Ten Reasons to be Glad Al Gore Isn’t President

ELECTION 2000 may now seem long ago, but it's worth taking a moment to recall with joyful relief the butterfly ballot, the Electoral College, and the landmark Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. For without these godsends, would-be president Al Gore wouldn't merely be delivering asinine speeches to the Commonwealth Club of California, he would be making asinine policy in the White House.

Lest anyone forget how tremendously fortunate we are that the election turned out exactly the way it did, Gore inadvertently provided (at least) ten examples in Monday's address. In chronological order, they are:

1. "To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. … I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task [by a war on Iraq] simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another." Actually, great nations are capable of tending to more than one task at a time, especially when those two tasks are intimately related. Gore's presumption that the U.S. cannot simultaneously hunt down what's left of al Qaeda and dismantle the Iraqi threat is simplistic nonsense. Al Qaeda is a single, far-flung outfit operating in dozens of countries. Capturing and/or killing each and every one of its members will be a long-term project, the completion of which shouldn't forestall other, pressing national concerns — like thwarting Saddam Hussein's nuclear program.

If Algore were president, we would all be speaking arabic now.

And speaking of inventing things, in his bile filled speech, Algore totally contradicted numerous statements he made during the 2000 campaign, his 8 years as VP, and during the Gulf War dating back to 1991. The All Stars on FOX News cound'nt believe Algore could be so stupid to say things that were so easily checked against his past. The best part was when Charles Krauthammer looked at Brit Hume with a condescending face and said "He never learns".

and INVENT..the truth?
AL GORE. LIAR THEN? OR LIAR NOW?
Since you are informed talk radio listeners, you already know about Al Gore’s strange speech two days ago. You remember, the speech in which Al Gore tried to convince the American people that the Islamic terrorists who attacked America on September 11th “got away with it.”

Gore’s goal, of course, it to try to create an aura of failure around Bush’s efforts in the war on terror. If he has to lie to do it, what the hell. After all, he’s a Democrat …AND he learned from the best, Bill Clinton.

Simply put, Al Gore is a liar. He will say whatever he needs to say, be it the truth or not, to further his political ambitions.

We use the Lexus-Nexus wayback machine to check out what Gore was saying about Saddam Hussein and the first Gulf War back in 1991. Here you go … read and comprehend:

“I want to state this clearly, President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein’s survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus that the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that out objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop.”

That was how Al Gore said he felt about the Gulf War in 1991. Now, 11 years later, this is how Al Gore has a different version of his own feelings:

“Back in 1991 I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s departure from the battlefield.”

OK. One of those statements is a lie. Was he lying in 1991 when he said that it was understood that the battle would stop after Iraq was pushed from Kuwait? Or was Gore lying in 2002 when he said he felt betrayed by our departure from the battlefield?

You don’t really have to go all the way back to 1991 to find Gore at variance with his statements this week. Just go back about seven months. In February of this year Gore spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. The following excerpt appears in the New York Times article about that speech:

Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust President Saddam Hussein.

Again … lying then? Or lying now?
http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.