Al Gore Attacks Bush Administration On Wiretapping

Re: [the absurdity of] Al Gore Attack[ing] Bush Administration On Wiretapping

THIS thread seems to have been lost with nosborne's divagations into Florida, 2000: what the Hell does "Gore lost" - not Bush won - mean, anyway? Does that mean you are an agnostic about the outcome of that Presidential election? Or did some other party - the Moones, perhaps - get cheated out of winning the state? (There was a consortium of newsorganizations that examined the voting, of course, and no Gore strategy would have gained him a majority, and virtually none of the alternatives, either.)

Now, back to the substance of Al Gore's speechifying:

"At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently." -Al Gore, January 16, 2005

Does no one remember that Vice President Al Gore backed the "Clipper chip"? This was a peacetime scheme by President Clinton. Gore not only supported eavesdropping on Americans without court approval – he also chaired a project designed to execute just that in total secrecy. In short, Gore wanted to bug every phone, computer and fax in America.

In 1993 Al Gore was charged by then President Bill Clinton to run the "Clipper" project. Clipper was a special chip designed by the National Security Agency (NSA) to be built into all phones, computers and fax machines. Not only would Clipper provide scrambled security, it also contained a special "exploitable feature" enabling the NSA to monitor all phone calls without a court order. Now in 2006, suddenly, matters are different?

In a related GWOT matters, this passage in Richard Clarke's 'Against All Enemies' - published in 2004 in a fairly blatant attempt to compare the Bush administration's anti-terrorism efforts unfavorably with those of Bill Clinton - is highly pertinent:

"Snatches, or more properly 'extraordinary renditions,' were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'" (pp. 143-144)

Nows, in Gore's more recent speechifying, he has specifically denounced rendition. No more "go grab his ass."

As blogger tigerhawk asks: "Al Gore supported rendition before al Qaeda had declared war on the United States and hung its battle flag on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the African embassies, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Bali disco, the Madrid trains, and the United Nations. But after those defeats, Al Gore changed his mind. Has any reporter for any major news organization bothered to ask Gore to explain his reasoning?" (Explanation: reporters don't read - er, think.)

And all this from a guy who not only dropped out of Vanderbilt Law School, but was asked to leave?

Can you say "hypocrite?" many times over?

Finally, back in the 1990's Here is what Veep Al Gore and his boss Bill Clinton thought about warrantless searches when they were in office:

"'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,' Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, 'and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.'

"'It is important to understand,' Gorelick continued, 'that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.'

"Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against 'a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power'...

"...Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it 'does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security.' In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary." http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

How does Al like them apples? Presumably, our 'friends' in the fourth estate will never get around to asking Gore the most relevant questions.

-Orson

 

Man Orson....Home run.....