Thursday, October 13, 2005

Al Gore Gone Wild!

Al Gore was giving a talk in Sweden yesterday, and offered up some interesting comments about what would be different had he been elected.

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. H

e must have been referring to Iraq, because clearly Bosnia wouldn't apply. This is the same Al Gore who blamed Bush I for not finishing the job in Iraq back in 1991. Or is it the same Al Gore? I suppose it depends upon whether he's cheeking his medications again. Shortly after Bush II went after Iraq, I read a book written prior to that occasion that argued war was inevitable; it was written by a Middle East expert in the Clinton administration. He painted Gore and Albright as the Iraq hawks in the administration, trying to prod Clinton to pull the trigger and take out Saddam. Do you remember when they were seriously considering that? They had a town hall meeting in Ohio that was a disaster, with Albright taking the heat from the loony left, and the option was dropped like a hot potato. Yeah, foreign policy by town hall meeting ... were they serious?

"We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

This always cracks me up. Tax cuts, which favor the rich, who themselves receive no direct welfare payments from the government, and who bear an overwhelmingly dispropotionately high share of the total income tax burden per person even after the tax cuts, are equivalent to taking the money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Because it's the government's money, and therefore it should all go working families.

Do you remember in the 2000 election, when it was revealed that Al Gore had donated a couple hundred dollars in total to charity? He justified his paltry givings on the basis that it is a significant financial burden sending your children to Harvard. Kerry and Edwards were perhaps the richest presidential ticket in history, and these guys complain that the tax cuts are coming to them, as if they are therefore obliged to buy more yachts with the tax savings. Have these people ever heard of private charities? I'd venture to guess that most fabulously rich people are liberal Democrats - why do they live so lavishly? Is it that they don't care about poor people? I'd say so. It's more important that your kids go to Harvard.

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media."

I'll venture tow guesses as to what he might be alluding to here: poor Dan Rather, and the imprisoning of reporters who refused to testify in the Plame investigation. So, in the first instance, when a major news organization gets fed made up evidence that is clearly fraudulent, and people point this out, it amounts to control and intimidation. In the second instance, it turns out that the testimony of the two reporters in question could be damaging to a key aid of the President and a key aid of the Vice President. So the prosecutorial zeal in this case serves this administration in what way?

"We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said.

No, instead we'd just standby and watch that happen in other countries. Now this is a statement, over and above anything one could imagine him saying, that proves we made the right choice in 2000. His fragile ego apparently is so in need of being assuaged that he makes a gross, unfair, and despicable comment that can only steel the will of our enemies. We have punished those responsible for Abu Ghraib, and a bipartisan commission has said that the administration was not responsible, and yet Al Gore wants to pretend and give credence to the notion that we are running our own version of the Gulags. And he makes in Sweden, where he knows he might be thanked with a Nobel Prize, following the equally despicable example of Carter. I have very few good things to say about Clinton, as most of you know, but even in his criticisms of the administration, he's expressed opinions that I don't share, but not in a way that equates us unfairly with who and what we're fighting. Gore should be ashamed of himself, and we should all breathe a sigh of relief that he's reduced to pandering to a bunch of Northern European socialists.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It kinda surprises me that you would bother analyzing what he said - as far as I can tell, he is out of Presidential politics forever, having lost to GWB in what should have been (to me, at least) a cakewalk.
He has shown himself to be less than visionary, with his campaign based on locking things in boxes.
In my opinion, anything he says is grandstanding in an attempt to get back into the spotlight. But nowadays, politics is one of the few areas where second chances are extremely rare, so he is relegated to the dustbin of history.
What does Barack Obama have to say? Or any of the not-brain-damaged democrats? What does John McCain have to say? He's a little intense, but he seems to be relatively moderate.
Who cares what an ex-Vice-President with the personality of a wet cardboard box has to say about anything? He had his shot to speak during his campaign, and decided to keep quiet. He can keep on keeping quiet now - he doesn't matter.

9:54 AM  
Blogger pbryon said...

When in doubt for a topic, you can always break out the Gore punching bag. Gore appears to be the Quayle or Gingrich of the other side. Though Al certainly helps with his comments these days.

Has anyone seen his TV channel (Current TV)? I don't have digital cable or the dish...

12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really liked Hatch's posting this time. Gore is a boob. His big issue has always been the Koyoto Proticals. It doesn't take a Phd to know that giving the third world the power to limit our Co2 emissions is an economic disater.

I do think Hatch should give him a break. He is has been hack that has delevoped a destructive Chartreuse habit. That's the only acceptible excuse I can think of for his stupid, innane ramblings.

I also agreed with Pulvarizer's post. Bush was clearly a better choice for this country than Kerry or Gore. With that said, what bothers me is his seemless ability to flip flop and deficit spend. Does anyone know it those European Monks that make Chartreuse have been making deliveries to the White House?

4:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, good lord!!

Who would have thought that commenters and an author of a Blogger site would have uncovered such a huge conspiracy?

The New World Order, in conjunction with the Tri-Lateral Commision, the Masons, and Christian monks of an order I forget at the moment have banded together to take over the world, through the increased production, promotion, and unconsented application of Chartreuse!!

Things started to get really whacky RIGHT AROUND THE TIME HATCHER WAS INTRODUCED TO CHARTREUSE, supposedly by a "friend" (operative) who enticed him by saying something along the lines of "Hey, you gotta try this."

What are the odds that EVERY MAJOR POLITICAL FIGURE FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS HAS HAD A SIMILAR "FRIEND" INTRODUCE THEM TO A PARTICULAR YELLOW-GREEN HERBAL-INFUSED LIQUER?

This...This is the smoking gun we've all been looking for...

6:02 AM  
Blogger Hatcher said...

How history treats him will depend exclusively upon what Iraq looks like in ten years. It is likely that other nations in the middle east will be similar, for better or for worse. I think it is too early to tell. But in the end, if he gets through his term without another terrorist attack, no one can argue that he hasn't protected the country adquately. Recall September 12th - where would you have placed the odds that we'd go this long without any successful attack on US soil?

6:45 AM  
Blogger Victor Matheson said...

My only two comments would be that as of October 17, 2005, there are 1,976 differences between Bush's invasion of Iraq and Clinton's (can we even call it an invasion) of Bosnia and Kosovo.

Second, according to the polls, most Americans wish someone else were President right now. Now whether that mean they would be happier right now with President Gore is a different issue, but the last poll I saw was 39% approve and 58% disapprove. In most elections they call any margin greater than 40-60 a landslide.

Again, it is entirely possible that President Kerry or President Gore would be mired in equally poor poll numbers, but it's hard not to argue that there are a lot of folks out there with voter's remorse (or non-voter's or Nader voter's remorse).

6:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

email:
powered by
NotifyList.com