I haven't seen the speech (we tend not to get that kind of thing on the opposite bank of the pond) but given the disaster that was Gore's last Presidential campaign, I have to say I'm surprised that this one speech has turned so many heads.  

Are people really excited about Gore the candidate?  Why?  Frankly I think he's SUCH a play-it-safe politician that he wouldn't have considered making this speech if he was running for the President of the PTA, let alone the USA.  As a candidate, he did exactly the same thing as Kerry -- tried to be all things to all people, and failed at everything.

Let him stay where he is now -- as a vocal standard bearer for our ideas, but not as an active politician.  He does us a lot more good right where he is.

I've only read the speech, not seen it, but my impression is that he delivered it before an audience of civil liberties groups who would, of course, applaud.  But has it been given a lot of play in MSM?  On TV?

The problem is that the American people are not likely to be moved by "limits on executive power."   Those who are not on our side on this will see it as liberals trying to limit Bush.  The rest of us are already well-informed and convinced.

However eloquent Gore was, isn't action what's needed?

El Campesino

 You are mistaken.  Clinton authorized warrantless searches OF FOREIGNERS.  NOT our own citizens.  You may think that is a bad idea but it is entirely within the law.  Indeed, the Clinton administration adhered to the FISA law every step of the way.  The problem with what Bush has done isnt so much that he has done warrantless searches (though that is bad enough all by itself)  No, it is that he has asserted that he is above the law, and can ignore it whenever he likes.  That is a threat to our democracy.  The President cant break the law whenever he feels like it.  Clinton didnt and Bush should be impeached for it.

Are people really excited about Gore the candidate?  Why?

Yes, they are. Why? Because for the past few years, he hasn't been speaking like a candidate. And so few other Democratic leaders have been speaking truth to the rotten heart of this Administration with the urgency felt in the hearts of so many of us.

The fact that Gore doesn't care about winning an election seems to have produced in him the very qualities it takes to win an election.

I just hope he doesn't start freestylin' next.

To be fair, back when he was still considering whether to run in 2004, Gore hinted that were he to run again he would indeed be talking like this:

Gore said that [2000] campaign had "too much strategy, too many consultants giving too much advice," said Chris Korge, a party fund-raiser from Miami.

"If he were to do this again ... he would not be so guarded. He would let it rip and let the chips fall where they may," Korge quoted Gore as saying.

Eloquence and honesty and complexity,  and with them democracy, are all boring to TV and MSM. Conveniently enough for them that also all but assures the outcome of elections: the glib and/or evil, those prepared to lie and slander in sound bites, are bound to win almost every time.

My earlier reply was deleted too, which was that the Clinton administration did not assert a power greater than Congressional law, just a power in absence of Congressional law. Bush's lawless disregard of FISA is quite different, which makes yours an apples-oranges comparison, the typical sort of empty hypocrisy argument that passes for right wing though and analysis of issues these days.

I guess when you don't have an argument just make an ad hominem from the omniscient third person perspective and call it a day.

This is the second time you've brought up Aldrich Ames.  Why?  

You still haven't given a direct answer to the relevance of Ames to the present situation. I will guess that you are referring to surveillance done on Ames, without knowing if there was a court order.

In the intelligence community, one's employment agreement, or, even more likely, the specific "indoctrinations" signed for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information programs, the individual may agree, in advance, to surveillance by the relevant intelligence agency's security personnel.

For years, there was a bold warning in the front of the Defense Department phone book that any call on an official phone could be monitored for possible security violations; this is the general rule for organizations working with classified material.

Such waivers are given with informed consent; it is abundantly clear before employment that there will be assorted security surveillance beyond that allowable for the average citizen.

Thank you, BrianOC for explaining that.  It was disconcerting as it had not happened before.

My points are substantive, you just don't like them. As for ad hominem attacks, what do you call what you just said? Why don't you try to prove me wrong instead?

I know.  Just answer the question

Man, I am glad that Gore stood up and fought back. Republicans say they do not mind if a failed Presidential candidate attacks the Republican who beat him. Another Republican spin, Al Gore won the popular vote, he was denied the electoral vote win from the Republican Supreme Court so in my mind Gore can keep on fighting. I am glad that Democrats are finally starting to fight back. Paul Hackett in Ohio on Sunday said that the Republican Party has been hijacked by fundamentalist. We need Democrats like Gore, Hackett to show the nation that we as Democrats have a backbone. I wish the ultimate speaker John Edwards comes out and has a major speech and fights back, which we most likely will when the primary season starts. I wish Wes Clark would start fighting back and attacking the Republicans. He is the best person we have for foreign policy. To get back to Gore, I will not support him in primaries if he runs, but I hope he keeps on fighting the Republicans with the populist message that he did not show in 2000. If he spoke like he did on MLK day than he would have beat Bush by a larger margin.

I was replying to the assertion that Clinton never authorized warrantless searches of citizens.

I'm really glad you brought this up.  IMO there are two legitimate reasons to give the lowest ratings: 1) mindless repetition of vague/provocative talking points, particularly when they've already been refuted or when they're no longer relevant to the conversation, and 2) when posts are, for any reason, not suitable for friendly debate.

Opposing views should absolutely be welcomed here, but only, I think, if those voicing them are genuinely interested in discussion.  There's a difference between disagreeing and baiting, you know?  The former is entirely appropriate; the latter is certainly not.

And doesn't it make a difference that the investigation was internal to the CIA, and not targeted against a civilian?

El Campesino,

You still have not given any reason why Clinton needed to get a warrant to tap Aldrich Ames phones. He was an employee of the CIA who had given permission in advance.

When I was a member of the military on active duty I gave up my freedom of speech under the UCMJ. Criticism of a superior officer up to the Commander in Chief was an offence for which I could be court martialed. (Article 88.)That would have been a federal felony conviction, and I can guarantee that my special status as a commissioned officer in the U.S. military meant that I did not have the right to freedom of speech in such a case.

Similarly, Aldrich Ames gave up the right to not be investigates under purely administrative procedures by his employer, the CIA, when he signed on with the CIA.

Maybe it was there. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe I hadn't gotten around to rating it.

There is a Jules Pfeffer cartoon, in which Job prostrates himself, saying "God, I try to follow your laws. Why do you torment me so?"

A Great Voice answers, "Y'know, Job, I've thought about that. I've come to the conclusion that there's something about you that just pisses me off.

In international law, the doctrine of tu quoque is generally inadmissible. That's Latin for "You too!".

I was questioning your words, not McLogan's. I deal with one case at a time. Push farther, and I shall provide one of Winston Churchill's few obscene observations, although still a pithy one.

I gather you're just thrilled about the way things are being run (to use the word very loosely).

I said it's a non sequitur. That means I'm not going to answer the question, Mensa.

I have concluded, indeed, there is no maybe. You are a troll.

It may be difficult for you, but the rating system is intended to be anonymous. How do you know what I rated at any given point? Now, there have been times that I have changed ratings on a post when, variously, I thought about it further, or another post helped clarify it, or when the original poster made it clear there was a sequence of posts.

This will be the last response to you about your whining about how you were or were not rated.

I think I get it….

Larry King …

DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Larry, the president and the executive branch certainly need the authority to listen in and check the e-mails of all the bad guys who may be connected to al Qaeda, whether they are foreign or Americans.

I don't think that's in question. The question is how it's done. I'm mystified that the president chose not to use the system that has been in place, that other administrations have used quite successfully or if this system that Congress set up is inadequate, why didn't he go back to the Congress and ask for it to be amended so it could be used appropriately and there wouldn't be scrutiny?

I must tell you, Larry, as someone who worked for Richard Nixon, and where that badge proudly, I am nonetheless suspicious when I hear any administration start it talk about the inherent powers of the presidency as if they're unlimited.

My experience and I think the entire experience of the public is that when the executive branch begins to collect information on individual Americans for one legitimate purpose and that -- and there's no check on that, then somebody else is going to come along and that administration or a subsequent one and use that information for mischievous purposes to smear somebody, to invade their privacy, to misuse that information in a way that really does hurt other people. And I think that's the basic concern we ought to have here. There ought to be some checks on the way this is done.

So I get what the big secret is… the so called wiretap is a data base that is being stored of ALL communications, so it’s not about current… or future communication to a given number or set of numbers… it’s about PAST.  When a terrorist uses a cell phone… finds out the cell phone has been compromised… they stop using it. BUT what if there was a HUGE database of communications that you could then plug that number into and see what happened in the PAST. You could uncover networks… NOW WHO IS GUARDING THE DATABASE? Apparently… no one. AND think about What this database could be used for… hmmmm let’s plug in the democratic leadership and see what we get… oh wait… how about war protesters… if this database is used for POLITCAL purposes think of the ramifications of THAT?  Makes Karl Rove look a lot less brilliant doesn’t it? It’s exactly like a Google of past phone conversations and communications. BUT if there is no oversight over WHO is doing the Googleing and for what purpose it absolutely boggles the mind!

Later in the King program Tice said this….


KING: Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency officer, who wants to testify before Congress about all of this, about a super secret black world or special access programs, when you started doing what you had to do or were apparently were ordered to do or asked to do, did it make you uncomfortable, Russell?

TICE: Well, most of these programs are very beneficial to the security of our country. It is just the potentiality of abuses, and I think abuses have happened that I think need to be addressed. And apparently we have very little oversight. So that's sort of what I want to bring to issue to Congress.



There you go… this would explain WHY people have come forward… the database was being used for political purposes. NOW… I think I have figured this out… and I’m sure others will soon… and there IS a question of national security here… how can you discuss oversight of an existing database if you don’t want to reveal its existence? It’s going to come out anyway… and if Bush and company have used this database for purposes other than National Security it will be the scandal of the millennium.

I am sure I am right…. Can’t wait to see what happens…

I am surprised by your comment. I thinkit is clear that the nation WOULD be servedby impeaching Bush and this should be done with cause as soon as possible. It may not be politically possible. In any case, there is ample justification for it. A special prosecutor is a minimum requirement otherwise this and any other Presidential crimes simply get investigated by the cover-up Congress which is bringing so much grief now to the country. Even if the consequences were electoral defeat in 06 this would still be the rightcourse for the nation; but I see no evidence of that. Perhaps you are referring to the electoral punishment the nation heaped on the Republicans in 2000-2004 for their clearly politically motivated, and unpopular, impeachment of Clinton.

I have concluded, indeed, there is no maybe. You are a troll. It may be difficult for you, but the rating system is intended to be anonymous. How do you know what I rated at any given point? Now, there have been times that I have changed ratings on a post when, variously, I thought about it further, or another post helped clarify it, or when the original poster made it clear there was a sequence of posts.
This will be the last response to you about your whining about how you were or were not rated.

Artappraiser is right - rating is not anonymous.  Frankly it is very rare that I even look at them.  In your case I only did so to respond to your snotty lecture and show your double standard.