SwiftVets.com

[fortdixlover]

Al Gore has certainly proven himself to be a Fedayeen Uncle Sam. Thank God he did not become President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of this nation.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13563

[fortdixlover]

Weep for our country, because this deranged partisan hack was once Vice-President of the United States.


Gore Gone Crazy

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006781.php

Al Gore's speech today before a Move On audience in New York was so over the top, so around the bend, so surreal in its hateful portrayal of America and the Bush administration, that it stakes out ground never before occupied by a prominent (or formerly prominent) American politician. To fisk the entire speech, pointing out and documenting all of its hundreds of inaccuracies, would take days if not weeks. So I'll confine myself, for now, to a few points.

The main theme of Gore's speech was that all of the current bad news from Iraq is a natural outgrowth of President Bush's policies. For example:

The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th....David Kay concluded his search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq with the famous verdict: "we were all wrong." And for many Americans, Kay's statement seemed to symbolize the awful collision between Reality and all of the false and fading impressions President Bush had fostered in building support for his policy of going to war.

To which I can only say: Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002:

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Gore continues:

It is now clear that their obscene abuses of the truth and their unforgivable abuse of the trust placed in them after 9/11 by the American people led directly to the abuses of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison and, we are now learning, in many other similar facilities constructed as part of Bush's Gulag, in which, according to the Red Cross, 70 to 90 percent of the victims are totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

Huh? Why exactly is that "clear"? But it's always fun when a liberal tries to quote a statistic; let's pursue that for a moment. Gore's reference to the Red Cross was very artfully phrased, no doubt because he knew the impression he was trying to foster was false. Anyone hearing his speech would reasonably understand that the Red Cross had done some kind of a survey or study and had found, by some empirical means, that 70 to 90 percent of the Iraqis in Abu Ghraib and other prisons were completely innocent.

That is not, of course, what the Red Cross reported. Their February report, which is freely accessible on the internet, said only this: "Certain CF military intelligence officials told the ICRC that in their estimate between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake." Note three basic points: One, the Red Cross did no investigation whatsoever to arrive at this "statistic," which now shows up routinely in left-wing denunciations of the war. Two, the allegation is unsourced; the "military intelligence officials" are anonymous. Such anonymous, second-hand sourcing is, for obvious reasons, notoriously unreliable. God only knows what some unknown "intelligence official" said to some unknown Red Cross staffer.

Third, the Red Cross' second-hand slur didn't refer to Abu Ghraib or any other prison. It referred to persons who were "deprived of liberty." A great many people in Iraq are detained briefly by military personnel; it seems reasonable to assume that most of those who are "arrested by mistake" are freed, not imprisoned at Abu Ghraib or other prisons in "Bush's gulag." It is therefore ridiculous to transfer the Red Cross' anonymous estimate to the inmates of Abu Ghraib. But this is what Al Gore and other leftist politicians and newspapers do, constantly.

Gore alleges that the war in Iraq has somehow impeded the war on terror and benefited al Qaeda:

Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks.

Gore relies on news reports like this one from the Associated Press. But, as Dafydd ab Hugh has pointed out, the short attention span of the American liberal apparently prevented Gore from reading to the end of the article, where the 18,000 number is explained:

The IISS said its estimate of 18,000 al-Qaida fighters was based on intelligence estimates that the group trained at least 20,000 fighters in its camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al-Qaida fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said.

So Gore's claim that "in the wake of the war in Iraq" al Qaeda has 18,000 members is a ridiculous mischaracterization of the Institute of Strategic Studies' report. The 18,000 number is merely the difference between the estimated number of people who passed through al Qaeda training camps before the war in Afghanistan, and the 2,000 al Qaeda members who are estimated to have been killed since then. The figure, whether accurate or not, has nothing at all to do with the war in Iraq, contrary to Gore's assertion.

I don't know whether the IISS has any particular credibility, but, for what it's worth, here is what that organization had to say about the potential benefits of the Iraq war in the fight against terrorism:

Progress in marginalising transnational Islamist terrorists will come incrementally. It is likely to accelerate only with currently elusive political developments that would broadly depress recruitment and motivation, such as the stable democratisation of Iraq or resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Liberals hate America. They never admit it, but it's true. Here is a small but revealing moment in Gore's hysterical tirade that shows, I think, what he really believes:

[Speaking of torture] We all know these things, and we need not reassure ourselves and should not congratulate ourselves that our society is less cruel than some others, although it is worth noting that there are many that are less cruel than ours.

Got that? America is "less cruel than some," but "more cruel than many." We just need to apologize for our errors, bow our heads in submission, and take instruction from the majority of nations in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America who are so well qualified to give us lessons in the avoidance of cruelty. If you believe this, you may as well stop reading; you are a hard-core Kerry voter.

I could go on, but I'll stop for now. There is simply too much falsehood and confusion in Gore's speech for any one person to deconstruct. We should perhaps divide his tirade by paragraphs and parcel out to websites in the blogosphere--the Northern Alliance, for example, with help from others, since the job is so vast--the task of refuting Gore's misrepresentations and libels, one by one.

In the meantime, you should read his speech. Read it, and weep for our country, because this deranged partisan hack was once Vice-President of the United States.

[Dave Crosby]

I agree. The sad thing is he is so mentally unstable he does not even realize how he is coming across to the people of this country.

There is a reason for the shift in what was once the "Loyal Opposition" I'll get to later.
_________________
He also serves who only stands and waits.

[carpro]

I'll repeat what I wrote in the Vets forum.

Al Gore is the laughing stock of American politics.

Because he lost the 2000 election?
No. Because he showed his lack of class when he did.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service."

[Richard]

When I listened to that speech, I was in shock and awe. My jaw was agape. I've come to expect extreme hyperbole from Gore. But that was encredible!!

Earlier, I wrote a post about my lack of faith in our national leadership. Not all of it, but certainly a portion of it. My question is how can these people make such outlandish statements and look themselves in the mirror? Let alone face the voters! Al Gore is no longer in officer (Thank you, Lord ) but he still speaks for many liberals and liberal Democrats. But Ted Kennedy is still in office. And so is Pelosi, Daschle, Wrangle, Finestein, and other rabble rousers. They have no understanding of national security.



A VOTE FOR KERRY IS A VOTE FOR KENNEDY
_________________
The Public View

[sparky]

Gore is only the laughing stock of that minority who voted for Bush. And worldwide, Bush could only dream of being a laughing stock since he's actually considered a threat to world peace in the civilized world.

And it's foolish to claim that the invasion of Iraq has made us any safer. It was a terrible error to think that we could tackle Al Qaeda by invading a country run by someone who had nothing but suspicion of them.

The way we could have tackled Al Qaeda required the assistance of our allies, especially in matters of intelligence since the organization is dispersed throughout the world.

Oops! What allies? Rumania and Estonia?

[colmurph]

Sparky....you've already proved your point.....that you are an "assclown". Why do you have to keep repeating it over and over? We're sick and tired of your brainless "Liberal" crap.
_________________
CO ODA-14, B Co. 3d SFG (Abn) 66-68
CO A Co. 4/3 INF, 11th LIB, Americal Div. 68-69

[fortdixlover]

[Dimsdale]

One has to wonder if Gore's psychotic display (one of many) is being utilized to make Kerry look more acceptable or reasonable to voters.

Every time Gore opens his mouth, I thank God that he wasn't elected (although a few poor deluded souls on this board still think he was. It is called the Electoral College, boys. Check it out. It is the same thing that renders my vote moot in Massachusetts.

The really scary thing is the response from the rabid, extremist ulltraleftist crowd. Anywhere else but at a moveon (more accurately, "moron") party, he would likely be pelted with rotten fruit and eggs. I have liberal friends (believe it or not!) that were as appalled as I was.

Similarly, recent comments by the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy, Clinton (the Sen.), and others border on sedition, if for no other reason than the fact that there is no longer any local news: the internet and satellite communications make it likely that more foreigners were watching Gore's diatribe than American citizens. And you can bet it will be faithfully trancribed for the Al Jazeera readers.

Do they ever think that their political ambitions are getting soldiers killed? Obviously not. The old axiom of politics "stopping at the water's edge" was as wise as it was old. Too bad the Democrats have abandoned it amd our troops for political expediency.

[Jim]

First, I know that this website is based upon not believing that John Kerry is suitable for being President, and on publicizing the Swift Vets position against him.

Second, I also know that some people think the real reason for the site's existence is to be anti-Kerry for merely political reasons because of the forthcoming election, and that the board is composed of Republicans leveraging their Vietnam service to appear neutral and factual.

Viewing the site today, I see plenty of attacks on Joe Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and other Democrats not running for President.

Are there no veterans here that actually are Democrats? I thought half the United States was Democrat. Is there no such thing as a liberal or moderate vet here? Whenever the posts mention a Democrat, and god forbid a liberal Democrat, ...they are attacked. So it seems to me that when you post attacking other Democrats other than Kerry you are proving that the real reason for this board is the second reason and not the first.

Since Al Gore did not mention the SwiftVets in his speech (which while I truly like Gore, admit was a poor overwrought "red meat" speech) why this thread here?

[Marine4life]

Ok this board is nothing but a bunch of redneck republicans out to hang any democrat in sight, ya right get real. Kennedy, Gore, Clinton, Kerry are viewed by many of us as traitors, criminals. As a group they make us vomit. I only wish more democrats were more like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson. At least they are lawabidding and make sense. Kerry is fueled by the former group and if we could they would all be out, but for now just linking them together is enough.
_________________
Helicopter Marine Attack Squadron 169 which is now HMLA-169. They added Huey's to compliment the Cobra effectiveness. When I served we just had Snakes.

[sparky]

Foxdicklover says:

[carpro]

[Richard]

[Scott]