Al Gore

Good President, definatly. As an amateur historian though, I just wanted to set the general facts straight, that's all.

Just as a reply to Edine. Limbaugh does have a lot of good points, but some points really do bother me. I really dislike how he keeps trying to convince people that gas prices are not that high. I have to strongly disagree with him there. It's a pain in the ass to gas up my car.

Michael Savage is pretty decent though, if not a bit extreme. He's pretty up in your face with his views, but he is very much a right winger, more of a hardcore nationalist if anything. Worthy to listen to if you get a chance. Even if you don't agree with the majority of what he says, he brings up a few decent points. I do prefer Rush myself, though.

- Arkans

Don't say you like Rush to loudly here, the donkeys will come in guns a blazing....

Let 'em come. An Elephant can stomp the crap out of a donkey any day. :smilegrin:

- Arkans

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Actually it wasn't so you lose.

---

Yes it was.. It's not even technically a 'documentary'.

Here's the text of Gore's remarks..in it's entirety. It was a great speech.

Now at least read it? I don't agree with everything Moveon does, either..but I do appreciate Al Gore, and his candor.

http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html

-A

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
The song itself (the longer version) pretty much sucks.

Reasons:
Only good part is < 1:00
Song is over 10:00
The lyrics are pretty Bobmuthol except that one line

And the shorter version doesn't even have the good part.

---

The 10 minute (or thereabouts) version is awesome. The 14 minute is too long, the short one is too short. You're just not mature enough to appreciate it. I bet you don't like In A Godda Da Vida either.

Al Gore makes for great comedy. Then again, so does Bush.



[Edited on 8-20-2004 by Tsa`ah]

I don't recall a 14 minute version.

But there's only like 40 good seconds of it.

Sir, you are clearly mistaken about your facts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Prestius

Well let's see here. The 1st WTC Bombing was in 1993 - scant months after Clinton and Gore entered office. One could pretty much surmise that most of the planning for it went on under the nose of the previous president. Not only that, until the bombing, no-one really even knew al Quaeda existed. It was the investigation of WTC bombing that first put al Quaeda even on the radar - that made us aware of its existence. And guess what? We sucessfully prosecuted those responsible. Yeah .. big failure there, Mr RNC.

---

Sir, the bombing took place in September of 1993. During the following trial, (of the three players we did catch) the planning for this began in the spring of '93. It took them six months to plan to fill a truck with explosives and drive it down to the bottom of the parking garage and set it off. Yes, they were trying to knock the building down, but what they failed to realize (which is why they switched their plans for another attack) was their failure to understand how the buildings were put together.

Quote:

---

The USS Cole bombing happened at the end of the Clinton years .. and we didn't even know for sure it was al Quaeda until after Bush was in office. So .. the RNC is going to bag on Gore for that?

---

Once again, you're listening to Al Franken. The bombing took place on October 12th, 2000. 3 weeks before the election. The reason they picked that day was to try to influence the election and get Gore elected. We did nothing to those involved. Had Clinton decided to commit troops to Afghanistan at that time, people would have had his head examined (even though he should have it done anyway).

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, on Clinton and Gore's watch we did things institute the largest increases funding for anti-terrorism ever, create stockpiles of antidote and vaccines against bio-weapons (where do you think all the anti-anthrax stuff came from?), thwart many many terrorist attacks including the millenium attack.

---

::sigh:: Once again, your facts are skewed. The anthrax letters are the reason we have stock piled the antidote. The first anthrax letter was sent out 2 months after 9/11.

Quote:

---

And .. if you go a little deeper into Clinton's repsonses to terrorist attacks, you'll find that it was the military's downfall more than his. They gave him two options for fighting terrorism - nothing, or a full-scale invasion. And .. when he did actually attempt to do something he was accused of a "wag-the-dog" policy - that he was just trying to get Monica off the front page. Gee, thanks Ken Starr and the Republican attack dogs for making the country safe against blow jobs.

---

Dude, you seriously need help.

Were you in any of these high level meetings in which you claim he was given only 2 options? Dude, during the 9/11 hearings, we heard from 12 different people that said he was given nearly 1/2 dozen options. The only person whose saying he got two options was Dick Clarke.

Quote:

---

So .. you can bag on Clinton and Gore all you want for all kinds of things - but terrorism is one area that they did one hell of a great job despite the obstacles they faced - like being under frivolous investigation for most of their tenure in office.

-P

---

Hope you have fun at Simucon next week. Drink heavily dude, you'll need it.

Heya Bobby ...

I may or may not be at Con .. had some stuff come up .. but ..

I'm afraid you are mistaken in your assessment of my statements - and your thinly veiled "::sigh:: you poor misguided fool" comments are borderline insulting. However .. I will respond anyway.

I fail to see what you said about the 93 WTC bombing somehow shows my lack of knowledge of the facts.

Did we, or did we not prosecute those repsonsible for the 93 WTC bombing? Can you please show where al Quaeda was a known entity prior to 93 .. 94 .. or even 95? This is why the rhetoric that "Clinton/Gore had 8 years to get al Quaeda" is crap and why I refuse to let statements like that stand. --- because they're simply not true. al Quaeda wasn't even on the map until after the prosecution of the WTC bombing.

I don't doubt the reasoning behind the Cole attacks - but that's not what I was saying. The RNC makes it sound like Clinton/Gore did nothing about them - which is crap. They started the investigation, which took several months. Which took us into the Bush adminstration's watch. That's all I'm saying. To bag on Clinton/Gore for the Cole bombings just shows a complete desire to ignore the facts.

We began stockpiling antidotes *years* before 9/11 - as part of Clinton's anti-terrorism program. There's no way we could have come up with the number of doses needed in such a short period of time after the Anthrax letters. Certainly we began to beef up those stockpiles again post-9/11 and post anthrax attacks, but those stockpiles were in place long before 9/11 specifically because of Clinton.

And of course I wasn't in any high-level meetings. Were you? Clearly I was simplifying the general situation, but when you boil down that half a dozen options, that's what you ended up with. Please try to recall the political climate we were in at the time. The military was loathe to commit troups anywhere without overwhelming forces. And yep, I'm rlying on Clarke for that information. Have you actually read his book?

-P

Since its difficult to gauge people's tones in text, I want to preface all this by saying that this is a nice spirited debate and its obvious that I can't change your mind of things, nor can you change my mind. But it is healthy. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Prestius
I fail to see what you said about the 93 WTC bombing somehow shows my lack of knowledge of the facts.

---

You said, a "scant' few months into the Clinton presidency, or as you put it, "Clinton's Watch". (BTW, This "watch stuff" is a catch phrase that was put on the lips of 2 WTC family's by the DNC). Clinton was in office for 3 months when the planning began and it continued under their noses until the explosion in '93.

As to putting al Qaeda on the map by putting those on trial... During the 80's, under Regan's Watch, they gave Bin Ladin the money he needed and the training, to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The "Taliban" at the time were non existant. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, was born. Taliban is an off-shoot ... tribe, if you will, of al Qaeda.

Quote:

---

Did we, or did we not prosecute those repsonsible for the 93 WTC bombing? Can you please show where al Quaeda was a known entity prior to 93 .. 94 .. or even 95?

---

See above. The US government knew who/what/where al Qaeda was. They paid for it. Now if you want to ask me if we the people knew, obviously not until the WTC in 93.

If you'd like to know where I get this information from, as silly as it may sound, from the declassified documents under the freedom of information act. All you have to do is ask them, and they'll send you all declassifed info on al Qaeda or bin Laden.

Quote:

---

This is why the rhetoric that "Clinton/Gore had 8 years to get al Quaeda" is crap and why I refuse to let statements like that stand. --- because they're simply not true. al Quaeda wasn't even on the map until after the prosecution of the WTC bombing.

---

Which is why I asked you if you were part of any of these meetings. Not to be a smart ass or anything, but you were almost quoting Dick Clarke verbatim from his book. His book is full of 1/2 truths, innuendos, all formed into statements of facts. His testimony to the 9/11 commission was full of holes and contradictions of his own sworn testimony that he was just making a mockery of the proceedings. (This, by the way, is why I wrote to the Fed to get what I could).

Just because someone says something in print, doesn't mean its the truth. If that's the case, I would STRONGLY urge you to get a copy of Dick Morris' book, "Re-writing History". Another of Clinton's aides, only this time, telling another story. The DNC wants us to dismiss him as a radical, but funny how we are to dismiss former Aides (8 years he was in the Clinton Camp) and Clarke was there since Bush 1, and all of a sudden, Clarke is telling the truth, but Morris isn't. <grin>

Quote:

---

I don't doubt the reasoning behind the Cole attacks - but that's not what I was saying. The RNC makes it sound like Clinton/Gore did nothing about them - which is crap. They started the investigation, which took several months. Which took us into the Bush adminstration's watch.

---

Actually, from press accounts, the official investigation did not begin until January 26th, 2000. 4 days after the inaugaration.

The Yemen authorites began the investigation on November 1,2000.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/cole.investigation/

Quote:

---

That's all I'm saying. To bag on Clinton/Gore for the Cole bombings just shows a complete desire to ignore the facts.

---

Im still waiting for any of your claims of facts to be substantiated. All I see so far is the banter that the DNC has been putting out.

Quote:

---

We began stockpiling antidotes *years* before 9/11 - as part of Clinton's anti-terrorism program. There's no way we could have come up with the number of doses needed in such a short period of time after the Anthrax letters. Certainly we began to beef up those stockpiles again post-9/11 and post anthrax attacks, but those stockpiles were in place long before 9/11 specifically because of Clinton.

---

Sir, once again, without me trying to find some internet proof, (google turned up nothing for anthrax antidotes/us stockpiles) prior to Nov of 2001. I have documents that clearly show the US had some "stockpiles" but for military use in case an enemy used it against our forces.

Quote:

---

And yep, I'm rlying on Clarke for that information. Have you actually read his book? -P

---

Yep, sure did. Read his book, read Al Franken's book, read Dick Morris' book. All quite interesting reading. I also read Bob Woodward's book. Did you happen to read the last two or are you just into reading books that have views similar to yours? <grin>

Yes!! That was a stab!! I'm sorry!!

Seriously, one of our joys of being Americans is that we're able to keep open minds. Tell me, if you took your car to a mechanic, who told you that your finstock bearing needed replacing, then found out a month later there was no such thing, wouldn't you be wary?

I read Clarke's book. There were several sections that I had a lot of trouble believing. A little investigation got the answers. Is Dick Clarke a liar? In my humble opinion, yes, he is a liar. I have proof, the RNC has proof, even the 9/11 commission has proof.

What I'd like to see is someone stepping forward and put an end to these statements that do nothing more then aid and give comfort to the enemy.

A former vice-president of the United States, standing on a stage, turning into a beet. My god, could you ever see Spiro Agnew, LBJ, or any of these former VPs talking about our country in that manner?

My god.

Even if 100% of what Al Gore is saying is true (which it isn't), why do it in public? Why not take care of things in private? The President is a liar? Get a committee together to investigate it. Don't blast it over TV.

Oh well, one good thing has come out of it. 155 days till the election. Let's get this over with. I doubt I can take much more.

Have a good time if you go to Simucon. I had some other things come up (going out of the country for a week) during Simucon, so it's a wise choice for me.

LOL

Have a good Memorial Day weekend.