Al Gore - Democratic Party candidate in 2008.
- Thread starter SouthAmerica
- Start date
And how much money is that?
.
January 24, 2007
SouthAmerica: It is just a matter of time for Al Gore to enter the 2008 presidential race.
************
Former vice president Al Gore 'thrilled' by Oscar nominations for 'Inconvenient Truth'
AP Associated Press
January 24, 2007 (NEW YORK) - Who says politics is show business for ugly people?
"An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's film on the perils of global warming, scored two Oscar nominations Tuesday -- for best documentary feature and best original song.
While he is not technically a nominee -- the film's director, Davis Guggenheim, won the nod, as did singer Melissa Etheridge for the song "I Need to Wake Up" -- Gore said he was "thrilled" that his movie was honored.
"The film ... has brought awareness of the climate crisis to people in the United States and all over the world," Gore said in an e-mail statement. "I am so grateful to the entire team and pleased that the Academy has recognized their work. This film proves that movies really can make a difference."
Aides say the former vice president plans to walk the red carpet with Hollywood's beautiful people at the Academy Awards ceremony next month.
Guggenheim said he wasn't expecting a nomination but welcomed the fresh attention from the Academy's recognition. He said he spoke to Gore and asked him, "'Are you ready to go to the show?' I think he's ready. For years he's been in the wilderness on global warming. Now he's ready for his grand walk. Now he's at the Academy Awards. It's a hero's return."
Speaking at Augustana College in Sioux Falls, S.D., on Tuesday night, Gore said he won't let the star treatment change him. He said his model will be Rin Tin Tin, because the dog was the same after his TV show as he was before it.
In a private meeting earlier with students from Augustana and area high schools, one asked Gore how it felt to be a movie star, of sorts.
"What do you mean 'of sorts?"' he fired back.
"An Inconvenient Truth," which chronicles Gore's slide show on global warming, has been a critical and box office success, bringing in more than $24 million to make it the third highest-grossing documentary in history. A companion book has been on national best-seller lists for months.
Gore narrowly lost the 2000 presidential contest to Republican George W. Bush in a disputed election.
The Democrat has said he's not planning to run for president again but also has not ruled it out.
One candidate who is running, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said the Oscar nomination would increase attention to global warming.
"I think it's wonderful. I think it is not only an outstanding film, but it has created a genuine cultural shift in how people think about what I believe to be one of the most important issues of our times," Obama said in response to questions as he left a meeting of Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Other films nominated for best documentary feature include "Deliver Us From Evil," about the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church; "Iraq in Fragments," about the Sunni-Shiite conflict in that country; "Jesus Camp," about a summer camp for evangelical Christians, and "My Country, My Country," about the months leading up to the January 2005 elections in Iraq.
---
Associated Press writers David Germain in Beverly Hills, Calif., Nedra Pickler in Washington and Dirk Lammers in Sioux Falls, S.D., contributed to this report.
******************
Al Gore for President?
After years of speculation about whether Al Gore will seek the presidency in 2008, a number of self-described grass-roots Democrats have given up waiting and launched a campaign to pressure the former vice president into running.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070123_al_gore_for_president/
http://www.draftgore.com/index.htm
http://www.algore.com/
.
January 24, 2007
SouthAmerica: It is just a matter of time for Al Gore to enter the 2008 presidential race.
************
Former vice president Al Gore 'thrilled' by Oscar nominations for 'Inconvenient Truth'
AP Associated Press
January 24, 2007 (NEW YORK) - Who says politics is show business for ugly people?
"An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's film on the perils of global warming, scored two Oscar nominations Tuesday -- for best documentary feature and best original song.
While he is not technically a nominee -- the film's director, Davis Guggenheim, won the nod, as did singer Melissa Etheridge for the song "I Need to Wake Up" -- Gore said he was "thrilled" that his movie was honored.
"The film ... has brought awareness of the climate crisis to people in the United States and all over the world," Gore said in an e-mail statement. "I am so grateful to the entire team and pleased that the Academy has recognized their work. This film proves that movies really can make a difference."
Aides say the former vice president plans to walk the red carpet with Hollywood's beautiful people at the Academy Awards ceremony next month.
Guggenheim said he wasn't expecting a nomination but welcomed the fresh attention from the Academy's recognition. He said he spoke to Gore and asked him, "'Are you ready to go to the show?' I think he's ready. For years he's been in the wilderness on global warming. Now he's ready for his grand walk. Now he's at the Academy Awards. It's a hero's return."
Speaking at Augustana College in Sioux Falls, S.D., on Tuesday night, Gore said he won't let the star treatment change him. He said his model will be Rin Tin Tin, because the dog was the same after his TV show as he was before it.
In a private meeting earlier with students from Augustana and area high schools, one asked Gore how it felt to be a movie star, of sorts.
"What do you mean 'of sorts?"' he fired back.
"An Inconvenient Truth," which chronicles Gore's slide show on global warming, has been a critical and box office success, bringing in more than $24 million to make it the third highest-grossing documentary in history. A companion book has been on national best-seller lists for months.
Gore narrowly lost the 2000 presidential contest to Republican George W. Bush in a disputed election.
The Democrat has said he's not planning to run for president again but also has not ruled it out.
One candidate who is running, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said the Oscar nomination would increase attention to global warming.
"I think it's wonderful. I think it is not only an outstanding film, but it has created a genuine cultural shift in how people think about what I believe to be one of the most important issues of our times," Obama said in response to questions as he left a meeting of Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Other films nominated for best documentary feature include "Deliver Us From Evil," about the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church; "Iraq in Fragments," about the Sunni-Shiite conflict in that country; "Jesus Camp," about a summer camp for evangelical Christians, and "My Country, My Country," about the months leading up to the January 2005 elections in Iraq.
---
Associated Press writers David Germain in Beverly Hills, Calif., Nedra Pickler in Washington and Dirk Lammers in Sioux Falls, S.D., contributed to this report.
******************
Al Gore for President?
After years of speculation about whether Al Gore will seek the presidency in 2008, a number of self-described grass-roots Democrats have given up waiting and launched a campaign to pressure the former vice president into running.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070123_al_gore_for_president/
http://www.draftgore.com/index.htm
http://www.algore.com/
.
SA, give it up. Gore is old news. His chances of getting the nomination are slim and none, as much as I would love to have him to defeat again. Republicans cannot count on getting that lucky twice.
WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry has decided not to run for president in 2008, a Democratic official says
Gore has about as much chance as Kerry. None!
Gore has about as much chance as Kerry. None!
.
January 26, 2007
SouthAmerica: The enclosed article said: âThe one thing that people say is stopping him is the idea that he might lose. What if he runs and loses? Wouldn't that be humiliating?â
In my opinion, if he runs and loses â then that would be a major loss not only for the United States, but also to the rest of the world.
*********
The Huffington Post
January 26, 2007
In these last six years, Al Gore has courageously spoken out against global warming, the Iraq War and gross constitutional violations of this administration. As Rolling Stone points out in their latest issue, he is a different guy now than the cautious politician he was back in 2000.
So, I propose that he run that way.
He knows he's the right guy for the job. He knows that, above all the other candidates, he has the right priorities and the right experience. He has the support of the netroots and the base of the party is behind him.
The one thing that people say is stopping him is the idea that he might lose. What if he runs and loses? Wouldn't that be humiliating?
Losing the primary of your own party would be embarrassing after you've already run for president and won the popular vote. But here's my radical new question - so what?
If Al Gore threw caution to the wind and ran - even though he might lose - that would only make him more of a hero, not less. I don't give a damn what the mainstream press says (though, of course, I recognize that they are very relevant to the horse race aspect of the campaign). We, the people, would know. We would know that he did it for the right reasons and that we would support him, win or lose.
Current events aren't always kind to those who are right, but history is. Gore's already been proven right about global warming, that he's been warning us about for decades. He's been proven right about Iraq, even though he was dismissed at the time by the press who think they're so smart now.
And if he runs courageously for all the right reasons, history will prove him right again whether he wins or loses politically. So, in the worst case scenario, he has to deal with the gaggling, annoying and often idiotic press when he loses. But I propose that this is not such a tragedy. The much greater tragedy is if he doesn't have the courage to do the right thing when we need him.
Frank Luntz, the GOP strategist, is right for the first time in a long time. He says Gore should use the word imagine as the theme of his campaign. As in: Imagine if he'd won in 2000. How much would the country be better off if we had Al Gore as president the last eight years instead of the disastrous reign of George W. Bush?
But it goes further. Imagine for a second if he wins now. A man who understands the urgency of our time. A man who understand how great this country can be if we head down the right path. A man who can open up the great magnanimous nature of this nation and build bridges to the rest of the world.
Someone who can put an end to the egregious constitutional backsliding that endangers the very foundation of the country. Someone who can find a way to heal the wounds we have opened up in the Middle East. Someone who has courage, not because it is politically expedient, but because it is made necessary by the nature of our times.
Al Gore should run. And he should do so with abandon. Imagine for a second, a candidate who didn't care what the blowhard TV pundits said about him every night. A candidate who connected with the people and overpowered the media. A candidate who has always been right, no matter what they said about him. And who has the courage of his convictions based on the weight of history, not based on the advice of political consultants.
A candidate who didn't care what happened politically because he cares so much about what's right for the country.
Imagine.
The Young Turks
.
January 26, 2007
SouthAmerica: The enclosed article said: âThe one thing that people say is stopping him is the idea that he might lose. What if he runs and loses? Wouldn't that be humiliating?â
In my opinion, if he runs and loses â then that would be a major loss not only for the United States, but also to the rest of the world.
*********
The Huffington Post
January 26, 2007
In these last six years, Al Gore has courageously spoken out against global warming, the Iraq War and gross constitutional violations of this administration. As Rolling Stone points out in their latest issue, he is a different guy now than the cautious politician he was back in 2000.
So, I propose that he run that way.
He knows he's the right guy for the job. He knows that, above all the other candidates, he has the right priorities and the right experience. He has the support of the netroots and the base of the party is behind him.
The one thing that people say is stopping him is the idea that he might lose. What if he runs and loses? Wouldn't that be humiliating?
Losing the primary of your own party would be embarrassing after you've already run for president and won the popular vote. But here's my radical new question - so what?
If Al Gore threw caution to the wind and ran - even though he might lose - that would only make him more of a hero, not less. I don't give a damn what the mainstream press says (though, of course, I recognize that they are very relevant to the horse race aspect of the campaign). We, the people, would know. We would know that he did it for the right reasons and that we would support him, win or lose.
Current events aren't always kind to those who are right, but history is. Gore's already been proven right about global warming, that he's been warning us about for decades. He's been proven right about Iraq, even though he was dismissed at the time by the press who think they're so smart now.
And if he runs courageously for all the right reasons, history will prove him right again whether he wins or loses politically. So, in the worst case scenario, he has to deal with the gaggling, annoying and often idiotic press when he loses. But I propose that this is not such a tragedy. The much greater tragedy is if he doesn't have the courage to do the right thing when we need him.
Frank Luntz, the GOP strategist, is right for the first time in a long time. He says Gore should use the word imagine as the theme of his campaign. As in: Imagine if he'd won in 2000. How much would the country be better off if we had Al Gore as president the last eight years instead of the disastrous reign of George W. Bush?
But it goes further. Imagine for a second if he wins now. A man who understands the urgency of our time. A man who understand how great this country can be if we head down the right path. A man who can open up the great magnanimous nature of this nation and build bridges to the rest of the world.
Someone who can put an end to the egregious constitutional backsliding that endangers the very foundation of the country. Someone who can find a way to heal the wounds we have opened up in the Middle East. Someone who has courage, not because it is politically expedient, but because it is made necessary by the nature of our times.
Al Gore should run. And he should do so with abandon. Imagine for a second, a candidate who didn't care what the blowhard TV pundits said about him every night. A candidate who connected with the people and overpowered the media. A candidate who has always been right, no matter what they said about him. And who has the courage of his convictions based on the weight of history, not based on the advice of political consultants.
A candidate who didn't care what happened politically because he cares so much about what's right for the country.
Imagine.
The Young Turks
.
.
January 27, 2007
SouthAmerica: Here is an article published on a newspaper in Pakistan on Saturday, January 27, 2007 about Al Gore and George W. Bush.
********
The News â International
Pakistan â January 27, 2007
âAl Gore blasts Bush for mass violations of civil libertiesâ
By Kaleem Omar
There has been little love lost between former US Vice-President Al Gore and President George W. Bush ever since the highly controversial presidential election of 2000.
Gore, who has been one of Bushâs severest critics for mass violations of civil liberties, is now back in the headlines with a highly acclaimed documentary film about global warming, and is even being mentioned as a possible Democratic candidate in the presidential election of 2008.
Goreâs political pedigree goes back to the days when his father was a US senator, and he has long been regarded as a Washington insider. That insider image was reinforced by his eight year-stint as President Bill Clintonâs vice-president.
As vice-president, Gore was also known as a policy wonk, with a prodigious grasp of detail on a host of issues. By contrast, some critics call Bush the most illiterate president in US history. Not for nothing, say critics, is Bush known as Dubya.
Bush thinks Africa is a country. Asked once by reporters during the 2000 campaign whether he had ever been to another country, Bush replied, âI went to South America once. You know, there are a lot of countries down there.â
His tone of voice suggested that this elementary geographical fact had come to him as something of a surprise.
Could it also be, then, that when Bush lumped Iraq, Iran and North Korea together as the so-called âAxis of Evilâ, he did so in the belief that North Korea bordered Iraq and Iran?
Gore, the Democratic candidate in the 2000 presidential election, got more popular votes than Republican candidate Bush. If the American president were elected on the basis of the majority popular vote instead of electoral-college votes, Gore would have become president, not Bush.
Among other things, a Gore victory might have saved the lives of the estimated 650,000 Iraqis - most of them innocent civilians - that have been killed by US troops in the invasion and occupation of Iraq ordered by President Bush.
Gore would have won in 2000 even on the basis of electoral-college votes if the US Supreme Court - in a highly controversial 5-4 split decision - had not stopped the recount in Florida, where Bushâs brother, Jeb, was governor.
Most of the Supreme Court judges were appointed by previous Republican administrations, whereas Gore, of course, was the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Small wonder, then, that former President Bill Clinton once sarcastically remarked: âBush won the election fair and square - 5 to 4 in the Supreme Court!â
My point in recalling the events of November 2000 is to underscore the fact that when Gore criticises Bushâs policies, his words carry a lot of weight and should be heeded not only by the American people (the majority of whom voted for Gore) but also by the rest of the world.
In a blistering speech in November 2003, Gore accused Bush of eroding personal freedoms and weakening Americaâs security through âmass violations of civil libertiesâ in the âwar on terrorism.â
Speaking to an enthusiastic crowd of 3,000 people at the DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, Gore said: âWhere civil liberties are concerned, they (the Bush administration) have taken us much farther down the road to an intrusive, âBig Brotherâ-style of government - towards the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book â1984â - than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States.â
Gore said that many of the domestic security policies the Bush administration has pursued since the 9/11 attacks have actually weakened the USâs security by distracting attention from the most urgent threats.
He called for the repeal of the infamous USA Patriot Act, which was enacted by Congress with hardly any debate in October 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks. In calling for its repeal, Gore was not alone.
The Patriot Act, one of the most draconian pieces of legislation in US history, is an assault on constitutional protections and individual freedoms so atrocious that legislators in several American states and local officials in 189 cities, towns and counties have passed resolutions or ordinances condemning and rejecting its abuse of civil liberties.
More than 25 million Americans live in states or communities that have officially declared that they oppose those parts of the Patriot Act that trample on individual freedoms. And the number of such Americans continues to grow, with more and more communities joining the nationwide movement against the Patriot Act.
Novelist Ursula K. Le Guin, the author of the âLeft Hand of Darkness,â has been appearing at rallies to express the concern of artists regarding a law that clearly threatens freedom of association, movement and expression. âWhat do attacks on freedom of speech and writing mean to a writer?â Le Guin asks. âIt means that somebodyâs there with a big plug theyâre trying to fit in your mouth.â
Iconoclastic independent filmmaker Michael Moore says, âCalling this the Patriot Act is quite a dangerous action within itself, because the implication follows: if you speak against the Patriot Act, well, you sure arenât being a good citizen in our countryâs time of need. When Bush labels his actions as the model of patriotism, he then classifies all dissent as un-American. While this may be comforting to him, it is actually an insult to patriotism.â
These, and other such voices, were later joined by Al Gore, who said in his speech at Washingtonâs DAR Constitution Hall: âConstant violations of civil liberties promote the false impression that those violations are necessary in order for them to take every precaution against another terrorist attack. But the simple truth is that the vast majority of these violations have not benefited our security at all; in fact, they have hurt the effort to improve our security.â
Commenting on Goreâs address, the Los Angeles Times said that virtually all the Democratic presidential candidates had criticised Bushâs civil liberties record, but Goreâs remarks were among the sharpest attacks that any Democrat had offered on the issue.
Goreâs comments came in the wake of an equally confrontational speech in August 2003, when he accused Bush of misleading the American people on the war against Iraq and a wide array of domestic issues.
Goreâs views are now shared by the majority of Americans. According to an opinion poll conducted last week, 65 per cent of those polled said they did not approve of the way Bush was handling the worsening war in Iraq.
The LA Times reported that Gore received a standing ovation when he arrived at the DAR Constitution Hall and several more standing ovations throughout the speech.
In his speech, Gore charged that the Bush administration âhad turned the fundamental presumption of our (the USâs) democracy on its headâ by seeking to withhold information about its own activities, even while acquiring ever more information about the activities of private citizens.
Gore said Bush was frustrating the publicâs right to information about its government by resisting independent and congressional investigations into the 9/11 attacks; by instructing federal agencies to resist requests for documents under the US Freedom of Information Act.
At the same time, Gore noted, the Bush administration has pursued new authority to investigate Americans it considers security risks by monitoring their e-mail and Internet activity, their conversations with lawyers, and even the lists of library books they have checked out.
Under the Patriot Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has the right to obtain a court order to access any records that American public libraries have of books borrowed by customers. The FBI can also demand that bookshops turn over their sales records.
Hereâs what can happen: Say youâre living in the Californian port city of San Diego (a big US naval base) and have borrowed a book on scuba diving from your local library and are reading the book one afternoon in your backyard. A nosey neighbour spots you reading the book and phones the FBI. âAh ha,â cries the FBI. âa book on scuba diving! Itâs obviously someone planning an attack on naval installations in San Diego!â
In the summer of 2002, the FBI suddenly became convinced that an underwater attack on US port facilities was imminent and demanded that every scuba shop in America turn over their records of everybody who had bought or rented scuba gear or taken diving lessons during the previous three years. The result was that the names of several million people had to be turned over to the FBI.
Linking his critique to his earlier criticism of the war against Iraq, Gore declared: âIt makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama bin Laden.â
Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=40571
.
January 27, 2007
SouthAmerica: Here is an article published on a newspaper in Pakistan on Saturday, January 27, 2007 about Al Gore and George W. Bush.
********
The News â International
Pakistan â January 27, 2007
âAl Gore blasts Bush for mass violations of civil libertiesâ
By Kaleem Omar
There has been little love lost between former US Vice-President Al Gore and President George W. Bush ever since the highly controversial presidential election of 2000.
Gore, who has been one of Bushâs severest critics for mass violations of civil liberties, is now back in the headlines with a highly acclaimed documentary film about global warming, and is even being mentioned as a possible Democratic candidate in the presidential election of 2008.
Goreâs political pedigree goes back to the days when his father was a US senator, and he has long been regarded as a Washington insider. That insider image was reinforced by his eight year-stint as President Bill Clintonâs vice-president.
As vice-president, Gore was also known as a policy wonk, with a prodigious grasp of detail on a host of issues. By contrast, some critics call Bush the most illiterate president in US history. Not for nothing, say critics, is Bush known as Dubya.
Bush thinks Africa is a country. Asked once by reporters during the 2000 campaign whether he had ever been to another country, Bush replied, âI went to South America once. You know, there are a lot of countries down there.â
His tone of voice suggested that this elementary geographical fact had come to him as something of a surprise.
Could it also be, then, that when Bush lumped Iraq, Iran and North Korea together as the so-called âAxis of Evilâ, he did so in the belief that North Korea bordered Iraq and Iran?
Gore, the Democratic candidate in the 2000 presidential election, got more popular votes than Republican candidate Bush. If the American president were elected on the basis of the majority popular vote instead of electoral-college votes, Gore would have become president, not Bush.
Among other things, a Gore victory might have saved the lives of the estimated 650,000 Iraqis - most of them innocent civilians - that have been killed by US troops in the invasion and occupation of Iraq ordered by President Bush.
Gore would have won in 2000 even on the basis of electoral-college votes if the US Supreme Court - in a highly controversial 5-4 split decision - had not stopped the recount in Florida, where Bushâs brother, Jeb, was governor.
Most of the Supreme Court judges were appointed by previous Republican administrations, whereas Gore, of course, was the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Small wonder, then, that former President Bill Clinton once sarcastically remarked: âBush won the election fair and square - 5 to 4 in the Supreme Court!â
My point in recalling the events of November 2000 is to underscore the fact that when Gore criticises Bushâs policies, his words carry a lot of weight and should be heeded not only by the American people (the majority of whom voted for Gore) but also by the rest of the world.
In a blistering speech in November 2003, Gore accused Bush of eroding personal freedoms and weakening Americaâs security through âmass violations of civil libertiesâ in the âwar on terrorism.â
Speaking to an enthusiastic crowd of 3,000 people at the DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, Gore said: âWhere civil liberties are concerned, they (the Bush administration) have taken us much farther down the road to an intrusive, âBig Brotherâ-style of government - towards the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book â1984â - than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States.â
Gore said that many of the domestic security policies the Bush administration has pursued since the 9/11 attacks have actually weakened the USâs security by distracting attention from the most urgent threats.
He called for the repeal of the infamous USA Patriot Act, which was enacted by Congress with hardly any debate in October 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks. In calling for its repeal, Gore was not alone.
The Patriot Act, one of the most draconian pieces of legislation in US history, is an assault on constitutional protections and individual freedoms so atrocious that legislators in several American states and local officials in 189 cities, towns and counties have passed resolutions or ordinances condemning and rejecting its abuse of civil liberties.
More than 25 million Americans live in states or communities that have officially declared that they oppose those parts of the Patriot Act that trample on individual freedoms. And the number of such Americans continues to grow, with more and more communities joining the nationwide movement against the Patriot Act.
Novelist Ursula K. Le Guin, the author of the âLeft Hand of Darkness,â has been appearing at rallies to express the concern of artists regarding a law that clearly threatens freedom of association, movement and expression. âWhat do attacks on freedom of speech and writing mean to a writer?â Le Guin asks. âIt means that somebodyâs there with a big plug theyâre trying to fit in your mouth.â
Iconoclastic independent filmmaker Michael Moore says, âCalling this the Patriot Act is quite a dangerous action within itself, because the implication follows: if you speak against the Patriot Act, well, you sure arenât being a good citizen in our countryâs time of need. When Bush labels his actions as the model of patriotism, he then classifies all dissent as un-American. While this may be comforting to him, it is actually an insult to patriotism.â
These, and other such voices, were later joined by Al Gore, who said in his speech at Washingtonâs DAR Constitution Hall: âConstant violations of civil liberties promote the false impression that those violations are necessary in order for them to take every precaution against another terrorist attack. But the simple truth is that the vast majority of these violations have not benefited our security at all; in fact, they have hurt the effort to improve our security.â
Commenting on Goreâs address, the Los Angeles Times said that virtually all the Democratic presidential candidates had criticised Bushâs civil liberties record, but Goreâs remarks were among the sharpest attacks that any Democrat had offered on the issue.
Goreâs comments came in the wake of an equally confrontational speech in August 2003, when he accused Bush of misleading the American people on the war against Iraq and a wide array of domestic issues.
Goreâs views are now shared by the majority of Americans. According to an opinion poll conducted last week, 65 per cent of those polled said they did not approve of the way Bush was handling the worsening war in Iraq.
The LA Times reported that Gore received a standing ovation when he arrived at the DAR Constitution Hall and several more standing ovations throughout the speech.
In his speech, Gore charged that the Bush administration âhad turned the fundamental presumption of our (the USâs) democracy on its headâ by seeking to withhold information about its own activities, even while acquiring ever more information about the activities of private citizens.
Gore said Bush was frustrating the publicâs right to information about its government by resisting independent and congressional investigations into the 9/11 attacks; by instructing federal agencies to resist requests for documents under the US Freedom of Information Act.
At the same time, Gore noted, the Bush administration has pursued new authority to investigate Americans it considers security risks by monitoring their e-mail and Internet activity, their conversations with lawyers, and even the lists of library books they have checked out.
Under the Patriot Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has the right to obtain a court order to access any records that American public libraries have of books borrowed by customers. The FBI can also demand that bookshops turn over their sales records.
Hereâs what can happen: Say youâre living in the Californian port city of San Diego (a big US naval base) and have borrowed a book on scuba diving from your local library and are reading the book one afternoon in your backyard. A nosey neighbour spots you reading the book and phones the FBI. âAh ha,â cries the FBI. âa book on scuba diving! Itâs obviously someone planning an attack on naval installations in San Diego!â
In the summer of 2002, the FBI suddenly became convinced that an underwater attack on US port facilities was imminent and demanded that every scuba shop in America turn over their records of everybody who had bought or rented scuba gear or taken diving lessons during the previous three years. The result was that the names of several million people had to be turned over to the FBI.
Linking his critique to his earlier criticism of the war against Iraq, Gore declared: âIt makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama bin Laden.â
Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=40571
.
.
January 27, 2007
SouthAmerica: Reply to version77
Right now a lot of people are posting their opinions that Al Gore is done as a viable presidential candidate, and that he has no chance in 2008 and so on.
It's âIronicâ, but when Al Gore enters the race, and gets the democratic nomination, and later when he wins the presidential election of 2008 â all these same people are going to say that everybody knew all along that Al Gore was the front runner, and that he was going to win in 2008.
These people are all Monday morning quarterbacks, and they will try to jump on the bandwagon only after the bandwagon left the station.
.
January 27, 2007
SouthAmerica: Reply to version77
Right now a lot of people are posting their opinions that Al Gore is done as a viable presidential candidate, and that he has no chance in 2008 and so on.
It's âIronicâ, but when Al Gore enters the race, and gets the democratic nomination, and later when he wins the presidential election of 2008 â all these same people are going to say that everybody knew all along that Al Gore was the front runner, and that he was going to win in 2008.
These people are all Monday morning quarterbacks, and they will try to jump on the bandwagon only after the bandwagon left the station.
.