« movie quote of the day | Main | Our (Demonized) House, in the Middle of Our Street »

Best. Response. Ever.

RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke, in response to Gore's lunatic fringe tirade yesterday:
“Al Gore served as Vice President of this country for eight years. During that time, Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States five times and terrorists killed US citizens on at least four different occasions including the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the attacks on Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole.” “Al Gore’s attacks on the President today demonstrate that he either does not understand the threat of global terror, or he has amnesia.”
That's what I call a smackdown. High-fives all around, Jim.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Best. Response. Ever.:

» Whoomp from Inoperable Terran
With a target as easy as Al Gore, even the RNC can cause hilarity.... [Read More]

» Between Trips To The Toilet... from The Queen of All Evil
...I watched Al Gore's speech. I was too weak to blog about it yesterday but others weren't. Michele has a lovely picture and since a picture is worth a 1000 words -- it was perfect. RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke... [Read More]

» Al Gore's ridiculous comments from Todd's Spin on Life
Why do washed up politicans have to make such asses of themselves. [Read More]

» Al Gore from E Pluribus Unum
(hat tip to Juliette, Rosemary, and Michele.... [Read More]

» Dyke murderizes Gore from c0llision.org
No, this title is not some sort of twisted gay pun. Jim Dyke, director of RNC Communications, just laid the smackdown on former vice-president Al Gore, following the man-bot's insane rant (UPDATE: ...which doesn't seem to be up anymore on... [Read More]


I heard that response last night on Fox News and my hubby and I both applauded.

Which makes Bush's record on terrorist attacks positively SHINE by comparison, what with the American lives lost on 9/11, in Bali, the Phillipines, and so on. Not to mention that if you believe the rhetoric, all the lives lost so far in Iraq have also come at the hands of "terrorists."

If you're gonna try to lay down the smack, comparing battle scars probably isnt the best way to go about it.

Let's go for seventh grade stuff. Gore's hair, all greasy and Gordon Gecko and shit. He spits when he talks too loud. Plus he's a loser anyway, loser, LOSER, crybaby about losing the election that he lost because he was such a loser.

But suggesting "he doesn't understand the threat of global terror" because he vice-presided over various terrorist attacks? Think of the implications for W's "understanding," when you compare the attacks that happened on his watch.

And here we go with the "but he did it, too" defense.

By your response, RKB, one can say that it would be ok for John Wayne Gacy to address a crowd by stating that Ted Bundy was a terrible man and no one would have the right to take him to task for it. Whether or not Ted Bundy was a bad man wouldn't be the issue; it would be that JWG should not be casting stones.

Fair enough, Michele. I guess I was mostly trying to point out that as far as smackdowns go, I've seen better, not launch into the "but he did it, too" defense.

Although you can rearrange a few words in your reasonable conclusion, and it's probably still have a solid argument: Whether or not JWG should be casting stones wouldn't be the issue; it would be that Ted Bundy was a bad man.

Should Clinton and Gore be held responsible for World Tade Center 1? Remember, that happened only a month into Clinton's administration. I think if we're throwing stones we need to throw some at Bush's Daddy.

Don't look now Michele, but Jim Dyke's response to Gore's speech is also a "but he did it, too" defense.

You might have to remove that plank from your eye to see it, though.

I voted for Gore in 2000. However, after seeing his response to the Florida debacle (the response, not the situation itself), I decided that I'd never vote for him again. He's too slimy.

Stan and Brad - Gore threw the first stones with that speech. He has to full expect that stones will be thrown back at him.

Are either of you going to address the things he said yesterday or the manner in which he said them or are you just going to ignore the issues as always in your attempt to take a stab at me?

Don't know if it was the best response but was to be expected. Bush is under increasing fire from more and more groups so of course RNC is going to step up and respond to Gore. Anything less would almost amount to a vote of no confidence from Bush's own party and that will never happen in the open.

And to think eveyone painted Dean as a nubag because of one bark at the moon episode.

He's a rank amateur next to Allie Boy!

Excuse me, but I'm not the one who ignores the issues. I always prefer healthy debate over ad hominem attacks, and turning Gore into a cereal box is pretty funny (It's Howard Dean's "I Have A Scream" speech all over again! Yeaarghh) but it doesn't begin to address what Gore said.

Look, in his last two State of the Union Speeches, Bush said that we are winning the war on terror. Now we're told that a terrorist attack is practically inevitable. Gore quoted the ISS's claim that "in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world." Whether or not anyone can verify such a troop number, it stands to reason that our continuing presence in Iraq has not only helped terrorists recruit, it has eroded our international friendships and perhaps most importantly crippled the support of the common people in the Arab world. Professor Juan Cole had this observation on his website recently (http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html#108278769483965255):

Force is important, admittedly, but usually not in the way those who oppose the guerrillas believe. Foreigners regard the use of force as the means to create "security." But those guerrillas who have won their wars are the ones who have learned how to use the power of their enemies like jujitsu against them. They goad the foreigners into actions that are painful or frightening to the natives and so further undermine the foreigners’ claim to legitimacy. In Vietnam, for example, Vietminh cadres would fire at American aircraft to provoke them into bombing villages. Then they would return to ask the frightened or wounded villagers rhetorically, "are those your friends who destroyed your houses and killed your relatives?"
So with every day's reported atrocity, prison abuse or accidental bombing of innocents, we are losing the war in Iraq because we are losing the support of everyday Arabs.

Monday Gore said, "The war plan was incompetent in its rejection of the advice from military professionals and the analysis of the intelligence was incompetent in its conclusion that our soldiers would be welcomed with garlands of flowers and cheering crowds. Thus we would not need to respect the so-called Powell doctrine of overwhelming force."
He's absolutley right. How do you respond?


Gore ranted, sweated, pounded, exhorted and was generally almost incomphrensible for over 6,000 words. And you cherrypick out a canard for pity sakes! Even Bernstein admits that GW was ALWAYS skeptical on how "welcoming" Iraqi's who had (1) been betrayed by his dad (2) and been under decades of the most brutal of dictators would be.

What about his rant that we've abandoned the Geneva Convention? That is a lie so baldfaced Gore cannot claim ignorance, only not-guilty by reason of insanity.

I've listened to much of Gore's psychosis and could only think thank god, he wasn't elected. What the f**k was he trying to say we need to look into the souls of the terrorists who are out to murder us?

If he had tried this speech infront of any group outside of the stalinist moveon.org group he gave it to, I swear someone would have called the cops out on a 5150.

The man needs help.

There's only one way to sum up the Gore rant:

click here

Whenever Gore speaks lately, I'm reminded of this (by Tina Fey, on "Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update:"

"On Sunday, Al Gore called for the repeal for the US Patriot Act, and accused President Bush's administration of undermining civil liberties and exploiting public fears about terrorism. And then, as always, the cashier nodded and gave him his Big Mac."



Again with the selective reading of history. And a complete misstatementof fact to boot.

You wrote:
"In Vietnam, for example, Vietminh cadres would fire at American aircraft to provoke them into bombing villages."

The Viet CONG fought America - the Viet Minh disbanded after the French surrendered.

Saying that a terrorist attack is inevitable does not contradict "we are winning the war on terror."

You cite the ISS report on the number of terrorists worldwide, but what were their numbers prior to the WOT?

You speak of alienating our "friends." Given what we're learning about UNSCAM (you know, the oil for bribes deal), I question whether those "friends" were worth having.

You mention the "reported" atrocities, etc. Who's reporting them? Do those reporters mention how the "insurgents" are using women and children as shields, giving children weapons and sending them out to shoot at US troops? Or do they just show the dead women and children?

And why don't those reporters tell us one damn thing about the good things going on in the rest of Iraq, where our troops ARE welcomed, where they're starting to have elections, the schools and hospitals are opening, and the victims of Saddam's torture in Abu Ghraib are getting prosthetic hands to replace the ones he had cut off?

You mention Vietnam. We were winning that war, but the media and the anti-war left spun the story so the American public lost the will to fight. We pulled out and let Vietnam fall to a brutal dictatorship. Remember the boat people? They weren't on pleasure cruises.


Nicely written. And it was Giap himself who said the Left won the war for them - they were essentially militarily defeated after Tet.

Yup. Tet was a huge victory for the US military, but the media claimed it was Vietnam, err... what did the media use for "quagmire" metaphors during Vietnam?

IMHO, the reason that Gore should avoid comment on this sort of thing is not that attacks occurred during the Clinton/Gore administration; rather, it is that the administration did nothing substantial about them.

In retrospect, should Presidents from Carter on have done more about terrorist acts in the Middle East? Of course. That's in retrospect, however, and it's probably worth noting that, until late 1989 or perhaps even later, our primary foreign policy concern was (properly, in my opinion) the Soviet Union and its satellite states.

I keep forgetting what makes Gore's speech so crazy: who's nutty enough to criticize a PWP (Ppopular Wartime President)?

As for the RNC Communications Director: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Maybe I can write about Cheney's amnesia in 2007, who knows?

RKB- uh, Bali and the Philipines are not part of the US. I know, I went there and checked.

You've never been to Miramar, CA obviously Britton.

But seriously, everything is Bush's fault. Even Al Gore's bi-polar behavior has to be his fault.

We were winning that war, but the media and the anti-war left spun the story so the American public lost the will to fight.

Unbelievable. We were only there for 12 years, but victory was right around the corner. Maybe if we had had the guts to drop some nukes there... but no, we were pussies and only used conventional bombing for several years. We were real humanitarians too.

Geez, Can't we just kill them all, and let Allah sort them out?
I believe that Al is irrelivant.


According to General Giap himself:



"And why don't those reporters tell us one damn thing about the good things going on in the rest of Iraq, where our troops ARE welcomed, where they're starting to have elections, the schools and hospitals are opening, and the victims of Saddam's torture in Abu Ghraib are getting prosthetic hands to replace the ones he had cut off?"
Roy, why don't you please explain to us where American troops are welcomed--can you cite a Fox news story on this and all these prosthetics we're handing out? Are we handing them to the boy who's arms and legs were blwon off by US bombing?
You're so full of shit I think I'm just wasting my time here. The Vietnam War was LOST--the media had nothing to do with it. We lost it. The United States of America lost a war. Accept it. I challenge you to read Neil Sheehan's book A Bright Shining Lie or Stanley Karnow and then tell me that the media's portrayal of the war was the reason we lost the will to fight. What a crock of shit. When we pull out of Iraq and the place falls into chaos I supose you'll just blame that on the media too--and the Iraqis. "They're not capable of ruling themselves."

Meanwhile, Ray wants to avoid Juan Cole's point about Vietnam by arguing that he confused Viet Cong for Viet Minh. Whatever, man. Call 'em Charlie--did you even bother to go to the Juan Cole link and try to understand his point? Or is your mind also made up?


If I quote a foreign general on a random subject, will you take it as fact? I'm not a xenophobe or anything, but I just don't consider that a very credible argument, even if I happen to agree with what he's saying.

The Giap story just doesn't make any sense....we ended up committing 500,000 troops and dropped more bombs in Vietnam than in all other wars combined, and yet early on they were prepared to surrender? Also, the Tet offensive was a huge success for the VC, not a failure. They made it all the way to Saigon. This story smacks of urban legend, like something Oliver North would cook up.

Giap isn't just 'some foreign general' -- he was the general commanding the other side of the war that we 'lost'.

Now, if the commanding general of the winning side doesn't know how and why he really won, then who the hell does?

Brad- the VC blew their wad on Tet. They were wiped out. Most action after Tet was against NVA regulars.

There's truth to the fact that the NVA never had delusions that it could win the war against the US (and instead was fighting a war of attrition).

Ray and Roy mention nothing about the fact that we had already lost the war for the will of the South Vietnamese people. There's a great quote in the new Eroll Morris documentary The Fog of War (I think) where McNamara (or one of our generals) says years later to one of the NVA generals: "But you never beat us militarily." And the NVA general says: "We never had to."

As is typical of US foreign policy in the Cold War, our govt. seemed satisfied to forego democracy when it didn't conveniently fit our needs and prop up a failed ruler in place of true reform in the countries we were allegedly aiding.

He's more than just a random foreign general - he's the one who prevailed. So his words mean something. More than the analyis of someone not even involved.
He also recently thanked the anti-war left for helping them win - in an interview.
The Tet offensive was a military failure. Period. It took and held no ground.
There is nothing to admire about the Viet Cong.

Propaganda is information true or false disseminated to serve an agenda. If true, it may be one-sided and fail to paint a complete picture.
Look at all the facts, not a selected few with an agenda.

What's my agenda, Ray? I am seeking the truth.

Point of fact, Brad. Almost all of the major fighting in Tet was done by the South Vietnamese.
Look it up. When they retook Hue, they found a mass grave where the wonderful liberators buried the "undesirable elements". 3,000 of them or so.

No, Brad. You're seeking the defeat of Bush. And it colors everything you say or do. So you assign him blame at every turn and discount anything that does not fit your agenda.

Ray and Chuckg,

Just so I get the criteria here:

If you have 1) a foreign general who 2) was in overall command of a foreign force fighting against us 3) and won, then you'll accept any statements he makes about the war he fought, even if you had previously disagreed with them?

Let me ask you this ... what about if we had 1) a foreign terrorist who 2) was in overall command of a foreign terrorist cell fighting agsints us 3) and successfully carried of a terrorist attack against us. If he thanked a person or group for helping him win, would you believe that?

I bet you wouldn't. I know I wouldn't. You'd have to be insane, and this isn't the DU. This is a DU style argument. You want to tell me that an NVA general is somehow a credible source? Is the guy who had little children charge our troops with hidden grenades a better moral example then a terrorist? Can you even point out a difference?! Please. There isn't a person here, including you, that would buy into that for a statement they disagreed with.


I pointed out above that the Viet Cong were nothing to admire.
That General Giap is completely credible? Hell no, he just doesn't have a particularly good reason to lie about it.
This has degenerated into a discussion about Viet Nam, that's not what my point was initially about.
What is important to victory in any war is the will to win. I watched the left actively sap that will during Viet Nam. I am watching an agenda-driven media and the left trying to do so again.
That's kind of personal to me right now.

Oh, and Brad? Send me another obscene email and I contact the authorities.


I just don't like seeing bad arguments. I guess to be fair I should refute Brad (low hanging fruit, I admit):

"Look, in his last two State of the Union Speeches, Bush said that we are winning the war on terror. Now we're told that a terrorist attack is practically inevitable." - Brad

Nothing about winning the war on terror implies there won't be any more terrorist attacks. To put it in perspective, this is just like saying Al Gore was silly when he made his speech about Global Warming on a cold day. The first point does not suggest the second will not happen.

Britton - Saudi Arabia (Khobar Towers), East Africa, and Yemen (USS Cole) are not part of the US, either.

But if you weren't trying so hard to be such a smart ass, you'd realize that I used more recent terrorist attacks that DID actually kill US citizens in, yes, Bali and, yes, the Phillipines to highlight how dick-riculous of a standard the RNC is using in their response.

You seemed to be using Bali and PI as examples of attacks against America that happened on Bush's watch. They were not atttacks on America, even if some Americans were caught up in them. Bali was an attack on Australians and Hindus, and the attacks in PI are attacks on PI. PI has been fighting Muslim terrorists for decades.

Those last 3 you just brought up were attacks directly on American people and assets.

Apples and oranges. 3 unanswered attacks on America during one admin (not even counting the first WTC bombing and assasination attempt), and one attack that was most decisively answered during the current administration's watch.

Anyone ever notice how bush's response to "questionable" data about iraqi wmd's is that saddam was evil and needed be stopped.

im sure we can all agree the saddam is evil.

and, you know, evil leads to destruction.... so i guess lots of evil is lots of destruction? right?

im just wondering why none of the reporters ever pointed out the small change in the discussion that led to the question asked, being answered as if it were a different question.

sure if gore had been asked this he would have drooled all over himself in a frenzy about the god-damn-good-for-nothing ozone or something, but the fact that my president can't answer the question that was asked.... i mean ouch.

i dont mind if he drools on himself a little i mean lets face it he's 2 steps above retarded, but when you ask mongo if he knows where your keys are he generally doest start talking about the philisophical reprecussions of imprecise deadly force on civilization.

Britton -- I'll credit you with a clear difference between the types of attacks. They are apples and oranges when you consider the motivation behind the attacks.

But I WILL call bullshit on the "unanswered" part. Snopes has the dope on that tired dog:


And if you're gonna say we "decisely answered" the attacks on 9/11, wouldn't it be better if, umm, you know, we actually had the guy who was behind the attacks killed or at least in custody somewhere?

Soli, I stand by my reasoning that al Qaeda has reconstituted itself, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (see:
http://www.iiss.org/news.php?selectID=804). Ashcroft has as much admitted this in their dire warnings of an imminent attack.

Therefore, we are not winning the war. If we are more volunerable now, then we are losing.

I know that in every war the losing side sometimes counterattacks and appears to be on the upswing, but this isn't what we're hearing about al-Qaeda. They have dispersed and learned how to regroup and plan. And in the meantime the U.S. has not gone after them hard enough--we have concentrated our resources on one region, Iraq. The enemy is one that does not respect boundaries, and I question why Bush wants to spend more money on missile defense and less money on securing our ports and helping our first responders (fire and local police) be better prepared.
If there is another attack, won't you be pissed at Bush for not preparing us better? Or does he get a free pass no matter what?

What is important to victory in any war is the will to win. I watched the left actively sap that will during Viet Nam. I am watching an agenda-driven media and the left trying to do so again.

I understand that your main point is not about Viet Nam, but it baffles me that you blame the "left" for draining our will there. Under LBJ the United States steadily (and stealthily) increased its involvement in Viet Nam. We eventually wound up committing half a million troops. We dropped over 8 million tons of bombs on Viet Nam, most of this after the Tet Offensive. Viet Nam was a stupid war that could have been avoided under wiser leadership -- most of what happened there had indeed been predicted. Given all the problems with us fighting there, to come away with the lesson that we were defeated by the liberal media seems a little nuts to me. In a better world our liberal media would have helped to get us out of there maybe a dozen years earlier.

Returning to the topic of Iraq, if you want to defeat the surrender-monkey liberal media you need to be able to forcefully articulate the goals we are trying to achieve, and why they are so important. The fact of the matter is that for most Americans, invading Iraq was an ass-kicking in the Arab world, a revenge for 9/11, and the removal of a dictator who was surely willing to murder Americans. And don't just blame the ignorant public for having such a short-sighted view, as that's exactly what our President wanted. Remember "Mission Accomplished"? I do, that was over a year ago. Do you remember a call for sacrifice, or a stress on the need for a long-range perspective? I don't.

The President vividly explained how he did not want to allow Saddam Hussein to nuke an American city. So now Saddam is captured and there don't seem to be many dangerous weapons over there. What next? The President talks only in vague terms about "freedom" for the Iraqi people, and about the June 30th handoff. If you want people to continue to have the "will to win," what exactly do you want them to have the will to win? In most Americans' eyes we have already won and the bad stuff going on now like prison abuse and soldiers dying seems rather unnecessary.

>>wouldn't it be better if, umm, you know, we actually had the guy who was behind the attacks killed or at least in custody somewhere?

Bin laden most likely is dead. If this is true or not, his organization has been shattered and robbed of their base. Capturing him might be nice, but hardly necessary. We neither killed nor captured Hitler, and I think we won that war.

When I say that Clinton did not answer the attacks, let me rephrase to say that he did not answer them in any meaninful way. He made token strike which did nothing to hamper Al Queada's operations in Afghanistan, and he stopped responding to the WTC bombing once he had the immediate offenders in custody.

Sorry, but I am not counting token efforts or half-measures.

Britton is wrong.

Khobar Towers in '96 was an act of Iranian sponsored terrorism, not Al Qaeda, that was responded to by Clinton via a covert operation referred to by many as the "Intelligence Option." Bush refuses to declassify the info regarding this. But the result is undisputable ... no acts of Iranian terrorism against Americans or American targets since Khobar. Funny thing how Dyke doesn't tell you this or suggest what should've been done differently.

'93 WTC bombing ... 6 dead. All but one of the perpetrators captured and imprisoned including the two major players, Ramzi Yousef and Sheik Rahman. Bush refuses offer to take last one because he needs to preserve argument for the war. No one, not Dyke or any other right winger, called for attacking or even striking Afghanistan at the time. Funny how Dyke criticizes Gore for something Dyke himself never advocated. Also ... compare this to the 5 killed through the Anthrax attacks, no one apprehended or imprisoned under Bush.

Embassy bombings in Africa ... Clinton responds with cruise missle attacks that kill some Al Qaeda and Pakistan intelligence officers training Kashmiri terrorists. Clinton criticized by Repugs. Dyke and repug pols are not on record for doing something else. Clinton then establishes Delenda plan which includes kill order for Bin Laden upon which CIA does not act. Military against doing any Delta Force type raids.

2000 bombing of USS Cole ... Clinton fails to respond for 3 months waiting for finding of responsibility (following recommendation of Pentagon brass). Bush does nothing re Cole or African Embassy Bombings for 8 months despite receiving finding of responsibility by Al Qaeda for Cole early in his tenure. Bremer says they're blowing but again Dyke and other righties silent until after 9/11.

If you want examples of attacks where nothing was done ... think Beirut barracks bombing (Iran) and Pan Am 103 (Libya) each of which resulted in more American deaths than all the attacks cited for Clinton and to which neither Reagan nor Bush I responded.

9/11 ... Bush dallies for months allowing Al Qaeda and Taliban to escape. Indeed, no overwhelming force ever sent in and top leaders Osama, Zawahiri and Mullah Omar remain at large. Bush learns of Zarqawi's presence in Northern Iraq but passes on 3 military requests to attack allowing Zarqawi and his gang of thugsto continue along their way much to the dismay of Nick Berg and 700 other unfortunates.

Dopes like Dyke spit out buffonry while trained seals, like Michele, know to clap in all the right places.


If one wishes to point fingers at whose inaction led to 911, you need to start with the FBI and Bush senior. As detailed in the book "The Cell" , John Miller and his co-authors make a very credible argument that Al Qaeda, or an incipient Al Qaeda initiated its reign of terror on the night of November 5, 1990 when they assassinated (the fundamentalist lunatic founder of the JDL) Rabbi Meier Kahane.

Two and a quarter years later, "On Feb. 26, 1993, a truck bomb exploded in a parking garage beneath the World Trade Center. The blast killed six people, injured more than 1,000 others and caused more than $700 million in damage. Both police and the FBI were frustrated. It turned out the men behind the bombing were part of the same group they had been working on since the Kahane murder before brass shut the case down."

It's a shame, even back then, the FBI could not connect the dots.


Let's face it folks. Republicans are trying to fight and win the War on Terror. Democrats are trying to fight and win the War on Bush. They aren't looking for the best way to keep America safe, they are looking for the best pre-election soundbite. In wartime, and with the lives of American citizens on the line, they place retaking the White House as a higher priority than preserving the lives and safety of Americans.
When can we give up this "We're all Americans here" bullcrap and use the word they deserve?