Posted by
Always To The Right on Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:41:15 PM
Well, no, he didn’t.
And in all likelihood, the only reason he waited as long as he did was
because it would have been bad form to knock Bush while he was dealing
with 9/11. And, as Ace notes,
unlike Cheney, Gore wasn’t being threatened with prosecution by Bush
for his actions while in office. And also unlike Cheney, Gore’s
criticisms of Bush were gratuitous policy disagreements, not matters
about which he had inside information and felt obliged to correct the
record as Cheney does vis-a-vis whether torture works.
But aside from those things, it’s exactly the same situation. Hey,
let me know when Cheney shows up in Saudi Arabia to pummel Obama in front of the Wahhabis, okay?
Via Don Surber, a memory refresher to follow last night’s post
about what a liar he is. Be sure to listen all the way through or
you’ll miss him calling Bush’s detention policies “un-American,” which
of course is A-OK when used by a liberal to criticize a conservative
but an outrageous slur vice versa. The more I think about his “I waited
two years to complain!” defense (which, again, is a lie), the more
profoundly stupid it seems. If, as he says here, he considered Bush’s
policies to be an attack on constitutional rights, why on earth would
he wait to speak up about it? Is he actually suggesting that the
respectful silence owed to a new president by the previous
administration means they should shut up and watch while he does
something as grave as tearing up the Bill of Rights? And if he’s not
suggesting that, what’s his beef with Cheney chiming in about a matter
as grave as terrorist interrogations and national security? The “logic”
here is downright Pelosi-esque.
Exit question: When’s St. Al going to speak out about Obama
retaining most of Bush’s counterterror infrastructure? Or is he too
consumed with weeping at the moment to formulate his thoughts properly?