Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/26/2002 12:22:30 AM PDT by Pat Bateman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Pat Bateman

2 posted on 09/26/2002 12:48:34 AM PDT by Kwilliams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pat Bateman
I don't understand the reluctance -- or inability -- of the Democratic Party to flush Al Gore.

What are Gore's substantive achievements? Nearly every position he's ever held has been acquired for him by someone else, usually his father or Armand Hammer. Yes, he was the Vice President. But people didn't go to the polls to elect Gore VP; they went to elect Clinton President. (Yes, yes, I know I'm not supposed to dwell on that instance of national bad taste.) When Gore has put himself forward for national office, he's always lost.

So what does he bring to the table?

I can't find anything. He pledges fidelity to no fixed principles. His approach to issues and general policy is marked by an absolute opportunism, a determined testing of the winds before he'll speak on any subject. He's the ultimate "show me the way the people are headed and I will lead them" politician.

So why Al Gore? Why does anyone pay attention when he speaks? Why is he the probable nominee for President in 2004?

Possibly it's a "sacrificial-lamb" move, as was Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and Bob Dole in 1996. Or possibly, it's that Bill Clinton, for all his odiousness, is the Democrats' national high-water mark in the last fifty years, and Gore is their only hope for borrowing a few final crumbs of the Clintonian magic.

But for sure, it isn't for Al Gore's sake. It isn't because they're dreaming rapturously of an Al Gore Administration, or of all the innovations and bold adventures his tenure would bring. He's no one's crusader for justice. His agenda has one item on it: Al Gore.

If there are any Democrats out there -- small chance of that, I know -- you'd be well advised to drop this man. Better yet, silence him; he's making all of you look bad by association. The Democratic Party's fortunes are diminished by its tolerance of Gore's relentless campaign for its spotlight.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

3 posted on 09/26/2002 4:25:36 AM PDT by fporretto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pat Bateman
." In other words, Mr. Gore gains if Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida succeed.

Bingo! Nothing nastier than this.

4 posted on 09/26/2002 4:27:22 AM PDT by Tom Bombadil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pat Bateman
He broke with himself,...

When you're as big a stiff as Al Gore that can be particularly painful.

5 posted on 09/26/2002 4:28:31 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pat Bateman
He said the administration "has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after defeating a fifth-rate military power there."

Gore has alot of nerve opening his mouth about abandoning people...

According to Time Magazine reporter Scott MacLeod, Vice-President Gore sent a note to Chalabi and the INC to promise the administration's "solid commitment" to "your struggle" and pledged that U.S. officials "will not turn our backs." Gore also announced in a public speech that "We have now decided to seek a United Nations commission to investigate the war crimes and crimes against humanity of the Iraqi regime." This rhetoric was indeed backed by covert support for the INC, but when push came to shove it was only rhetoric.

A paramilitary operation was planned for March 1995 with forces backed by the INC, KDP, PUK, Iraqi Kurd regional government, and the CIA to take the cities of Kirkuk and Mosul in Iraqi Kurdistan to trigger a CIA-backed coup among Iraqi troops and popular insurrection. The Clinton Administration was hopeful that this could be done simply and quickly before the elections in 1996 to give the president a badly-needed foreign policy accomplishment. But the night before the action unfolded a man named General Adnan Nuri - a former brigade commander who had been recruited by U.S. intelligence to work seperately for both the INC and the Iraqi National Accord in 1992 - landed in Washington, DC to warn government officials that the planned paramilitary operation would require concerted American airpower. President Clinton, concerned about how a war would unfold on American television sets, immediately bowed out. He ordered National Security Adviser Tony Lake to quickly cable Chalabi with five words: "You are on your own."

Kevin Fedarko in Time Magazine reports that on August 31, 1996, the CIA case officers fled at dawn in their "fancy white Landcruiser" as Saddam's forces invaded Arbil, leaving behind "hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of computers, scramblers and satellite phones, as well as equipment used by a TV-radio station... Of the 100 employees who worked for the rebel TV station, only 12 survived." Nearly the entire staff of the IBC, according to reports, were blindfolded and summarily shot in the back of the head.

Source

9 posted on 09/26/2002 9:29:54 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson