Speakeasy forum

General discussion

A hypocrite, Al Gore, in action...

by Edward ODaniel / January 23, 2006 4:20 AM PST
When Al Gore ran for president in 2000 he said ?our Constitution is a living and breathing document? that changes its meaning over time. This week we learned that among the things changing in Gore?s Constitution is the war power. It meant one thing when Bill Clinton was president, but means another thing now.

Seven years ago, then-Vice President Gore supported Clinton in launching a war Congress didn?t authorize. Now, he says the Constitution denies President Bush the power merely to intercept an enemy?s communications in and out of the U.S.--without permission from a federal judge--in the midst of a war Congress did authorize.
...
On March 23, 1999, President Clinton ordered U.S. forces to begin bombing Yugoslavia because of its treatment of people in Kosovo. Clinton bombed for three months. The day the war started, then-White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart was asked whether Clinton believed congressional support was ?constitutionally necessary.? Lockhart said, ?Well, I don?t think he believes it?s constitutionally necessary because we don?t believe that.?

Congress, in fact, declined to authorize it. The Senate voted 58 to 41 for a resolution ?authorizing the President of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.? But the House defeated the resolution, 213 to 213.

Gore aggressively backed Clinton?s unauthorized war, suggesting its critics were guilty of ?politics.? ?I think the American people want to see politics removed from any kind of action where our military forces are involved overseas,? he said on the April 2, 1999 edition of CNN?s ?Larry King Live.?

Was the Clinton-Gore Kosovo War constitutional? No.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=11675

But what else is new about Gore.

This of course doesn't even mention Gore's knowledge that in 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

Nor does it mention Gore's full knowledge of Clinton's Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick's 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence where she stated unambiguously "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general.". That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps. (One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches under that guidance was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants with the blessings of the Clinton White House.)

One would thing that the "Inventor of the Internet" might just possibly make use of it to avoid being caught up in such blatent lies and hypocracy ad Gore was spewing.
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: A hypocrite, Al Gore, in action...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: A hypocrite, Al Gore, in action...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
And the two most potent tools NSA uses today,...
by Paul C / January 23, 2006 5:24 AM PST

...ECHELON and CARNIVORE, were developed and deployed during the Clintstone years - with the approval of that Administration.

Memories seem to be rather short on the left side of the aisle, don't they?

Collapse -
You would not expect Gore to do a little research after
by Kiddpeat / January 23, 2006 5:34 AM PST

seeing him give a speech in New York regarding global warming on the coldest day New Yorkers had ever seen. Or, after seeing him drain a dam so that he could have a photo op in a canoe.

Nothing speaks better regarding the state of the Democrat Party than the fact that Gore is one of its leaders.

Collapse -
Yes, it was "legal"
by Angeline Booher / January 23, 2006 7:12 AM PST

... because of our membership in NATO.

Technically, the US President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, does not need Congressional approval for engaging in military missions abroad. In practice, a resolution is sought from Congress endorsing missions foreseen as being longer term.

http://www.cesd.org/natonotes/notes37_annex.htm

Senator Dole sponsored 2 bills:

S. 5 (Dole)
Repeals the War Powers Act of 1973 and provides a framework for U.S. participation in international peacekeeping operations. Introduced January 4, 1995; referred to Committee on Foreign Relations.

S. 1137 (Dole)
Establishes a Multilateral Self-Defense Fund for Bosnia -Hercegovina, and authorizes U.S. contributions. Introduced August 10, 1995, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

ROME, Italy (CNN) -- President Bush arrived back in Washington from Kosovo on Tuesday after telling cheering U.S. peacekeeping troops they and allied forces "came in [to Kosovo] together and we will leave together."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/24/bush.kosovo/

(Due to a glitch, I can't open PDFs, but the text in these is interesting.)

[PDF] Bosnia and Herzegovina: Issues for US Policy
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Affairs Function 150, February 2005. Bosnia gives the United States more freedom
to arrest and deport terrorists than in. many other countries, which might ...
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32392.pdf - Similar pages

[PDF] Bosnia and the European Union Military Force (EUFOR): Post-NATO ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
A total of about 250 US forces remain in Bosnia in two capacities: 100 US ...
Many US and European officials believe that success in handing over the ...
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21774.pdf - Similar pages

As I recall there were no US combat deaths, and only one coalition one.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: combat deaths ...
by Evie / January 23, 2006 8:17 AM PST
In reply to: Yes, it was "legal"

... if we just bombed the hell out of all of Iraq like they did in Bosnia, we wouldn't have had the combat deaths in Iraq either.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
yes very true and
by Mark5019 / January 23, 2006 8:26 AM PST
In reply to: Re: combat deaths ...

they would scream look at all the innocents you killed
should have landed and invaded oh the horrors of it

Collapse -
look at all the innocents you killed
by JP Bill / January 23, 2006 1:27 PM PST
In reply to: yes very true and

and it would have been true.

Collapse -
if we did it from the air lot more be dead
by Mark5019 / January 24, 2006 9:41 AM PST

we do as much as we can to limit inocents dieing

Collapse -
Nope because no NATO country...
by Edward ODaniel / January 24, 2006 9:36 AM PST
In reply to: Yes, it was "legal"

was at risk nor was the US.

Congress, with the Constitutional power to direct war acted on the issue but DID NOT achieve the votes to do so.

The President's Congressional war powers are subject to congressional authorization EXCEPT when he must act immediatel to protect and defend the country. Bosnia did not meet that criteria.

Even your own source tried to make that plain. Why didn't you quote that portion Angeline?

Congress alone has the power to declare war (not invoked since World War II) and is the sole body with the competence to initiate programmes such as an operation in the Balkans.

PS - You have mentioned that "due to a glitch" you can't open PDF files but never mention the "glitch". You might be a candidate for Foxit which is a pretty handy PDF reader. http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

Collapse -
As discussed in the Chronicle editorial I cited yesterday,
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / January 23, 2006 12:35 PM PST

Ed, the law has changed in the interim. The right's motto is "Never let facts stand in the way of a good smear," though, so this one's all over the right-wing sites.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
smear like dan rathers lies?
by Mark5019 / January 23, 2006 1:03 PM PST

or the smear that kerry was smarter, or the smear that clinton was impeached? wait he was

Collapse -
No Dave the specific law has not changed...
by Edward ODaniel / January 24, 2006 8:40 AM PST

and thus you can't cite any specific change.

That is again part of the reasoning behind the FISA Court finding in 2002 that Congress can't pass laws that limit Congressional Powers of the President--it can only be done by Amendment--that has been cited and linked to several times and you should have read it to avoid embarassment.

It is you over there on the left who avoid the facts and rely on bs.com but still are unable to cite legal regerences for your empty claims.

Collapse -
DK has frequently cited the high court in Houston,
by Kiddpeat / January 24, 2006 9:39 AM PST

the Chronicle as I recall. That's where he looks for definitive legal opinions.

Collapse -
Yes but he also calls the HC...
by Edward ODaniel / January 24, 2006 12:38 PM PST

a very Conservative paper despite advice to take a look at the composition of its editorial board.

He has discovered over the years that if he simply refuses to research anything he can regurgitate debunked propaganda in hopes no one notices and either ignoring corrections or pleading ignorance when it is pointed out.

Collapse -
He is an outstanding example of the scientific establishment
by Kiddpeat / January 24, 2006 1:54 PM PST
Wink
Collapse -
But he is SE's resident legal scholar,
by duckman / January 24, 2006 6:27 PM PST
Collapse -
No, KP -- but the article specifically said
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / January 24, 2006 9:28 PM PST

how the law has changed. if you were interested in facts, instead of just bashing the opposition, youd take the effort to use the search function and find the link. I'll make it easy for you, and state the facts (quoted from ABC News this time):
White House Accuses Gore of Hypocrisy

>>But at the time that of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed. <<

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Two wrongs don't make a right
by Diana Forum moderator / January 24, 2006 8:49 AM PST

Remember the Pharasee in the Temple. He prayed that he was glad he wasn't as evil as that tax collector over there.

Is that what you're saying? If Clinton did it, it can't be wrong.

Diana

Collapse -
EVERY President has done it ...
by Evie / January 24, 2006 10:20 AM PST

... because it is NOT illegal.

Collapse -
But you make it sound like
by Diana Forum moderator / January 24, 2006 10:34 AM PST

it's bad for Clinton to do it but OK for Bush to do it.

Diana

Collapse -
I NEVER did that. Don't see anyone else say that either.
by Evie / January 24, 2006 10:54 AM PST

Although Clinton did take it a step further to include physical searches of American citizens on American soil.

Collapse -
(NT) Is that what I said?
by Edward ODaniel / January 24, 2006 12:45 PM PST

Nope and it takes an awful lot of contortion to even imagine it.

As the Supreme Court itself has stated in at least 4 decisions over the years, the President has the Constitutional Right for warrantless searches necessary to fulfil his Constitutional Duties.

What is WRONG is the hypocracy of those of you over there on the left who supported warrantless searches for Clinton and Carter and claim Bush is doing something illegal although Bush even went so far as to get Congress to pass joint resolutions affirming his right to perform his Constitutional Duties.

Collapse -
Since some people
by TONI H / January 24, 2006 5:29 PM PST

in the media (and here in SE) get pleasure out of quoting 'mis-steps' by Bush, I'm kind of surprised that this quote of his missed that attention....

When asked at a news conference yesterday or the day before was he concerned over the legality of the wiretaps, his response was (with a cockeyed grin)

"If I was going to do something illegal, why would I advise Congress about it ahead of time?"

You could hear the laughter in the background from the news media there.......and the subject was changed immediately. You got the impression that the MEDIA knows......and that they are just going through the motions.

TONI

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Gore looks funny with his beard, or did he shave?
by Bi0-Hazard / January 24, 2006 9:37 AM PST

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!