Here's the transcript of Gore's speech. Here's Byron York commenting on Gore's speech in National Review. Wondering why I categorized Mr. Gore's audience as "fringe left?" Well, since you asked, here's Mr. York on the subject:
Gore's speech was sponsored by the American Constitution Society, a group founded in 2001 to be the liberal counterpart to the Federalist Society, and by an organization called the Liberty Coalition, a little-known group created last year, in the words of its mission statement, "to help organize, support, and coordinate transpartisan public policy activities related to civil liberties and basic human rights." To show its "transpartisanship," the Coalition claims as partners the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Conservative Union; MoveOn.org and Americans for Tax Reform; Democrats.com and Townhall. It's not entirely clear just how broad the Coalition is — the American Conservative Union, for example, says it is not affiliated with the Coalition and had nothing to do with the Gore speech — but in any event, organizers tried hard to suggest that the day's program was not about Republicans or Democrats.And since Mr. Gore spent the better part of his time criticizing the President and flat-out accusing him of consistently breaking the law, vis-a-vis the NSA "wiretapping" wannabe-scandal, I spent a LOT of time going from link to link chasing down the latest on that subject.
Whatever the case, the crowd at Constitution Hall was not at all transpartisan, or even bipartisan. From all appearances, it was a classic MoveOn-style gathering; indeed, MoveOn's political chief, Eli Pariser, had sent out e-mails inviting members to the event. The crowd gave Gore a standing ovation when he walked to the podium, and thunderous applause when he accused the president of breaking the law. There was more heartfelt applause — and one shout of "Right On!" — when Gore referred to "the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy." Whatever the crowd was, it wasn't transpartisan.
I'll save you a lot of time by simply pointing you to The Anchoress, who was engaged today in the same sort of activities as I, albeit earlier, and better. Amazing linkage! If you choose only ONE link to follow at her page, go to AJ Strata's comprehensive posting on the NSA's activities and the clue-impaired reporters at the New York Times. Mr. Strata does excellent work!
I'm left with the overwhelming impression that SO much has been written about this subject by SO many people with SO little direct knowledge. The subject at hand is one of the most highly-classified programs in the intelligence community today. Aside from the folks at the NYT who have the benefit of discussing this subject with their anonymous sources, who have undoubtedly revealed no small amount of classified information, the rest of the pundits know precious little from whence they speak.
To their credit, most of the President's supporters have issued the required caveats when discussing this issue; this is not so true with the President's detractors. While the President's more moderate opponents have hesitated to use the I-word, those less inhibited are clamoring for his impeachment. Interesting, to say the least. The jury is out regarding the legality of the NSA activities and I've read arguments on both sides. ALL of the arguments have been based upon "informed speculation," to be kind.
I'm with the majority of Americans when it comes to passing judgement on the President, based on what little we know at the moment. It's very, very hard to fault the Chief when he seems to be doing what must be done, and doing it based upon competent legal advice obtained from the Justice Department. On the one hand, I think it's amazing the Left jumps to such negative conclusions so easily. On the other, the answer is obvious: it's Bush Derangement Syndrome. Or perhaps it's all those damned black helicopters buzzing about.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Just be polite... that's all I ask.