Op-ed by Helen Thomas: Gore Speaks for a Growing Silent Majority

From The South Florida Sun-Sentinel

By Helen Thomas
Hearst Newspapers

Finally, a loud and clear voice of opposition against the unprovoked Iraqi war from an American statesman.It came from former Vice President Al Gore, who has given the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry a needed shot in the arm. Gore also could have been speaking for a growing silent majority.

In a fiery, eloquent speech last week at New York University, Gore shamed the "go along, get along" Democrats, including Kerry, who had been soft pedaling the issue of the war and the damage it has done to our name and prestige in the world.

Kerry has played it so safe that he has brought his own leadership into question.The Kerry camp is obviously not happy that a gloves-off Gore took the lead, showing their candidate up for timidity. But the vice president -- who spent years in Congress and eight years as vice president -- knows there is too much at stake in terms of depleted U.S. honor and moral authority to play politics now.

Often reticent and diplomatic in demeanor in the past, Gore has changed course. He is a free man now, with no axe to grind or office to seek -- free to pinpoint America's dilemma of being trapped in a war it cannot win in the traditional sense, despite all its military might.

Gore blasted President Bush for bringing "deep dishonor" to this country and "humiliation in the eyes of the world" by invading Iraq."

The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States," he declared.

Gore's speech reflects the same frustration many Americans feel with a White House, which misled the nation into war.

Gore scoffed at Bush's promise of a foreign policy "with humility" or his promise "to change the tone in Washington." He also charged that the president's decision not to honor the Geneva Convention led to the depraved military treatment of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners of war.

Irate over the direction the nation is being led, Gore was not afraid to name names and call for the resignations of several top figures in the Bush administration. Among those he wants to step down are Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, CIA Director George Tenet, national security affairs adviser Condoleezza Rice, Douglas Feith, undersecretary for defense policy, and Stephen Cambone, undersecretary for defense intelligence.

Of course. that is not going to happen, but Gore's hit list takes in persons who have been very much involved in the tragic turn in American foreign policy.

"To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II," Gore said. He noted that the successful U.S. policy of "containment" -- which helped win the Cold War -- had been replaced with a new strategy of "pre-emption," which allowed the nation to take unilateral military action against a nation that we now know didn't pose a threat to our security.

Such a policy is a clear violation of international law, but when Bush announced his new aggressive military strategy a couple of years ago, there were few outcries.

In a recent commencement address at the New School University in New York City, Theodore C. Sorenson, former speechwriter for President John F. Kennedy, attacked Bush policies and recalled after the 1962 Cuban missile crisis that Kennedy said at American University: "The world knows that America will never start a war. This generation of Americans has had enough of war and hate. We want to build a world of peace where the weak are secure and the strong are just." That was more than 40 years ago; Gore is saying the same thing today. He deserves an ovation.

THANK YOU for this article, I will be sending my comments to the writer

-GoreLeadership

Hooray for Helen Thomas. :good: She is a respected liberal journalist with a long history of covering the White House. She knows her stuff. And even she says here, in so many words, that Kerry is a weak candidate. So James, it's not just CNN and the other media giants that you say have bias against Kerry and are painting him as something he's not. It's none other than the likes of Helen Thomas--a giant in her business. Chris, I'm glad you posted this, as it shows that you have an open mind. For weeks we've been having this debate here about Kerry being a weak candidate. The debate is healthy, and there's no harm done over it. But here's a solid ally on my side of this debate saying that Kerry is wimping out when it comes to selling himself and what he believes. And it's for that reason that he's underwhelming the voting public.

Helen Thomas never once called Kerry a weak candidate. That is your mischaracterization. Last night, Bill O'Reilly was saying that Gore with his speaches was doing the dirty work of Kerry's campaign. Normally, I'd trust Thomas over O'Reilly but as he pointed out, Move-On has whole heartedly endorsed Kerry. They've also sponsored Gore's speaches. Now why would a organization that is dedicated to defeating Bush sponsor speaches that would hurt Kerry? Because they didn't. They knew that Gore's speaches helps Kerry's campaign by allowing him to remain positive.
And this debate is not healthy. It is based on right-wing spin and the delusions of a few self-rightous malcontents. I hope in a few years when we're all sitting in a Bush-Ashcroft detention center that they are warmed by the thought that they were so rigid in their thinking that they wouldn't budge from their principles and trashed the only hope of defeating Bush.

[QUOTE]And this debate is not healthy. It is based on right-wing spin and the delusions of a few self-rightous malcontents

James,

Get your head out of the shade and get real. Now all the peopl who dont agree that Kerry is THE MAN then we are right wing and its UNHEATHLY to debate or DISSENT?

Now its becoming clearer why you have silenced on Gore, you dont believe in dissent or debate.. Now there is a good motive to UNITE BEHIND KERRY!! HIP HIP HOORAY, stay silent and go for the one the DNC/DLC support

Wow, and your worried about detention centers? I can see why, you WOULD'NT SPEAK UP IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT

-GoreLeadership

Give me a break. Trashing Kerry with half-truths and GOP spin is not healthy dissent. It is just the actions of a few crybabies that didn't get their way so now they are going to ruin things for all of us. The time for debate is over, Kerry is the nominee and nothing short of his death will change that. This election is too important for all this squabbling.

There is a good motive to unite behind Kerry. Al Gore told is to.

And a year ago I stood up for Gore on street corners, outside his NYU speech, outside the DNC handing out flyers and signing up volunteers. Everytime I asked your leader to help she was always too busy. It's easy to take a stand from behind a computer screen. I'd like to see one of you do it on the ground and in the streets like I have.

You're joking, right? We have all done it on the ground and in the streets, and more. Our gargantuan efforts were the work of dedicated, determined Gore supporters. We were women with a mission. We put our lives (and those of our families) on hold to try to get Gore in the White House. We stayed up night after night designing postcards, writing out mailing addresses until our hands were cramped like gnarled tree limbs, handing out flyers, making hundreds of phone calls, calling radio shows, writing letters to newspapers, and much much more. You did nothing but criticize and belittle those efforts. Your hostility toward us was palpable. I can't even figure out where this comment you made above is coming from.

And regarding my supposed misreading of the Helen Thomas piece . . . You say she never said Kerry is a weak candidate. But here are her words on this subject:

I don't know how else to read that. Okay, maybe she's not saying he's a weak candidate. Maybe she's just saying he's weak, period. But in my book, a weak person (questionable leadership, timidity, playing it so safe) is a weak candidate. There's no positive way to read what Helen said here.

Unfortunately those efforts were too little too late. Where were all of you last summer when something might have been acomplished? I know Jan wasn't available. I asked her several times to help out and was refused everytime. I even put a call out on this board and the DraftGore board calling for anyone in the NY/NJ area to come and help out at the DNC dinner, but got no takers. It was only in December after Gore endorsed Dean that most of those leading the effort recognized reality and decided to suspend activities that "Patriots for Gore" was born. And all they've done is attack anyone that has decided to respect Gore's wishes and move on. Just look at the repeated attacks from Jan on Chris. Chris is a great Gore supporter who was there when it counted to be there. He was not some Johnny come lately doing it for his own ego gratification.

And of course you neglect to place Ms. Thomas' comments in context and use it as a broad attack. She was not talking about him as an overall candidate or person but just in regard to one issue the war in Iraq.

Well, James, obviously we're just going to disagree about the Helen Thomas piece, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I've never been one for beating a dead horse into the ground, so I think we ought to drop this one. You read it one way, I read it another, and neither of us will convince the other that he/she is right.

As for your criticism about "where we were" last summer, there's nothing I can say about that. I obviously can't speak for anyone else, only myself. I did come late to this movement because I waited and waited for Gore to announce that he'd changed his mind after the initial bombshell that he wouldn't be running in 2004. Last summer I became desperate for any information there might've been about whether or not he was running. I didn't even know that there were message boards about Gore or any other topic (I was relatively green about the internet other than using it for my research as a writer). So in googling all kinds of topics about Gore and whether or not he'd run, I stumbled on AGDems and learned for the first time that there was a draft Gore movement. Then I discovered there was a whole other community of Gore supporters at GSC. That's how I became involved in this movement, and yes, it was too late. But I don't think I should be criticized for that. I worked damned hard doing what I could at the point that I became aware that there was a draft movement, and I think it's wrong of you to criticize any of us for contributing in whatever way we've been able. Yes, too little too late, but apparently, it wouldn't have made any difference anyway. Gore made up his mind not to run in 2004, and I gather there was no changing his mind. We certainly tried, didn't we, each in our own way.

James, your repeated shilling for your failed dems is beyond shameful. You're disgusting. The only reason that you've ever had any interest in this forum was to make sure that Al Gore wasn't drafted and to make sure he's not heard or given any credit for speaking out against Bush now. Both you and Kerry are doing the dirty work of the big business funded DLC who doesn't want a candidate who'll fight back against Bush. In his wildest dreams Kerry doesn't have the guts that Al Gore has. Where were you and your dem leadership when Bush was stealing the 2000 election? You were nowhere to be found.

This is counterproductive and James is apparently at the helm of the "spin"

Classic...

Maybe we can get back to the issues?

-GoeLeadership

Here's an interesting factoid I just came across in regard to Gore's speach that Helen Thomas omitted:

Three officials said Mr. Kerry had a high level of comfort with Mr. Gore and had personally requested that he speak last week before the American Constitution Society, a left-leaning group of lawyers and law students in Washington. Mr. Gore agreed, making the case that the administration was eroding civil liberties.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162059/posts

I think Kerry and Gore probably do have a high level of comfort with each other, but how does this speak to the Helen Thomas piece?

It says that Kerry is asking Gore to speak, not that he is embarassed by Gore's speaches as she contends.

There is nothing in this truthful response that is against any rules, and as a guest, I am allowed to respond to a post here, especially one that personally demeans and misrepresents me. I have seen MUCH worse. I will then continue to respond to this post, unless the offending posts against me written by a supposed moderator here are removed. If my response to this is continually removed without reason, or I am denied access to this forum simply for expressing an opinion in a response to an attack on me, IPS Inc. or whichever company provides this software, will then be informed of it, and that it is being done for personal reasons. At least have the courtesy to state why a valid response is removed from your board.


I was doing a search for our latest press release dated 9.15.04 to see where it may have wound up, and lo and behold, I find these miserable comments here by James. I am sick of people who always belittle the efforts of others who are sincere. I busted my a@@ handing our Draft Gore flyers and talking to people throughout the state of New Jersey on my own before the draft ended, and I did it because I wanted to, and because it was something I first believed in very strongly. I was working with Draft Gore the day after he announced he wasn't running, and was one of the first to receive an e-mail from Monica. Therefore, starting Patriots for Gore wasn't just something that hit us to do once Draft Gore gave up. I initially joined Draft Gore and suggested we go after celebrities, bigger names, etc. to fundraise. I was not listened to. Then I gave many suggestions on how to market the group, do flyers on different topics, put it in newspapers, because it didn't seem to be moving. Again, I felt it was moving too slowly, so I moved on, because I believed it should have been bigger, with much more media exposure considering the amount of people who supposedly belonged to it. This was supposed to be a national effort, yet all we were doing was virtually just handing out flyers, when we should have been having press conferences, getting in the media's face to spread the news, and bringing it straight to Capitol Hill. I can tell you from experience though, that I very much enjoyed working with Tangy, Bill, Mim, Jim, and all who were a part of that group, because they at least appreciated the efforts of all involved. That was why I moved over the Elect Gore from Draft Gore, because I also did see that their strategy of signing up delegates was really the way to go, which was initially the emphasis of Patriots For Gore, which was not then or is now a draft movement of any kind, nor has it ever been used as a vehicle to soothe anyone's ego. If you have proof of that accusation, bring it forth.

To be frank, Al Gore won the election of 2000, and in my mind, trying to draft him simply meant you believed he really didn't win and didn't deserve to be restored to the office he was elected to, or nominated at the convention. A draft movement is not what we need, what we need is a kick ass movement of supporters nationwide to rise up and demand that this man be restored to the office he was elected to. What we need to do is to hold our leaders accountable for allowing Bush to steal the election. It is amazing how you can constantly spew acid at fellow Democrats who did at least try to do something regarding 2000, yet you don't seem to give a damn for the fact that not one Senator had the guts to stand up for Democracy in the congressional chambers regarding challenging the fraudulent electoral votes of Florida. THOSE are the people who should have been working for justice. I did my part. I campaigned in my community for Gore in 2000. I talked to people. I voted for Gore. I have been an ardent supporter of his since 1990, and have devoted many hours to supporting him on and off the Internet. I never asked for anything in return for that, and I never will. All I want is justice for what was taken from us. Why do you deem it necessary to spit on someone for that?

I also spent much time and effort here in helping to write to many newspaper outlets as a member of the GSC media group, debunking all the BS being written about Al Gore. Just because I couldn't make it to NYC for one flyer handout outside a DNC dinner, for which you only gave me a few hours notice knowing I have a family, doesn't mean I wasn't committed. I believe everyone who worked on Draft Gore, Elect Gore, and any other organization for this cause were sincere in their efforts to get the word out, and I KNOW everyone who works or worked in Patriots for Gore, including Karen, did much in a few short months on very limited resources to in our own way say we will not give up. We have worked in sending out letters to Congress, to committees, to superdelgates, and to the CBC, all in an effort to perhaps see a miracle occur. I find it very riude and of you to constantly attack me and the efforts of our small but dedicated group, and the efforts of all who helped in any capacity in any other group. You are part of the reason I don't post here as a member anymore, but I simply needed to set you straight. And as for any conversations here between myself and Chris, that is between us. I don't hold grudges, nor do I have anything against Chris, this site, or any work he may have done in the past as well for Al Gore. I simply will not just bow down and kiss John Kerry's feet when I know who the right candidate is, and I refuse to constantly be berated with attacks for my opinions.

Jan--I got a notice of a reply by you a couple of hours ago and was puzzled to come here and see there were no new posts. Now I understand. We're having some disagreements here about how tolerant we should be on this board. I'm of the opinion that all who post here are welcome provided that they stay within the rules of the board. I didn't read your last post, but I don't imagine it broke any of the rules. You and others here with differing opinions should continue posting as long as you haven't been banned, and a ban should only be put in place if someone truly breaks the rules. At least that's how I see it.

Let's let the response stay on here. There would be no reason to remove it.

That was exactly my experience!