Do we have to continue to be subjected to this guy? Gore is now criticizing Bush’s war on terror as feckless. Here are his thoughts from the New York Times:
Al Gore said today that the United States had failed to destroy Osama bin Laden and dismantle the network of Al Qaeda because President Bush spent the fall campaign "beating the drums of war against Saddam Hussein" instead of prosecuting the war on terror. . . .
As a result, Mr. Gore said, Americans are as much at risk of a terrorist attack now as they were before Sept. 11. . . .
"I think they lost focus," Mr. Gore said in remarks that served to build on a speech he delivered in September when he asserted that Mr. Bush would not be able to plan at one time for a war against Iraq while still dealing with Al Qaeda. "And I think the country is paying a price for it."
Memo to Al: it is possible to deal with both Saddam and the war on terror. In fact, the two could--I know this is a tough one--could just be interrelated. You know Al, things can be different, but the same. Saddam could be both a ruthless dictator, and a potential terrorist threat. Or to put it in terms Al can understand: a man can be both a Buddhist monk, and a campaign contributor.