AP wire reports:

“NEW YORK – Al Gore delivered a blistering denunciation Wednesday of the Bush administration’s ‘twisted values and atrocious policies’ in Iraq and demanded the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and CIA director George Tenet.”

Well, let’s think about this for a split second. How would Al Quieda react to such an action? Even as it is, with there being no way any of what he’s demanding will ever actually take place, he’s putting our people at greater risk.

In any event, we have a choice. Either Gore doesn’t care about America losing, WANTS America to lose, or has lost his mind… The last one being the kindest of the available choices. Of course that choice kinda gets eliminated when you consider that Al Quieda committed acts of war against us five times during the Clinton-Gore fiasco… and Gore did nothing, leading us toward one of the first two choices…. Take your pick which one, I guess.

Let’s focus this further; Gore in his speech says Nadia about how he’d deal with terrorism. That’s because while he’s using the terrorist threat as a political wedge, he actually hasn’t a bloody clue how to deal with it.

The question then becomes, however, if Kerry will denouce Gore.
If he doesn’t we have some serious questions for the whole of the Democrat party:
At what point do you give up anti-Americanism in your candidates?

Big Trunk, over at PowerLine suggests, regarding Gore’s comments:

“Their bizarre distance from reality, their twisted imputations of malignity, their excess, their luxuriance in defamation and falsehood, are obviously symptomatic. I think it is a mistake, however, to attribute them narrowly to Gore’s mental imbalance or the bitterness of his close defeat by Bush.

They resonate with Gore’s intended audience, and they therefore signify a widely shared frame of reference.”

Which, of course, is why I raise the question of what Kerry will do. I suspect he will do nothing because he knows the majority of his base, consider Gore’s raving to be spot on, and consider as a given we should cut and run in Iraq even at the cost of a civil war there. (53%, says the LA TIMES, this norning) Comments about being fearful for the future of our country that so many people would believe such poison aside for the moment, the question of where Kerry stands in relation to Gore’s comments needs to be addressed publicly. Once this stuff gets exposed, poeple will start backing off of Gore, the way one would back off of someone in the middle of Times Sqaure yelling “Allah is great!”.

Kerry may not disavow Gore, at least for a while. But Kerry’s losses among undecided voters, will be in direct relationship to how quickly he tells Gore to shut up and stop speaking for him. The other side of that coin is if he’s too vocal in backing off of Gore’s comments, he loses his leftist wacko base. In short, Kerry is being attacked from both sides here, and can’t make a move without losing support of one side or the other.

Captain Ed, who has his own comments up on Gore’s nonsense, also notes the rather shakey position Kerry’s in, and his read seems to be in step with my own:

Now he faces two options, neither of which look particularly attractive. On one hand, he could change his position and start calling for unilateral withdrawal from Iraq and hope to push Nader out of the race. Besides being catastrophic policy for the US, though, it opens Kerry to charges of flip-flopping yet again on this issue and demonstrates a lack of will that may unnerve the centrists and independents in November. On the other hand, he could stand pat and watch as Nader continues to drain his base from the Bush-hating left, if not of tremendous amounts of votes, certainly of funding and enthusiasm, a quality he hardly inspires anyway. Perhaps he could fire up enthusiasm on economic policy, a la Clinton, but that’s unlikely in the midst of an economic expansion.

Going to be an interesting summer.