In the Pocket of the Saudis...

[Shodan]

I thought it was George Bush who was dancing on the strings pulled by the Saudis.

Given that a majority of the 9/11 murderers were Saudi, and the amount of venom directed at the President for his ties to the Saudis, and that fundamentalist Islam seems to be going rather on a tear lately, does it make sense for Al Gore to pick this moment to go overseas and, in a speech funded partly by the bin Laden family, make claims that Muslims were rounded up “indiscriminately” in the United States?

Is Gore that desperate for money that he is willing to pander to anti-Western prejudice in return for speaking fees?

Points for debate;[ul][li]Is Gore disloyal, or merely stupid? I cannot imagine a less appropriate time for him to go off on a rant against the US actions post-9/11. I also cannot imagine why he would think this will buy him anything. If he is really campaigning, why would he choose a forum paid for in part by the same source that funded the author of the worst terrorist attack in US history? []Assuming that he is merely stupid, did he not notice that Kerry did much the same sort of thing post-Viet Nam. And it did not seem to help Kerry all that much in his campaign. If the memory of the Gore speech is even fresher than that of the Kerry testimony, why would Gore think to do something so dumb?[]What exactly was the purpose of giving such a speech to a Saudi audience. The Saudis are sort of pro-Western, at least in terms of wanting the flow of petro-dollars to continue. And the House of Saud has enough problems with the extremists in their country. Why would Gore want to embolden or encourage the extremists? And finally, what responsibility do politicians have to exercise caution in their foreign political speeches? Note that I am not suggesting in any way that the Gore rant should be illegal. I am asking if it was responsible. [/ul][/li]
I look forward eagerly to the release of House of Gore, Hause of Saud or the latest Moore epic.

Regards,
Shodan

[ElvisL1ves]

1. Got a cite other than Newsmax? You’re facing uphill right from the get-go with that, ya know, especially when neither it nor you choose to comment about what he actually said. It isn’t hard to find, for someone with an actual interest in content, though. Try this:

Dialogue Needed to End East-West Divide: Gore

JEDDAH, 13 February 2006 — Focused reasoning and intense dialogue that invite a full and courageous examination of the issues that our world is facing is the most important characteristic that helps to bridge East-West divisions.

This was the view expressed yesterday by former US Vice President Al Gore during his speech at the 7th Jeddah Economic Forum.
“The 21st century has to be a century of renewal, and our ability to overcome these kinds of cycles of disrespect and violence is the key to making it a century of renewal,” he said, alluding, like many other speakers at the forum, to the recent controversy that erupted over caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Commenting on the negative Saudi image in America and the treatment meted out to Saudi nationals and Muslims in the US after the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, he said that he and his Democratic Party colleagues have always opposed illegal detentions of Arabs and other people in the United States.

“Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it’s wrong,” said Gore, adding that there were people even in the current Republican administration who have worked to protect the human and civil rights guaranteed in the US Constitution, and to expose abuses that have occurred following the Sept. 11 attacks. He also criticized the thoughtless manner in which visas for Arabs are now handled.

Imagine that. Speaking out in support of constitutional rights. What a contemptible scumbag!

2. You do know that the bin Laden family =/= Osama, the black sheep they disowned, don’t you? That they’re one of the richest non-royal families in SA?

3. You really don’t think that looking for increased understanding and respect for human rights everywhere will get *more * people killed?

Do try to be a little less transparent, my good fellow.

[Kimstu]

What Shodan seems to be talking about is the 2006 Jeddah Economic Forum, the “Middle Eastern Davos”, a major international annual conference and meeting of heads of state, royalty and other celebrities, and high-level academic experts. It’s been held in Saudi Arabia since 2000, when the featured speakers were former US President George H. W. Bush and former British Prime Minister John Major. (In 2002 one of the speakers was the President’s brother Neil Bush.)

Now, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to argue that the Saud family are a fairly repressive bunch of hereditary autocrats with some extremely dubious connections, whose hospitality at the JEF doesn’t do much credit to modern heads of state and other influential leaders. However, it’s kind of absurd to suggest that Gore’s presence there automatically makes him a lackey of the Arabs, scrounging for speaking fees. Like it or not, the JEF is an extremely high-profile event that attracts lots of international leaders, and it’s silly to pretend that speaking there somehow puts them all “in the pocket of the Saudis”.

Note also that the usual complaints about the Bush-Saud connections are about the close personal ties between the two families, not just the fact that Bushes show up as speakers at some high-profile Saudi conferences.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Shodan

Is Gore disloyal, or merely stupid? I cannot imagine a less appropriate time for him to go off on a rant against the US actions post-9/11. I also cannot imagine why he would think this will buy him anything. If he is really campaigning, why would he choose a forum paid for in part by the same source that funded the author of the worst terrorist attack in US history?

When exactly is an appropriate time? Nothing is more American than the ability of the people to air their grievances to the government. Many people consider our President’s foreign policies appalling adn actually doing damage to our country rather than helping it.

Additionally you should know that the bin Laden family is not the same thing as Osama bin Laden. Indeed the Saudis issued an arrest warrant for Osama in the early 90s. Osama is not welcome in Saudi Arabia. Osama is but one of 17 sons (not sure how many girls there were) of Mohammed bin Laden. The bin Laden is hugely powerful and influential in Saudi Arabia and I seriously doubt they jeopardize all of that by funding their wayward son. Suggesting that Gore is being funded by the same people who funded 9/11 is quite a reach and not really supportable. Of course that will not stop those who cannot bother to think about it from just seeing the name “bin Laden” associated with Gore and assuming that Gore and Osama are golfing buddies.

Assuming that he is merely stupid, did he not notice that Kerry did much the same sort of thing post-Viet Nam. And it did not seem to help Kerry all that much in his campaign. If the memory of the Gore speech is even fresher than that of the Kerry testimony, why would Gore think to do something so dumb?

Dumb to who? Conservatives who wouldn’t vote for him anyway? To some people he is merely voicing their sentiments. Whether he goes too far is something for history to maybe tell us but playing to your political base is about as old as politics itself and something they all do (Bush being a master at it).

What exactly was the purpose of giving such a speech to a Saudi audience. The Saudis are sort of pro-Western, at least in terms of wanting the flow of petro-dollars to continue. And the House of Saud has enough problems with the extremists in their country. Why would Gore want to embolden or encourage the extremists?

How is he emboldening extremists? Without having seen the speech I suspect he is paving the way for some sort of cooperation with the Saudis and perhaps the Arab world at large by saying he is not a cavalier about the political situations in these countries as Bush has proven to be. That by no means is to say that Gore, were he to be President someday, would just roll over and do as those in the mideast would like but it is a start at opening a dialogue and a start at something Bush should lookup…diplomacy.

And finally, what responsibility do politicians have to exercise caution in their foreign political speeches? Note that I am not suggesting in any way that the Gore rant should be illegal. I am asking if it was responsible.

I guess it depends who you ask. I think it is more than appropriate for someone to try and spread the word that the obscene actions of our current President do not necessarily reflect what our country is really like. Of course others see pur President’s actions as the height of responsibility and would shout down any naysayers as un-American. I guess history will tell…that or whoever has the best spin machine. In general however any political wannabe that says something really overtly stupid is usually seen as such and their damage is minimal as everyone knows that person is a goof who now has no political future.

[tagos]

How about another option? Gore was right.

No More roundups

“The delirium caused by the bombings turned in the direction of a deportation crusade with the spontaneity of water seeking out the course of least resistance.” So wrote Louis F. Post about the Palmer Raids of 1919-20, when the federal government responded to a series of terrorist bombings by rounding up thousands of foreigners, not for their connection to the bombings but for technical immigration violations and association with various factions of the Communist Party.

Post’s description equally captures the Bush administration’s response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Once again the government pursued “the course of least resistance,” rounding up thousands of foreigners, not for terrorist activity but for technical immigration violations. Many were arrested in secret, held without charges, denied access to lawyers, presumed guilty until proven innocent, tried in secret, and kept locked up long after their cases were fully resolved. In the name of “preventing terrorism,” the government has locked up more than 5,000 foreigners who had nothing to do with terrorism.

Memory is short

Memory is short

During his six months at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, Anser Mehmood spent 123 days in a supermax lockdown facility, where guards slammed his face into a wall and threatened to kill him.

His crime? Overstaying a tourist visa.

Mehmood’s is one of hundreds of stories that have prompted concern in the international human rights community about the precipitous round-up of 1200 Muslim and Arab immigrants after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) blocked access to monitors from Amnesty International and other groups. However, a March Amnesty report – based on visits to Hudson and Passaic county jails in New Jersey and interviews with witnesses of INS detention centers in 26 states – depicts a pattern of abuse that belies the basic principles of justice. In flat, diplomatic language, the report details the arbitrary imprisonment of hundreds of people who’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers, and are often prosecuted in secret trials.

Anser Mehmood is now one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, INS Commissioner Ziglar, and the warden and guards of MDC. The civil rights suit, brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, alleges Muslim detainees have been subjected to “unreasonable and excessively harsh conditions.” The international press reported in April that immigration lawyers anticipate approximately 100 detainees (and former detainees) will file similar allegations.

An Iranian detainee at the Wackenhut facility in Denver suffered what may have been a stroke in solitary confinement. He received no treatment for three months in spite of his symptoms. And Muhammed Butt, a Pakistani detained on visa violation, died of a heart attack at Hudson county correctional center in New Jersey. According to an investigative report by Anne-Marie Cusac of The Progressive, Butt’s cellmate told Human Rights Watch monitors Butt had requested medical attention many times in the 10 days prior to his death. He banged on the door to no avail the day he died.

Unfortunately, the Justice Department’s investigation into a mounting number of civil rights violations in INS detention has prompted retaliation from prison guards. On May 24, The Washington Post reported that immediately after the DOJ interviews, MDC guards stepped up their verbal and physical abuse of detainees. MDC inmates organized a hunger strike to protest the new round of harassment.

[RyJae]

What Al Gore said was wrong, whether it was fact or fiction, especially in light of the cartoon rioting.
What makes the whole situation worse, IMHO is that he said things that he is not willing to back up, he made claims that Muslims where being rounded up in the USA indiscriminately, and in unforgiving conditions.
I failed to hear about any of these abuses, I know they rounded up those on expired visa’s etc. But that was for reasons, not indiscriminatly. The other comment he made that rubbed me wrong was how he said they where rounded up and held in unforgivable conditions. He seemed to be eluding to Gitmo, but as far as anything I can google, those rounded up in the US after 9/11 where simply deported.

Debate point one, merely stupid, regardless of political leanings, saying deliberately inflaming material to incite hatred is plain stupid. If his comments set in motion a future terrorist who comes to America and blows up more innocent people perhaps he would then see the error in his speech.
Debate point two, Gore did it to jump on the attack Bush wagon, it is fun and easy. Plus he probably got paid for it!
Debate point three, see point one, stupid.
Debate point four, they have no responsibilty as they are under no conditions to support the US in speeches.

As a person who voted for Gore, this action by him made me re-think a lot of things.

On preview I seen the reply, I will help out with some links.

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21290

Gore to Saudis: U.S. Committed 'Terrible Abuses' to Arabs

News

U.S. government committed “terrible abuses” against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001

Gore said Arabs had been “indiscriminately rounded up” and held in “unforgivable” conditions.

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been “indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable.”

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/02/13/ap2520605.html

[RyJae]

@tagos

How about another option? Gore was right.

No More roundups

Memory is short

Memory is short

I stand corrected, but still do not think his comments where appropriate, who would of thought a cartoon could lead to what has been happening. Let alone comments such as those made by Gore.

[John_Mace]

It’s hard for me to get all that excited about Gore one way or the other. On the one hand, I think it’s bad form for an ex-VP to dis the US in a talk overseas. Say all you want on US soil, but going to a Muslim country to talk about alleged mistreatment of Muslims in the US at exactly the time when the Muslim world is rioting over the Mohammed cartoons… not good. On the other hand, Gore is basically a has been with little to no chance of getting on the ticket again. He doesn’t garner the attention that someone like Clinton or even Carter would get, so it doesn’t appear that much harm was done.

Regarding the OP:

1. False dichotomy. No reason to assume nefarious purposes, or to assume that he’s stupid.

2. Bad analogy. I don’t see the parallel, and Kerry was expressing the views of a large chunk of the American people by that time in the Vietnam War.

3. This seems like the same complaint as #1.

4. See what I wrote above. I’d prefer that politicians like Gore make negative statements about the current administration on US soil, not in foreign countries.

[Shodan]

@John Mace

Regarding the OP:

1. False dichotomy. No reason to assume nefarious purposes, or to assume that he’s stupid.

I think it is fair game to say that he is being stupid by making such a speech to the Saudis, given the present riots in the Islamic world. Especially since, as I mentioned, it is hard to see how it will benefit anyone.

2. Bad analogy. I don’t see the parallel, and Kerry was expressing the views of a large chunk of the American people by that time in the Vietnam War.

Kerry said that the US forces in Viet Nam were committing war crimes every day, and that he had said nothing about them while he was still in-country (IIRC). You may remember that there was some discussion of this during the last elections.

3. This seems like the same complaint as #1.

I was mentioning specifically the problems that the Saudis have with Islamic fundamentalism - they are, after all, the home country of bin Laden and most of the 9/11 hijackers. I can’t imagine that Gore is helping any, here.

4. See what I wrote above. I’d prefer that politicians like Gore make negative statements about the current administration on US soil, not in foreign countries.

Indeed, especially now. Wouldn’t you say?

@Whack-a-Mole

When exactly is an appropriate time?

Perhaps when there is a little less rioting by Islamo-fascist extremists, encouraged by governments who want to distract their people from their domestic failures.

But four years after the fact? And characterizing the arrests as “indiscriminate”?

Nothing is more American than the ability of the people to air their grievances to the government.

This was the Saudi government. How exactly is bad-mouthing the guy who beat you to foreigners “airing one’s grievance to the” American government?

If you are just saying that Gore is still sore over the 2000 elections, no doubt you are right, but I don’t see how this helps any. If he wants to run again in 2008, what is to stop people from running a Moore-like documentary putting it pretty much as I have been - ominous stuff about how Gore accepted a six-figure “donation” from the bin Laden family to poor-mouth the US government?

The understanding used to be that “politics stopped at the water’s edge”. And Slick Willie got into some hot water in 1992 for some speeches he gave in Great Britain, before he flunked out. Maybe Gore thinks that if Clinton got away with it, so can he.

It seems Hilary is trying to position herself to the center. Is this a move by Gore to the left? Maybe he has been spending too much time with Pelosi.

@Kimstu

Note also that the usual complaints about the Bush-Saud connections are about the close personal ties between the two families, not just the fact that Bushes show up as speakers at some high-profile Saudi conferences.

That doesn’t seem to be true of Moore or the “no blood for oil” crowd.

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

Is Gore disloyal, or merely stupid?

Actually, ]b]Shodan,** what he is doing is called Setting a Good Example. May it be widely followed.

[Kimstu]

@Kimstu

Note also that the usual complaints about the Bush-Saud connections are about the close personal ties between the two families, not just the fact that Bushes show up as speakers at some high-profile Saudi conferences.

@Shodan

That doesn’t seem to be true of Moore or the “no blood for oil” crowd.

Sure it is. In Fahrenheit 9/11, for example, Moore spends much of his time talking about the personal ties between the Bushes and Sauds—e.g., the friendship between the President and Prince Bandar ibn Sultan—and Saudi funding for Bush’s oil company Harken, and the quick maneuvering on the part of the Administration to get Saud family members out of the country post-9/11, and so forth.

Moore’s criticisms are certainly not directed primarily, or even significantly, at the mere fact that Bush politicos annually join a couple thousand other high-level pooh-bahs, bureaucrats, and academics to chew the fat over world political and economic issues at Jeddah. As I say, the fact that this event is funded with Saud autocracy oil money may well be considered discreditable, but the fact remains that it’s a major, internationally respected event. Simply being involved in it can’t reasonably be held to imply that one is a toady to the Arabs.

Shoot, if you’re going to accuse Gore of being “in the pocket of the Saudis” simply for having given a speech at the 2006 JEF, you’re going to have to say the same about Forbes editor Steve Forbes, Chevron vice-chairman Peter Robertson, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and the President of Ireland, who all did the same thing. Man, those Saudis must have them some big pockets! :eek:

[Shodan]

@Kimstu

In Fahrenheit 9/11, for example, Moore spends much of his time talking about the personal ties between the Bushes and Sauds—e.g., the friendship between the President and Prince Bandar ibn Sultan—and Saudi funding for Bush’s oil company Harken, and the quick maneuvering on the part of the Administration to get Saud family members out of the country post-9/11, and so forth.

Actually it is the Saudi funding I was talking about, and the alleged favors and skullduggery with terrorists in pursuit of oil. You know, the crap about the pipeline in Afghanistan and the Taliban and so forth.

As I say, the fact that this event is funded with Saud autocracy oil money may well be considered discreditable, but the fact remains that it’s a major, internationally respected event.

Actually, the bin Laden family in in construction.

Man, those Saudis must have them some big pockets! :eek:

That they certainly do. No doubt they want to curry favor with a (remotely, but still) possible candidate for the Presidency. I doubt they wanted him to give a stupid, inflammatory speech - maybe that is going to be Gore’s stump speech.

Which, as I say, won’t (I believe) help.

Regards,
Shodan

[Neurotik]

@Shodan

Actually, the bin Laden family in in construction.

That is just one of many, many sponsors of the event, from property development companies like Emaar to airlines to banks, etc. Any attempt to draw anything from it just represents a typically pathetic attempt on your part to smear anyone on the other side of you politically.

[Kimstu]

@Shodan

I doubt they wanted him to give a stupid, inflammatory speech

Do you have any evidence that it actually “inflamed” anything? As far as I can make out from news reports, it was generally received as fairly standard rhetoric about building bridges, renouncing violence, and promoting mutual understanding:

Focused reasoning and intense dialogue that invite a full and courageous examination of the issues that our world is facing is the most important characteristic that helps to bridge East-West divisions.

This was the view expressed yesterday by former US Vice President Al Gore during his speech at the 7th Jeddah Economic Forum.

“The 21st century has to be a century of renewal, and our ability to overcome these kinds of cycles of disrespect and violence is the key to making it a century of renewal,” he said, alluding, like many other speakers at the forum, to the recent controversy that erupted over caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Gore’s speech certainly seems to have inflamed some American conservatives, but I don’t see any evidence that anybody else is going apeshit over it.

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

Kerry said that the US forces in Viet Nam were committing war crimes every day, and that he had said nothing about them while he was still in-country (IIRC).

Actually, what he said was – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_kerry#Testimony_before_the_Senate_Foreign_Relations_Committee:

On April 22, 1971, Kerry became the first Vietnam veteran to testify before Congress about the war, when he appeared before a Senate committee hearing on proposals relating to ending the war. Wearing green fatigues and service ribbons, he spoke for nearly two hours with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in what has been named the Fulbright Hearing, after the Chairman of the proceedings, Senator J.W. Fulbright. Kerry began with a prepared speech, in which he presented the conclusions of the Winter Soldier Investigation, where veterans had described personally committing or witnessing war crimes. Controversially referring to US servicemen in Vietnam as having been sent “to die for the biggest nothing in history,” Kerry alleged that the military had “created a monster” in the form of violence-prone American soldiers, and recounted that soldiers had personally recollected stories of having “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads,” of Vietnamese citizens and rampaging across Vietnam “[razing] villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan” [20]. He addressed the problems faced by returning veterans.

Most of his testimony addressed the larger policy issues. Kerry expressed his view that the war was essentially a civil war and that nothing in Vietnam was a realistic threat to the United States. He argued that the real reason for the continued fighting was political purposes: “Someone has to die so that President Nixon won’t be, and these are his words, ‘the first President to lose a war.’” That conclusion led him to ask: “[H]ow do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

Senator Fulbright asked Kerry if he supported any of the proposals before the committee. Kerry responded that, based on his conversations in Paris with both Communist delegations to the peace talks (North Vietnamese and Viet Cong), he agreed with Senator Vance Hartke that, if the United States set a date for its withdrawal, it could then obtain the release of its prisoners of war.

In other words, he spoke the truth and he spoke for justice. (And Kerry’s testimony was by no means the most damning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Testimony_from_veterans.)

Go thou and do likewise.

[vibrotronica]

@Shodan

Is Gore disloyal, or merely stupid?

Disloyal? You mean treasonous? Do you think Al Gore is a traitor?

Go ahead, call him a traitor if you think he’s a traitor. Don’t hide behind weasel-words. If you think he’s a traitor, call him a traitor.

You’re just trying to poison the well and cast aspersions on Gore because of his recent speech nailing King George for his wanton unconstitutional abuse of power. If you want to stand with Bush and against 200+ years of American rule of law, then by all means do it openly.

[Shodan]

@Kimstu

Gore’s speech certainly seems to have inflamed some American conservatives, but I don’t see any evidence that anybody else is going apeshit over it.

I think some Muslims are already going apeshit. The question is whether Gore is helping or hurting.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@vibrotronica

Go ahead, call him a traitor if you think he’s a traitor. Don’t hide behind weasel-words. If you think he’s a traitor, call him a traitor.

Oh, don’t worry - I would.

You’re just trying to poison the well and cast aspersions on Gore because of his recent speech nailing King George for his wanton unconstitutional abuse of power.

No, I am casting aspersions because of his recent speech making wild accusations on how the Muslims in the US were being rounded up “indiscriminately”. As I mentioned.

Although this quote from the rant to which you linked -

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.

coming from Clinton’s VP, falls under the heading of “richly ironic”.

Regards,
Shodan

[Marley23]

@Shodan

The question is whether Gore is helping or hurting.

The way you’ve framed your OP makes it sound like you’re interested in slamming Gore, not in assessing this question. Anyway, can Gore’s audience have possibly been unaware of what he was talking about? I think that’s highly unlikely. I also doubt that something like this would offend the Muslim world the way cartoons of Muhammad did - and the cartoons only provoked that offense after months of effort and misrepresentation.

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

No, I am casting aspersions because of his recent speech making wild accusations on how the Muslims in the US were being rounded up “indiscriminately”.

And he was telling the truth. What’s your point?