Let's Not Forget Al Gore's "Mr. Bad Guy" Past

Without denigrating Al Gore's work on global warming, which I think is pretty damn wonderful, let's not forget his history as an altogether too typical American politician, as this snatch from Richard Clarke's book (Against All Enemies, 143-4) demonstrates:

"extraordinary renditions", were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

Comments

[SamEllison]

Rendition and extraordinary rendition are very different operations that are not differentiated in this posting. Please clarify.
In the meantime I'll go find my copy of "Against All Enemies".

[goodsnservices]

Extrordianry rendition is taking a prisoner and sending him to a country that uses torture in order to extract a confession by illegal means. How does "grabbing" a terrorist to bring to justice within the courts equate? It doesn't. Incidently, Gore was wrong in this case. Grabbing a terrorist falls within international law known as "self help." Self help is often the only enforcement mechanism under international law.

[GH]

Folks here are missing jaust a tad.

Following this conversation, President Clinton ordered the CIA to establish the US policy of Extraordinary Rendition. PDD #39.

The CIA has, I believe, stated that it was used as much or perhaps more, during the 1990's under Clinton, as by Bush after 9/11. They also asert that less than 100 people have been grabbed under the program, since Clinton established it.

As with all hotly debated topics which the public seems to hold a keen interest in, and a topic which the media seems to keep on the table for chewing up, it's a sad day when most journalists could invite (sucker bet, I'd call it) a Clinton adminstration official, or supporter to pile it on the Bush administration over something like this (as with WMD's, etc) yet, either not know or simply don't want the public to know - would never ask them about their own history with it(and we should be outraged over this. It is unbelieveable - but probable, as they don't care about the issue - they only care about the politics).

[SimonHelms]

Where's the point? I think only few people would have a problem with a covert mission - even in war time - if it is for sure that in advance the target is definetely identified as a well-known terrorist (especially if the person already blamed itself for its deeds, e.g. Osama). A complete different situation is the one in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, where one does not know which are the bad guys and you want to find it out by means of torture.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

First things first: I LIKE AL GORE. I LIKED HIS MOVIE. Global warming has been overhyped (just watch: It will be the New Terrorism) but nonetheless real.

THAT SAID. All you have to do to learn where Al Gore's real 21st century loyalties lie is go to http://www.cfr.org/ and do a search on Al Gore. Now start reading.

There ya go. He's a globalist, just like the rest of 'em (with the exceptions of Paul and Kucinich). This means more NAFTA, more NAU, more SSP, "The Law of the Sea" (UN control of 75% of the earth's surface? And we get taxed to pay for it?), global treaties, and the now routine TOP DOWN CONTROL style of governing which is by definition NON DEMOCRATIC.

Oh, and we have to PAY this nonrepresentative world government to play Big Daddy for us, forcing policies, procedures and expenditures on the WHOLE WORLD without our involvement and consent.

"It's for your own good and the good of the State."

Remind you of any other governments of yore? Oh yeah: They all ran that rough edge between Communism and Fascism.

I don't know about you but I'm not OK with this. At least with Bush and Cheney we KNOW they're evil and we KNOW that we need to fight them. Al Gore would put a friendly face on globalism and lull the American public back to sleep.

So, you want the Blue Pill or the Red Pill? Sorry for the cliche but it fits.

[CriminallySane]

Well, maybe if he runs and wins, then his first words and actions as President, to the Secret Service agents on the stand, will be to point at Bush and Cheney and say "Arrest those men!" And they will be "rendered" themselves.

A guy can dream, can't he?

[lunaoscura]

If only Bush and Cheney had gone after Osama Bin Laden in the same way. Quietly, covertly and successfully. Sad isn't it that Clinton and Gore went after terrorists without declaring illegal war and bombing cities and killing innocent civilians in countries that Osama wouldn't be caught dead in. No doubt Bush's method is better, while the Osama types easily sneak off to other parts of the planet. Yup, bad ass Mr. Gore believed in going after the terrorists themselves.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"Gore laughed and said ..." per Richard Clarke.

Has Gore been asked about this? And if so, what was his reaction?

Has Clarke's statement been corroborated in any way?

Unless this is corroborated, why should we believe anything that Richard Clarke has to say about Al Gore?

If Clarke's statement actually represents an event that happened, why should we equate the reported comment made by Al Gore with the "extraordinary renditions" approved by Bush and/or Cheney?

Some people have certainly understood the term "extraordinary rendition" as an action to send a prisoner to a foreign country so that the prisoner could be tortured.

On its face, approving an action "to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government" seems to be substantially different than approving a Bush/Cheney-type "extraordinary rendition."

[Rosanneofpgh]

you rethug pigs must really be scared that Al Gore will run next year.

you are dredging up shit from the past that has no relevance today.

Nobody is perfect; witness the field of rethug pigs who are running for president now. Not a moral, ethical man in the herd of pigs.

So Mr. Gore has made mistakes in the past; who hasnt? He is the best choice for president. I hope he does run. If not, your attacks on John Edwards show that you fear him, as well.

Gore/Edwards; the rethug pigs worst nightmare!!!

[MinuteMan]

Gore is besting the field---as a write-in candidate---in the Democracy for America straw poll(http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll). Voting is open until 11/5/7.

Looks like the right-wingnuts can't say he'll be soft on terror ---though of course they would since fact and reason are irrelevant to their discourse.

[CommanderWhitehead]

Thanks for some seriously "inconvenient truth", Professor Schwartz!

I find that so many concerned Americans are starving for someone who can be trusted. Someone who will make everything "O.K." once again.

Gore is certainly not what he pretends to be.

Below is an excellent piece by Alexander Cockburn, that appeared in the October13-14 weekend edition of Counterpunch.org.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10132007.html

Here's a snippet:
"In early January, 1993, Thomas Friedman interviewed president elect Clinton and asked about Saddam. Clinton amiably responded, "I always tell everybody, I'm a Baptist. I believe in deathbed conversions. If he wants a different relationship with the US and UN, all he has to do is change his behavior." This elicited cries of outrage from the national security establishment, and its prime respresent­ative,vice president-elect Gore, who announced that there could never be normal relations with Iraq so long as Saddam remained in power. He reiterated the call for a coup, if not by the Iraqi military then by the CIA (which in point of fact had been in receipt of a 'presidential finding' from Bush, three months after the guns of the Gulf War fell silent, authorizing it 'to create conditions for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power')."

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

YES, thank you. THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO VOTE WITH OUR HOPES instead of our fears. This time it's the other way around. Fear of fascism, globalism, war with Iran and Syria, choose your sauce. We're on the knife's rough edge between democracy and aggressive fascism worldwide. I don't think there has ever been a time when the U.S.A. has been at more risk.

Gore for us, apparently, is our Great White Hope who will probably be a last minute, and VERY disruptive late entry into the Presidential race. Mark my words if this happens: IT WILL BE STAGED to appeal to your hopes for peace and freedom, and THERE WON'T BE TIME for the progressive blogosphere to research what this man is all about and where his loyalties REALLY are (Hint: They're with the CFR, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission). So, start your research NOW!

Incidentally, Gore's name has been stripped from the Wikipedia list of CFR members. As of 2005 he and Bill Clinton were at the tippy top of the CFR hierarchy, along with the esteemed (gag) David Rockefeller (when is this man going to DIE already?). Do some outside digging. It's there.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Peace out

[LittleBrother]

Well, I have just enough lesser-evil left in me to vote for Gore, although I think it's highly unlikely that he'll run.

But I agree that the pre-2000 Gore was much more a typical politician, in the pejorative sense of the term. He bought into the usual myths and memes of the political elite about US exceptionalism, and the perceived and proclaimed destiny of the US to "rule" the world-- by means of economic strength, if not military force.

I can only hope that today's Al Gore has learned many enlightening lessons from his failed and thwarted campaign, and is no longer the Al Gore who picked HoJoe Lieberman as a running mate, and who opposed Elian Gonzalez's return to his father in Cuba.

I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is more than I'll do with the pre-selected Democratic Mod Squad of "top-tier" candidates.

[MinuteMan]

I agree that the 21st century Gore is distinctly different than the 20th century version. And unlike the "new Nixon", Gore-the-n­ext-genera­tion arrived at his current persona by being freed from the workings of the various political machines rather than through Machiavellian calculation. The only problem is that once free of the grips of the insiders, etc., he may not want to dive back into that septic pond even for the best of causes. This is the Catch-22 of Presidential politics: anyone who wants to be President is unsuited to it and the best Presidential Timber are reluctant to run.

Gore is the most experienced and capable possible candidate and the one with the clearest vision of the myriad problems facing the nation and the planet. Will this clarity of vision cause him to take the "sane" path (i.e., go the other way and cheer from the sidelines---if there is anything to cheer about) or the courageous path: joining the fight at the head of the column?

[LaFilleEnRose]

What's with typical politician. You mean you don't want a terrorist picked up even if they have found safe harbor somewhere. That's exactly the right thing. He didn't say torture his ass, just go grab his ass. It is a no brainer.

In fact, that's precisely what many of us progressives dislike about the invade Iraq/let's start a democracy solution. It doesn't go after the terrorists. After 9/11 I expected our leadership to just that -- go get the SOB's whereever they are.

I can't believe people are seeing this as a negative. What universe do y'all live in? Pollyana's?

[oafishcad]

Mod Squad-I like it.

[theyak]

Who was being discussed? If the weight of the evidence merits it, yes, go grab his ass. But not in Larry Craig sort of way.

[leftcoastindy]

Everything in perspective.
At least he isn't calling for making up WMD 'evidence' so he can kill thousands of women and children to get more power/money/OIL.

[WOLFWARRIOR]

Michael Schwartz:
Let's Not Forget Al Gore's "Mr. Bad Guy" Past


And Yet Clinton-Gore let Osama go - When they could have done it legally - and Taken him out !!!

[ShockedSHOCKED]

Hold on there, WolfWarrior:

Clinton-Gore rained cruise missiles onto the al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan and just missed bin Laden's sorry ass. Not exactly "letting him go" and certainly not close to calling off the troops when we had him cornered in Tora Bora as BushCo did.

I know that you are desperate to blame someone else for your fiasco, but this is too well known for you to say that ... stuff.

[oafishcad]

Ossama Bin Forgotten

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Osama Bin Deadlongtime