, 2004 at 09:01 AM

sadly, i don't think he ever trampled on Kyoto... :)

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 30, 2004 at 09:43 AM

Ain't that the truth, Katherine! When the Feds are wrapped up in one problem, civilization shows progress in the unsupervised areas. So much for "more government".

Mr. Bingley: does Gorezilla rampage by appointment? If so, I may have a deal for him......

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 30, 2004 at 11:33 AM

I'm quite pleased with the picture I made of Gore.

Posted by: Dave Munger at May 30, 2004 at 01:55 PM

Read this quickly - Tim 'censorship' Blair may delete it!

First of all the policy of containing Iraq has NOTHING to do with terrorism and 9/11. They are unrelated issues. But the Boston Herald struggles to conflate them. When will you tards realise it was Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand not Osama. The Clinton/Gore Administration did attempt to kill OBL (which is more than GWB did in the first part of his Administration which consisted of lots of holiday). The strategy of containing Iraq has been proved successful. It cost little, few people died and Saddam couldn't and didn't develop WMD's (I hope you tards realise that now) and oil prices were stable.

What does the Boston Herald expect that any person criticising Bush must first mention Berg, 9/11 and his support of US troops? Al Gore served his country with honour - he may have been boring but America and the world prospered with him as VP. The Boston Herald editorial staff are a disgrace to journalism. According to them anyone can disagree with the Bush Administration but only so long as they don't call GWB 'incompetent'. They may not say that. Thats freedom of speech for the Boston Herald. They should be ashamed.

PS. Tim you should be ashamed of trying to stop me from commenting. Why don't you try responding?

Posted by: doba-man at May 30, 2004 at 05:19 PM

doba-man, sweet Jebus. Let's get this straight.

No one, least of all, Tim Blair is censoring you. You can post your delusions here or anywhere else on the Internet. You can yell it out in the street, you can go on tv and say it, you can make a movie and win awards in Cannes.

It's because you're fucking boring. Your moonbatty theories aren't new, they're the same shit all the trolls peddle here.

Newsflash: We've heard it before and we don't fucking care.

Posted by: Quentin George at May 30, 2004 at 07:34 PM

PS: Tim barely even reads these comment threads. Believe it or not, he probably hasn't responded to you because he has better things to do with his time than tango with every two-bit troll that slums in these comment threads.

Posted by: Quentin George at May 30, 2004 at 07:35 PM

dave munger - a nice full-spectrum heave!

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 30, 2004 at 10:40 PM

Thats right Queentin don't bother with the issues - just call anyone you don't agree with a troll - that will show them. Use italicised swear words to show how angry and passionate you are. Maybe then the nasty people with different views will go away...

If you lack the intellectual capacity to refute what I have commented on this editorial in Boston Herald why bother posting?

Posted by: doba-man at May 30, 2004 at 11:12 PM

doba-man, it doesn't take "intellectual capacity" to refute your drivel. As Quentin put it, you ain't the first troll to say this.

Every one of your kindred-in-spirit do the same thing: post your statements, proclaim them as truth, and expect us to bow before their shining intellect. And then complain when we when post our counterpoints and arguments, instead of meekly accepting their brilliant reasoning at face value.

Does it not occurr to you that not everyone here agrees on everything? That intelligent discourse is encouraged and admired, and trolls get slapped down because they interrupt said discourse? That you are simply a sniveling jerk who whinges when his trollish behavior is punished appropriately?

Probably not. But that's your problem, isn't it?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 31, 2004 at 01:18 AM

Poor wittle doobieman. Mumsie stopped him from pulling down his poopie drawers and flinging feces all over the kitchen again. It's so unfair.

By the way, asscranium, I'm the one who banned you. I administrate this website, so Tim doesn't have to worry about it being overrun by every half-baked toddler-brained idiot with a modem. Bye!

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 31, 2004 at 02:05 AM

Hmmm...sticks and stones...but pre-teens without opinions will never hurt me.

So far all you guys have done is attack me...do you even your own opinions ... or are you waiting for Tim to tell you which one to have?

Posted by: doba/man at May 31, 2004 at 01:15 PM

Sorry, doob. You're being attacked because nobody feels like taking you in hand and gently guiding you down the clueful way. Your questions and concerns were answered weeks and months ago; you could look it up, or you could stamp your widdle foot and demand that you receive a personalized answer. Which of the two behaviors will make you look like less of a fucknozzle? Your call.

Posted by: Brian Jones at May 31, 2004 at 01:29 PM

Dave Munger:

Nice technicolor yawn. :D

Posted by: gunslinger at May 31, 2004 at 04:31 PM