Lingering
resentments
Gerry
Wachovsky
I
don't know about you, but I am getting sick
and tired of politicians and other prominent
newsmakers making brash statements without
thinking twice about what they are saying.
Many times, these statements are from the
liberal side, from people who are still
crying over the 2000 presidential election
and cannot seem to shake the fact that they
lost. Today's little gem comes from none
other than Al Gore himself, the major loser
in 2000 and self-proclaimed creator of the
Internet. Give me a break, Albert.
"[The
Bush administration] have taken us much
farther down the road toward an intrusive,
'big brother'-style government -- toward
the dangers prophesied by George Orwell
in his book '1984' -- than anyone ever thought
would be possible in the United States of
America," Gore said to approximately
3,000 people in a speech given on Sunday
in Washington. The speech, which was sponsored
by extremely liberal organizations www.moveon.org
and the American Constitution Society, featured
"Freedom and Security" as the
topic, and was chock-full of hypocrisy.
Let
me first comment on this "big brother"
theme. Gore really has some nerve to say
Bush and his staff are impinging on freedoms,
"big brother" style, seeing as
how his own wife, Tipper, was one of the
individuals behind the spearheading of the
"Parental Advisory" stickers on
digital media that are commonplace nowadays.
Now, granted, a sticker on a CD or DVD is
not the epitome of "big brother"
by any means, in fact, in the grand scheme
of things, it is relatively minor, and that
is not what irks me. What bothers me is
the blatant duplicity in Gore's statement.
Who is he to talk about "big brother"
when his own wife succeeded in establishing
a watchful eye on the digital media children
buy, something that should be the parents'
job to begin with? What business is it of
hers what CD some kid buys? Perhaps a more
appropriate name for Tipper would be "big
sister"?
In
another portion of the speech, Gore commented
on the U.S. and its role in Iraq: "In
my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch
an assault on our civil liberties as the
best way to get at terrorists than it did
to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best
way to get at Osama bin Laden." Not
too sharp on the uptake there, are you,
Al? The war in Iraq was not waged to "get
at Osama bin Laden," as Gore put it,
it was the first step toward showing the
world that the United States will no longer
tolerate terrorist nations and supporters
of terrorism. This argument that so many
liberals put forth of Iraq not being related
to terrorism is asinine! Iraq has supported
numerous terrorist groups in the past, including
Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, an Iranian fundamentalist
group, and Abu Nidal Organization, a Palestinian
terror group, among others. It was also
widely documented that Iraq gave money to
families of Palestinian suicide bombers,
calling them "martyrs." Where
do people get the idea that Iraq was fought
for nothing and had "no link"
to Sept. 11, or terrorism in general? I
just cannot figure this mentality out, can
you?
Gore
also talked of abolishing the Patriot Act,
which was created to help fight terrorism
across the country. Many people seem to
forget that the Patriot Act passed "nearly
unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66
in the House, with the support of members
from across the political spectrum,"
according to www.lifeandliberty.gov. What
is paradoxical, though, is that Gore would
even advocate the cessation of the Patriot
Act, because as a politician, he must know
that the first job of the government is
to protect its citizens. This is precisely
what the Patriot Act was produced for, to
protect Americans from terrorism and prevent
another Sept. 11 from ever happening! It
is not only unsettling to me that so many
people do not realize this crucial point,
but that a man who almost became president
three years ago seems to not even acknowledge
it. This kind of makes you wonder where,
exactly, Gore's priorities are, that's all.
I
am going to close with something that will
probably surprise and shock many of you
reading this: I voted for Al Gore in the
2000 presidential election. Shortly after
Sept. 11 took place, however, I realized
that Gore was not the right man for the
job and I breathed a sigh of relief that
he did not win, and that Bush was in office.
After seeing what Gore said in his speech
Sunday, I can say that my views were strengthened
even more so, and it is quite clear to me
that Bush is in the oval office for a reason
-- he is the best man for the job.
Gerry
Wachovsky is a broadcast journalism major
at Cal State Long Beach and can be reached
at SenorBucho@aol.com.
|
