Gore's Challenge

Gore's Challenge

I have issues with Gore since he lost in 2000. He has often appeared to go off the deep end like a man with an axe to grind. I do agree with Broder’s comments regarding issues Gore brought up in his speech as they are definitely worthy of looking into.

Where it gets sticky to me is when someone mixes points that are like the “Bush Lied” one. If this is one of your talking points, you tend to lose me since you appear prepared to grasp anything regardless of how much reality negates the assertion.

If these issues are going to be looked into it would be most advantageous to this nation to not allow it to become a media and political circus. No matter what some people think of the President, the reality of why various steps have been taken were/are due to threats that do exist in this day and age.

Broder repeats some of Gore’s points: Abu Ghraib, resistance to “prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of detainees,” and of course, “Bush broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls without a warrant,” and says that Gore “has lots of company among legal scholars” with regard to the illegality of it. There is another side to any legal argument a few instances of which can be found here, here and here. Since we are talking about the law and a presidents authority it would be detrimental if this were handled like the 9/11 Commission or the Supreme Court hearings of late. In overzealous attempts to thwart or bring down the President it would be a mistake to deny ourselves methods that actually may have and do protect us.

In bringing him down, will we tie our own hands as we often are wont to do and assist our enemies in realizing their dream(s)?