brains, too.

This just further confirms my strong suspicion that Cheney knows what's in the memos and he sees what's coming so he's working the press early to build up some defenders in the press and on the Hill.

What I wouldn't give to see ANY Sunday morning talk show host ask any of these weasels why it was not OK when Gore was commenting on an illegal war but they don't seem to be critical of Cheney now. Why does these people never get called on their BS?

The most interesting part of the ongoing rhetoric from the Dick is that he was for the most part invisible and silent for the last 8 years. His cohort in crime however was babbling his way thru 8 years waving the flag and keeping America afraid of "them" whoever "them" is. I sense that GW's mouth is closed because he is stupid enough to say something that would contradict something he has already said and then would end him up in lawyer heaven. The truth is easy to remember it's the lies that are a bitch. Since the Dick was silent, nothing for him to contradict.

emmie Dontcha know it's that durned LIBRUL press all the time for them arooogala eatin' frenchie types , 'ceptin fer Fox news what gives both sides of the story. Why the other Sunday morning the major networks only had 3 'pubicans on them talk shows. Gol durn fernicity talk shows

There is one huge difference between 2001 and 2009. Gore wasn't accused of war crimes.

...nor guilty of them.

It should not be forgotten that Cheney was made head of a counterterrorism task force in the WH in early 2001. If I remember correctly, that task force never met. Cheney and Bush know they are largely responsible for failing to stop the Sept. 2001 terrorist attacks. That these cowards responded to the resulting guilt they felt by demanding torture and then fighting an unnecessary and ILLEGAL war (what a glorious triumph over Saddam'a pathetic, sanction-reduced state and army!) should be the principle point in analyzing anything Cheney says.

Over and over again, we see the cynical opportunism of the Right who parlay "principles" based on whose ox is being gored ("no pun intended.")

Contra Costa Times, 1/10/02: "While praising President Bush for his leadership in the war effort, he went on to say that the economy was another matter. 'I'm not here to make a political speech, but I am concerned,' Gore said."

Boston Globe, 4/14/2002: "'They are wrong to vilify honorable men and women who oppose their right-wing domestic agenda and oppose a blatantly dishonest budget,' Gore said. 'They are wrong to imply that those who stand up to them are somehow unpatriotic.'" (Headline -- "Combative Gore Lashes Out At Administration Policies In Fla. Speech, He Hits Bush For 'Radical Agenda'") [Note: So much for his assertion today that his early criticsm of the Bush Administration focused on policy.]

USA Today, 4/15/2002: "Gore's speech was the emotional peak of the convention. With practiced skill, humor and a passion some delegates said they did not see during the campaign, Gore denounced virtually every element of Bush's domestic policy." (Headline -- "Gore's fiery speech raises questions of plans")

LA Times, 6/30/2002: "In a speech Saturday night to local Democrats, Gore attacked Bush's economic policies as "a total catastrophe." He also noted that in the war on terrorism, the U.S. has yet to catch Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and he denounced the White House for "trying to use the war for political purposes.'" [I guess that's just more pure criticsm of policy ... .]

Two years? Really?

C'mon, Al. You invented the internet. You should have know it wouldn't take long to prove you wrong.

As a vile and contemptible man, Michael Kelly knew a thing or two about vile and contemptible speeches.

Wonder if Michael Kelly would love his Iraq war now as much as he did then.

"He has the kind of credibility and decency his successor clearly lacks."

Yes, Gore has the kind of credibility that comes from doing an ineffectual job of preventing Bush from stealing the presidency and then pouting and hiding for two years before deciding that "decency" would allow him to criticize Bush.

The problem is not that Cheney started criticizing after two weeks. The problem is that Cheney is very wrong. If Cheney were right in his criticisms he would have a duty to make them early and often.

Yes, but what does Rush say?

I think that when you have a president who puts spicy mustard on his hamburger, the country is clearly in danger and any criticism is warranted.

none of this is the least bit surprising. republicans in general, and cheney in particular make up whatever rules suit them at the time. And the republican MSM supports and propagates their incredible ways no matter what lies, unreality, rule breaking, integrity-less garbage they come up with.
.

I'm glad to see Gore weighing in on this. He has the kind of credibility and decency his successor clearly lacks.

Yikes ! Listening to Gore's rants the past eight years would suggest maybe you should consider one of those Alzheimer's drugs like Requip. The old memory needs help.

As far as Gore's brains are concerned, ask the folks at the divinity school he flunked out of before making too many declarative statements.

Considering the fact that your quote asserts that Gore criticized Bush for what he believed to be Bush's endangering the US as part of your presenting Gore as a model of decorum, it seems to me that it's hypocritical of you (or anyone who agrees with your argument) to criticize Cheney on the basis that it's beyond-the-pale rhetoric to claim that the President is endangering the US.

This argument, then, is pretty weak tea in that it's implicitly asserting that Cheney's only real mistake in this particular affair was not to wait at least as long as Gore did to criticizing the Administration in this way.

I'm surprised you or others would be willing to concede what you're implicitly conceding.

For my part, I loathe Cheney as a truly despicable man and find his complaints and accusations against Obama to be ugly, tiresome, opportunistic, and cynical. But that he would make those accusations themselves, that Obama is endangering the US? Well, if Gore was rightly allowed to speak his conscience when Bush/Cheney took the US to war, then so, too, Cheney should be allowed to speak his mind when he believes that the new Administration is endangering the US.

I think he's wrong, and I question his motives; but it would be hypocritical of me to admire Gore for speaking his conscience while arguing that for some reason of etiquette Cheney should not. Two years? One year? Six weeks? It seems to me that a standard of time is far more arbitrary than a more reasonable standard of decorum and respect. Former Presidents and Vice-Presidents shouldn't find their consciences muzzled, but perhaps they should be held to a certain minimal level of respect and constructive criticism when they speak publicly about their successors. If so, then we might ask if either Gore or Cheney met such a standard. My impression is that Gore seemed to do so better than Cheney has (which is no surprise), but this isn't a matter that is clearly decided—depending upon whose ox is being, er, gored, one man's respectful criticism is another man's intemperate fear-mongering.

Most of these comments forget one thing--the "inconvenient truth." Right after Gore blew the election he practically had a nervous breakdown and dropped out of society for his "mountain man" persona. He'd pop up occasionally to rail against the man who humiliated him in the election. His tirades were vitriolic and bordering on hysteria. Luckily, his friends and family held an intervention and told him to go start a venture capital fund. So, after he invented the internet, he invented global warming, started marketing that and invested a lot of money in companies that will make billions from inefficient battery-powered cars, solar cells, and cap and trade.

Two years, Al? Who taught you your facts? Nancy Pelosi?

the thing that struck me about this quote that delete this now! flagged from the la times.." In a speech Saturday night to local Democrats, Gore attacked Bush's economic policies as "a total catastrophe." He also noted that in the war on terrorism, the U.S. has yet to catch Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and he denounced the White House for "trying to use the war for political purposes," was his batting average:
1000%.

as for davidk's assertion that bush "humiliated [gore] in the election," that's not quite right...there's that little matter of the popular vote, which he won...it was the legal battle he ultimatly lost...not surprising considering the make up of the supreme court