The Unalienable Right
Thursday - December 13, 2018


« « Murderer on death row ‘too old to die’ | MAIN | Another activist judge unilaterally redefines marriage » »


Al Gore’s Mad Message

We were going to ignore Al Gore’s speech yesterday, because, well come on, it’s Al Gore. But Byron York has written a great piece at NRO, pointing out the internal contradictions and inconsistencies of the speech. To begin with, it’s pretty ironic for Al Gore, defender of impeached perjurer Bill Clinton, the guy who introduced the phrase “no controlling legal authority” into the political discourse, Buddhist temple Al Gore, to lecture anyone about the rule of law.

Byron York points out an important part of Gore’s speech that seems to have been ignored by all the mainstream reporting of the speech:

In an alternate universe, coverage of Al Gore’s speech in Washington Monday might begin with the former vice president’s ringing defense of the virtually unlimited exercise of presidential power in times of emergency. “The threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the executive branch with swiftness and agility,” Gore told the audience at the Daughters of the American Revolution Constitution Hall. “Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the president to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.”

How does a man who used to be, as they say, “one heartbeat away from the presidency”, argue that the president has “inherent power…conferred by the Constitution …to take unilateral action” and that that power is “not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms” and then say just a few minutes later that the president has been “breaking the law repeatedly and persistently”?

It can only mean either a sort of schizophrenia, madness induced by the bitter loss of a lifelong dream, or a cynical disregard for principle or consistency in the pursuit of cheap partisan point-scoring. And, in the middle of a war, partisan Democrats eat this unserious drivel up. Thank God once again that the Supreme Court didn’t sit idly by and allow Gore to steal the election in 2000.

Previous:
Forrest Gore blows another gasket



posted by: The Editors @ 4:35 pm January 17, 2006



1 Comment

  1. Gore today:

    The Administration’s response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.

    The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

    There are two problems with the Attorney General’s effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration’s behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

    Second, the Attorney General’s attempt to cite a previous administration’s activity as precedent for theirs – even though factually wrong – ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

    The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.

    The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration’s program.

    Comment by LP — January 17, 2006 @ 5:15 pm January 17, 2006


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed for this post.


All comments are moderated, they will not appear immediately. Comments judged by the editors to be obscene, libelous, or otherwise inappropriate will be deleted. Comments will not be deleted because they disagree with the positions of this site. Respectful dissent is encouraged.

The opinions expressed by commenters are their own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the owners of this website.