Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Gore's Unbelievable Arrogance and Hypocrisy


David Horowitz writes for Front Page Mag:

When he was in office and responsible for protecting us, Al Gore was absent from the war on terror. As Vice President, he was part of an administration that failed to respond to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; that cut and ran when al-Qaeda ambushed US Army Rangers in Mogadishu; that called for regime change in Iraq when Saddam expelled the UN weapons inspectors but then failed to remove Saddam or to get him to allow the UN inspectors back in; that failed to respond to the murder of US troops in Saudi Arabia or the attack on an American warship in Yemen; that reacted to the blowing up two US embassies in Africa by firing missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan and empty tents in Afghanistan; that refused to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden when it had a dozen chances to do so; and that did not put in place simple airport security measures, its own task force recommended, that would have prevented 9/11.


In short, to every act of war against the United States during the 1990s, the Clinton-Gore response was limp-wristed and supine. And worse. By refusing to concede a lost presidential election, thereby breaking a hundred-year tradition, Gore delayed the transition to the new administration that would have to deal with the terrorist threat. As a result of the two-month delay, the comprehensive anti-terror plan that Bush ordered on taking office (the Clinton-Gore team had none) did not arrive on his desk until the day before the 9/11 attack.


Yet, it is characteristic of Gore’s myopic arrogance that he would wag his finger at the Bush administration for its failure to anticipate the 9/11 attack.


You simply can't say it any better than that.

3 comments:

janice said...

David Horowitz nails it!

Mojo_Risin said...

Yup. All true. Except the Bush admin did have knowledge months beforehand that there were increasing terrorist plans to hijack planes for "something big".

paw said...

Just because something makes you feel good about your prejudices doesn't make it true. This kind of one-sided, absurd "debate" is bad for for our democracy. If you're going to play the "good and concerned citizen" routine, you should stop passing along junk like this. Off the top of my head:

Perps of the first WTC bombing were found and jailed, justice served. I can't recall anyone at the time suggesting that anything or anyone be bombed.

In Somalia, congressional Republicans agitated to withdraw immediately following that event. Clinton/Gore stuck around for 6 months while they screamed bloody murder.

The responsibility behind the Cole (Yemen) attack had not been fixed until Bush came into office, at which time he is famously quoted by Rice (I think) as not wanting to swat flies.

And we know from people like Clark that the incoming Bush administration didn't give a wit about taking terrorism seriously. That "delayed transition" accusation is just incredible, revisionism of the worst kind.

Its clear that you sacrifice a keener understanding of events in pursuit of what you really care about, sticking it to Lefty. Very un-American of you.