Gore Breaks Silence On 2000 Election »
Posted by: Aidenag 1 year ago347 Comments Report this Story
Al Gore couldn't believe his eyes: as the 2000 election heated up, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other top news outlets kept going after him, with misquotes ("I invented the Internet"), distortions (that he lied about being the inspiration for Love Story) and strangely off-the-mark needling.
Read Full Story at vanityfair.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 347
-
-
0%
Bkumm1 year ago
A person that knows crazy tiny details about stuff that most people don't care about. Gore IS a political wonk, but he has more political ability and knowledge of the system in his little finger than the President has in his whole cabal. Gore's problem was that he was too nice and not genial enough. After eight years of hard work, financial discipline and good policy the American people thought they deserved a vacation and they wanted a clown as president. Well...
Reply-
0%
ryates1 year ago
Wah, wah, wah.
Whine, moan, bitch, complain.
It's all the fault of the press.
They were suppose to be on my side and instead they pointed out every dumb thing I said.
They weren't supposed to do that.
They weren't supposed to say anything about my flip flops and exaggerations.
They were just supposed to make me look smart.
Wah, Wah, Wah.
It's all their fault!
(I'm still in denial of reality 6 years later).
Reply-
0%
mark-stevens1 year ago
We are becoming a 3rd world country. Not my opinion, it is that of international think tanks. Employement, unions, immigration, crime, civil rights, dishonest politicians,
Those are the points that are used to measure the quality of life in a country.
Where does the U.S. stack up to a Central American country at this time. Better, a little better???
Reply-
0%
crghss1 year ago
So basically what your telling me is you've never been to a central American country.
Reply -
-
0%
Acetyll1 year ago
Despite what Michael Moore asserts about the US health system...it ***IS*** the greatest health care system in the world. Does it have faults? Sure! Could it be improved? Sure! Does any system Democracies, Republics, legal, health care, transportation ect ect ect exist without faults? No!
As far as life sustaining capabilities and life saving medications...the US does have the best in the world. And, I for one wouldn't hesitate to have any procedure done here with our expertly trained health care professionals.
As far as access....work or visit any emergency room or operating room in the US and you will see free care being delivered on a minute to minute basis without hesitation of the hospitals.
Acetyl
P.S. I have a little more authority in this matter than Michael Moore as I actually live and breath health care EVERY day and not just the amount of time it takes to make a movie.
Reply-
0%
spkguy1 year ago
Video Catches Hospital 'Dumping' Incident
All Things Considered, March 23, 2006 · For many months, Los Angeles city officials have complained that regional hospitals are dropping off their indigent patients in the city's tough Skid Row area. On Wednesday, officials at a homeless shelter released a videotape that allegedly catches one hospital in the act. The incident has become part of an ongoing investigation that could result in criminal or civil penalties.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...
Reply-
0%
spkguy1 year ago
DEATH IN WEST TEXAS SPECIALTY HOSPITAL RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT MEDICARE PAYMENTS
In a letter to Leslie Norwalk, Acting Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), they asked officials to account for any Medicare dollars that may have gone to a physician-owned specialty hospital in West Texas during a congressionally imposed 18-month moratorium on Medicare payments to these hospitals. Baucus is Chairman and Grassley is Ranking Republican of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Medicare and Medicaid. Stark is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee.
The legislators are making their inquiry following the January 23 death of a patient at the West Texas hospital. The patient suffered respiratory arrest after an elective spinal surgery and, after a 911 call by the specialty hospital, had to be transferred by ambulance to a local community hospital for emergency services.
http://www.senate.gov/~finance/press/Gpress/200...
Reply-
0%
spkguy1 year ago
Interviewees Tell Harrowing First-Hand Stories of U.S. Health Care Failures
As Michael Moore called for legal action against health insurance executives, lawmakers also heard testimony from several people featured in "Sicko." Dawnelle Keys talked about how her 18-month-old daughter died after being denied treatment at a hospital. Andy Bales of the Union Rescue Mission in Los Angeles testified about how hospitals dump patients on Skid Row. And Dr. Linda Peeno spoke about her work as a medical reviewer for the health insurer Humana. She says she denied one patient a life-saving operation to protect company profits.
After Michael Moore spoke at Tuesday's health care briefing in Sacramento, lawmakers heard testimony from several people featured in his film Sicko. Dawnelle Keys talked about how 18-month-old daughter Michelle died in Los Angeles in 1993 hours after being denied treatment at a hospital.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/0...
Reply
-
-
0%
madmaxine1 year ago
So you are admitting it is a crime to do this to people. So if it is a crime it proves that this country does care about low income families getting medical care, if no one cared the bill would not have become a law.
We have medicade, medicare, Non-profit groups that give away medicine for a percentage of cost, churches, and individuals, and even some regular doctors who are willing to work out payment plans for even the lowest on the finacial totem pole.
If you can't get medical help you need you are not looking hard enough, are to rude for people to be willing to work with you, have zero friends, zero relatives that like you, and no social life.
Believe me I know, for twenty years I did not have medical insurance. I had to many health problems to get a decent job, but have never had trouble visiting a doctor, and got my prescription drugs for often times less then a bottle of tylenol would cost at the grocery store. My daughter has even had better health care than I did.
Reply-
0%
nccneon1 year ago
Mad Maxine wrote "If you can't get medical help you need you are not looking hard enough, are to rude for people to be willing to work with you, have zero friends, zero relatives that like you, and no social life."
------
Not gonna debate your main point. I'd just like to say I've never thought it should be considered a crime to not have friends, relatives, or a social life. A few people actually have no living relatives. And, as for the other two items, they could be a choice made. That shouldn't be a capital crime.
So far as 'not looking hard enough' is concerned, some of us work 60-70 hours/week during office hours. And some people are just too ill to physically do the leg work you're talking about. I guess if an ill person doesn't meet your criteria they should be considered expendable.
I have medical insurance. It is borderline cost prohibitive and includes what I consider high annual deductibles. Fact is, I'm fairly healthy and will probably never meet the deductible.
Reply-
0%
nccneon1 year ago
This means a premium is deducted from my paycheck every week, and then when I actually see a doctor I pay out of pocket for most things because in a calendar year I won't meet the deductible. It is essentially worthless, unless I have a serious medical condition ... which is why I keep it of course.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
ETproductions1 year ago
Acetyll
I'm certainly not relying on Michael Moore here. This is from a study conducted scientifically by the World Health Org. They compared infant mortality, death rates, debilitating disease, etc.; and the USA ranked #37 in the world, just under Costa Rica and above Slovenia. I know the trillion-dollar for-profit health industry spends a billion a year or so telling you you have the best care in the world, but the sad truth is the USA ranks #1 in only one metric, and that's cost per capita. We pay almost twice as much per person for health care as do the top 10 nations on average. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
We are the only industrialized Western nation that does not have some form of National health care system covering all their citizens. About 1 in 5 Americans are uninsured now. Add in the underinsured and it's over 1 in 4.
We have great health care for those who can afford it. But that's a rapidly shrinking set.
Reply -
-
-
0%
nccneon1 year ago
I wish you well. And, hope you never have any health issues which lie outside of 'ordinary' problems ... those are expensive enough. The fact is though, some conditions are terminal, or NOT, depending on the skill and equipment possessed by your medial facility. That's where being rich is a matter of life or death. Or blindness vs vision. Or walking vs paralyzed.
Reply
-
-
0%
Acetyll1 year ago
If you are poor and need a heart transplant...you CAN get one. If you are poor and need to have your gallbladder removed...you CAN have it done. If you break your leg and need it set...you CAN get it done. Where do you live?
Our system isn't perfect. But, when i need help or surgery...the USA is where I am going to have it done.
Acetyl
Reply
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
And maybe you can explain what good the "greatest" healthcare system is if you cant access its services because you cant't afford it or dont have insurance? Wow no better then a country without ANY healthcare services. Stop fooling yourself and look at the studies that are out there. Despite what the healthcare industry claims we trail quite a few European countries in quality of care.
Reply -
0%
gamahuche1 year ago
Acetyl - you are seriously out of touch with reality, certifiably nuts, or both.I hope they look after you well when they come to take you away and don't pit the straight-jacket on too tight..
Reply
-
-
0%
TimeBuster1 year ago
It is NOT the governments job to supply health care. This is a communistic approach to a problem that can be solved in other ways. NOWHERE has it ever been said we get this and that for free....That ONLY happens in communist countries folks...so if we come in behind such a country...GOOD! We will NOT become a socialist republic...and if you people keep pushing for it..and it happens...MANY will loading rifles for the next civil war I assure you! So take the communist ideals and bury them where they belong. Work for a living, buy american so we have jobs and no welfare (our first socialist program!)
Our government isnt there to give, give, give...and waste tax dollars on stupid people...maybe the stupid people are the ones supplying the money for others to squander....hmmmm...perhaps a Tax-rebellion...hehehe...
Reply-
0%
skeek1 year ago
You would be surprised how most of the advanced countries in this world provide free health care of one form or another. You would also be surprised to learn that they are not communist. The only communists you seem to have anything remotely approaching an intelligent understanding of are the ones hiding under your bed.
Now perhaps you can explain why is it that you are so adamant that your government should not provide basic healthcare for those who cannot afford it, suggesting that you would much prefer to see them suffer and croak in poverty and misery than for you to cough up one red cent of your precious tax money, yet not even a whimper is heard from you about the billions upon billions of yours and every other Americans tax dollars wasted on your country's pitiful, successive and excessive wars inflicted on the rest of us.
Reply -
0%
cowboygrandpa1 year ago
Our government isn't here to give,give give and waste tax dollars on stupid people....... So why are we in Iraq again? Seems like we try to be socialistic everywhere but home. Where the working people could use a break on the costs of some essential things such as health care. Of course if you would rather see the money go over seas and make it into the hands of the terrorists eventually. Yeah thats it lets give our money to countries that hate us and our Democracy. We'll call it aide not welfare. Because everyone knows conservatives are against helping the truly needy with welfare. I personally can't stand lazy people. Get them off welfare. Help the ones who are unable to work.
Reply -
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
"Our government isnt there to give, give, give...and waste tax dollars on stupid people"
Yet you dont seem to complain when OUR government squanders money on oil companies and bails out, not the subprime mortage holder, but the banks and lenders that GAVE them the mortage. How odd.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
mark-stevens1 year ago
Have had cops come on to my property and arrest my girl friend based on a crank phone call.
I am facing jail for having a car with no front plate. We lost a US Senator this week for wanting sex in a mens's rest room, we have stolen elections.
We have a city that is unfit to live in called New Orleans. The goverment spys on everybody you can go to jail and have no rights because the goverment thinks you "MIGHT BE" a threat. Five States Americans are becoming the minority sound Costa Rica to you!!
Reply -
0%
badnootka1 year ago
Thank god the euopean think tanks have been able to conclude that the US is a third world country. Without their valuable and objective insight we would never have known. Maybe we should outsource our foreign policy to the Europeans thinktanks. Try thinking for yourself. DO it enough and it becomes habit forming.
Reply
-
-
0%
Ebonvoice1 year ago
ryates:
That was an excellent summation of the Bush Presidency!
Humorous, yet concise...
I dig it!
Reply -
0%
scott42611 year ago
Well, Al Gore DID win the popular vote by 500,000 votes in 2000...a sliver of a margin, by national numbers, to be sure. And if the Supreme Court had ordered ALL 67 COUNTIES to be recounted in Florida (as they SHOULD HAVE done), Gore would have won the Electoral College, he would be in his second term, and, IMO, 9/11 would never have occurred because I truly do not believe that Gore (or anyone else besides George W. Bush) would have been asleep at the wheel on that fateful day ...or the weeks and months leading up to it.
And in 2004...well, we all know what happened with the voting machines in Ohio...and NO ONE will ever be able to convince me that those incidences were isolated to that one state.
So I have a hard time believing that George W. Bush was legitimately elected in either election.
Reply-
0%
cloud151 year ago
"IMO, 9/11 would never have occurred"
Thats an absurd comment to make. 9.11 was in the makings since the Clinton administration so to put the blame solely on Bush is unfair. Not to mention Bush is not the one who would personally be stopping the attacks, there would be so many people and departments involved in stopping and attack that putting the blame on bush is unfair.
Reply-
0%
GLee1 year ago
The BLAME for 9-11 rests solely on the Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist and no one else. Duhhh........
GROW UP!
Reply-
0%
lovemylibs1 year ago
You take that back, GLee. You are not being very gleeful. My guess is that since most of those terrorists trained to be pilots in Florida, they were well aware of the travesty bestowed upon the esteemed Mr. Gore by those darn chads. And since they knew of this travesty, they decided to extract a little retribution for us liberals. Gore would not have been asleep at the time of 9/11 because he was very well rested after having slept through the debates and most of his campaign. You might say he underestimerated his opponent. And the strength of the darn chads. Mr. Gore was just too nice and too sleepy to win that election. Not that he didn't win but he was too tired fight for his stolen election. Well, you know what I'm trying to say.
Reply -
0%
Dave591 year ago
But while it was up to Bin Laden and his terror group, they had to pick the moment to strike. And I find it very odd they waited until Bush was in office.
We may hate and fear Bin Laden, but thinking he is stupid or without tactical and strategic plans is stupid on our part.
If one puts the thing in the vernacular of the con-man, Bin-Laden picked his mark well.
Bush went all "Military Joe", Patriot act and Homeland Stupidity on the thing. Bush said we wouldn't change our way of life.
That is a crock of stinking crap. Just try to get on an airplane these days.
Bush screwed the pooch just like he always has. So if you want to talk about a leader, find some one else.
Bin-Laden picked his time and place to make it the most effective. And from the looks of our nation today, I would say he was at least partly correct.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Having said Bin Laden waited for Bush then would it be true that Bin Laden had Clinton's number. They waited for Clinton to attack the WTC the first time in 1993 vowing to return and finish the job. They targeted the US under Clinton on June 25, 1996,when terrorists attacked the U.S. military complex and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Under Clinton's "the Paper Tiger America" coined by Bin Laden after the incident in Somolia they attacked the US again on Aug. 7, 1998, when AQ terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 258 peopleand injuring 5,000. Then again Bin Laden had Clinton's # when on Oct. 12, 2000, AQ directed terrorists bombed the USS Cole as it sat in the Yemeni port of Aden. The bomb killed the Suicide bombers and 17 U.S. sailors. I guess AQ, figured that Clinton was being so tough on them that they better wait for the next guy. So under Clinton they planned 9/11 and months after bush was in office attacked again.
Reply-
0%
nccneon1 year ago
And, sad to say, there will probably be further attacks regardless of who occupies the White House. The likelihood will continue for some time after we stop meddling in their internal affairs, and occupying and threatening their homelands.
Reply -
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
You leave off the part everytime about how all those who attacked the US during the Clinton Admin have been caught and imprisoned. The exception is the USS Cole which happened in Oct of 2000 a few months before he left office. After briefing Bush on the details, Bush did what he does best, ignored it and went on vacation.
Maybe you can go into some details on how the Chinese managed to take one of our spy planes intact and the swift, response from teh Dumya. Oh yeah he got tough they had to reassemble the plane before he would take it back.
Reply -
0%
sailr1 year ago
Clinton told Bush that Al Qiada would be his biggest concern yet Bush and his cronies, especially Condi Rice refused to listen to Richard Clark, the sharpest guy ever to occupy the White House under Reagan, daddy Bush, and Clinton. They shuffled him off in a corner. He was screaming out to tell them about Bin Laden but the Bushies didn't want to hear it. THIS IS FACT ON THE RECORD.
BUSH is responsible for 911. There were reports and warnings about the pilot training, etc. etc. etc. but Bush ignored them.
BUSH WANTED A REASON TO GO TO WAR FOR OIL AND PROFITS.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
It is well documented that your assertion that Clinton warned Bush that Bin Laden would fly airplanes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and potentially the White House is patently not true. In fact it is suspected that the files Sandy Burger stole from the National Archives was related to the fact that Clinton did nothing to thwart Bin Laden and AQ during his administration even after the numerous attacks on US interests. It has also been well documented that President Bush did not fly any of the airplanes into the WTC, Pentagon or the one targeting the DC area. It is pretty clear those who claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks was Bin Laden led AQ operatives.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
Well said Dave. If you examine the events leading up to 9/11 and I mean during the last years of the Clinton term what you see are REPUBLICANS in denial of a terrorist threat. During the first 9 months of Dumya he did nothing, nothing but disregard the warnings the CLinton Admin passed on about the terrorist threat. What gets scary is after looking at the REPUBLICAN response to terrorism during that entire period you realize they truly believed terrorism was NOT a threat.
Reply
-
-
0%
UncontrollableScaldingDiarrhea1 year ago
Good Lord, if Gore had been in charge during 9/11 he would have gotten incredulous looks from military commanders when he asked, "Gentlemen, how soon can we withdraw from our position in New York State?"
Reply -
0%
mark-stevens1 year ago
How about the Saudia's to be exact They paid and ran and flew the whole 9/11 moment. I wonder if they still require the teaching of "The United Snakes" in the Arab school system
Reply -
0%
white-pawn1 year ago
CIA trained and CIA/ISI funded Islamic fundamentalists. So as for the "no one else" bit, you could not be more wrong. There is a vast network behind the false-flag event that happened on 9/11
Reply
-
-
0%
Ceejsing1 year ago
It seems to be unpopular to agree with you on this one Cloud, but I do. I can't stand Bush. I'm firmly in the "Bush is a moron" camp, but to state that if Bush had not been president, 9/11 wouldn't have occurred is laughable and shows a limited if nonexisting understanding of how our government works.
Our president, no matter who, is not an all knowing superbeing. Our president is human like the rest of us and, like us, relies very much on other people to give him the information he needs. If anyone in the information chain from intelligence analyst to superior to superior and so on, regarded any information regarding a possible attack on 9/11 as unreliable or unimportant, the information might not have reached Bush or they could have mentioned it in one line of an 18 page intelligence briefing.
The blame for the attacks lies with the terrorists who died on the planes and their supporters. The blame for not stopping them before they happened lies with us all.
Reply -
-
-
0%
injest1 year ago
Well, Al Gore DID win the popular vote by 500,000 votes in 2000...a sliver of a margin, by national numbers, to be sure.
Something ya think a "wonk" would know the popular vote is irrelevant in our system of electing a President.
And if the Supreme Court had ordered ALL 67 COUNTIES to be recounted in Florida (as they SHOULD HAVE done)
Gore did not want to count all counties (which Bush agreed to do) he went to court to count only his "selected areas" no one would ever agree to that.
Gore would have won the Electoral College, he would be in his second term
Nope multiple recounts after the election Gore still lost. There was one laughable count that had Gore win IF ALL under votes (no vote for prez on the ballot) went to Gore and ALL over votes (more than 1 vote for prez on a single ballot) went to Gore and all "chade problem" votes went to Gore then Gore would have won.
Reply-
0%
injest1 year ago
The last court challenge Gore made was that the ballots were laid out differently in different counties there by confusing the voters. Apparently Gore the wonk, didn't realize that people are only allowed to vote once in an election.
The rest of your post is so ridicules that it does not warrant a reply
Reply
-
-
0%
crghss1 year ago
The recount only applied to Palm beach county. What difference would have it made to recount all 67 counties.
The University of Miami and the local paper Sun-Sentinel did a recount and Bush won.
Bubba, Hillary and Gore where in charge during WTC '93, The embassy bombing in Africa and The USS Cole attack and did nothing. They didn't instruct the intelligence community to do anything either. Also George Tenet is most to blame for 9/11 and he was Billary/Gore's guy. So to conclude that Gore would have done anything differently to change what happened that day is absurd.
Reply-
0%
scott42611 year ago
-
0%
crghss1 year ago
The attackers that where in this country where found. The attackers outside the US where not. They caught the blind sheik who couldn't run. But did they trace the money, find who else and why? Did they prepare for any future attacks? Even though they where warned, the answer is...
NO!
What about the USS Cole, African Embassy bombers?
So tell again why Gore would have prevented 9/11?
Reply-
0%
researchanalyst1 year ago
Well he wouldn't have been obsessed with invading Iraq as Junior Bush has been. Shrub wanted to go in since he was inaugurated. That lazy little turd did nothing when he was warned about an impending attack in August.
Clinton did fire US weapons when needed overseas and continued the No fly zone. Gore would have done the same thing.
You want to bet the FBI would have had more of a hearing under Gore if they reported Arabs taking flight lessons who said they didn't need to land. ???? So Bush's FBI did what? NOTHING.
Condi Rice did nothing but push SDI. Which doesn't work by the way. It might have at one time, but you don't have anybody competent working in it anymore. They're in it for the money. Not results.
Reply-
0%
crghss1 year ago
So your saying that enforcing a "No fly zone" in Iraq and firing missiles at Sudan would have prevented 9/11. You'd better hurry up let the CIA know and maybe clue in the FBI.
I was under the impression that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Reply -
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
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 Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F1...
Reply
-
-
0%
scott42611 year ago
BECAUSE he WOULD have paid attention to the memo titled BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S. and the intel preceeding and following that memo.
Bush was ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL!
God, WHY do you continue to apologize for that incompetent boob?
Oh, I know...he has an (R) behind his name!
You people wear on my last nerve!
Reply-
-
0%
scott42611 year ago
I am not a Democrat. I am an independent.
Second, comparing Bush and Clinton is just ridiculous. Only about 25% (you, apparently, among that number) still believe Bush is doing a good job.
And your assertion that Clinton did nothing is patently false. Clinton brought Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat together at Camp David. He even strategically dropped bombs on Saddam Hussein in 1998.
Clinton did work to bring peace to the Middle East, despite what you say.
Now, I have criticized Clinton for plenty of things in these blogs (as my friends on the left can attest). The problem with you and your ilk is that you have a selective memory. To you, Bush can do no wrong (except on immigration, and we agree on that one!) and Clinton did nothing right.
Reply-
0%
lovemylibs1 year ago
Now I have lost some of my strategery over the years and my talking points via the Huffington's daily email were accidently deleted, but if a strategic bomb had been dropped on Saddam by Clinton wouldn't Saddam have been killed? Or was the aspirin factory really a bunker? Maybe I should have pm'ed you to ask for your help straightening out my rhetoric. Oh deary, I'm sorry.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
What if the CIA had shared information with the FBI back in Jan. 2001 about a meeting in Malaysia and a participant named Khallad? It was information that might have helped O'Neill connect the dots to the 9/11 conspirators.
And what if O'Neill had been able to return to Yemen and the FBI's Cole investigation back in Jan. 2001 to interrograte Fahad al-Quso. Al-Quso had been picked up early in the Cole probe--and al-Quso also had connections to that Malaysia meeting and had met with 9/11 hijackers who had attended it.
In September 2002, agents and officials from the CIA and FBI testified before a joint congressional panel about how their security agencies failed to fully share information about suspected terrorists and their activities in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/k...
Reply
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
The 1993 WTC bomb was meant to topple the city's tallest tower onto its twin, amid a cloud of cyanide gas. Had the attack gone as planned, tens of thousands of Americans would have died. As we know, one tower did not fall on the other, and, rather than vaporizing, the cyanide gas burnt up in the heat of the explosion. "Only" six people died. The key figure responsible for building it--a man who had entered the United States on an Iraqi passport under the name of Ramzi Yousef--was involved in another stupendous bombing conspiracy. In January 1995, Yousef and his associates plotted to blow up eleven U.S. commercial aircraft in one spectacular day of terrorist rage. The bombs were to be made of a liquid explosive designed to pass through airport metal detectors. But while mixing his chemical brew in a Manila apartment, Yousef started a fire. He was forced to flee, leaving behind a computer that contained the information that led to his arrest a month later in Pakistan.
Reply -
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
Yes Clinton DID trace the money. It seems it spurred a freeze Bin Laden assets effort by the Clinton Admin. BUT guess who voted it down. The REPUBLICANS who seemed much more intent on a stained dress then on National Security. WHy was that?
Except for the Cole all the terrorists have been caught and imprisoned. Cole happened in Oct 2000 a few moonths before he left office. He briefed the Dumya and as usual, Dumya went on vacation and ignored it. After 9/11 we see the REPUBLICANS trying to shift blame from their blocking anything to do with terrorism to Cl9inton not doing anything. ROFLMAO, look at the whole picture and it becomes obvious REPUBLICANS are a terrorists best friends.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
slate1 year ago
Scott I think you must be joking?
First,,, Gore was the one the cherry picked the counties he thought would give him victory in a recount.
I can't believe that you'd think 9/11 wouldn't have happened if only Gone had won..... I can hear the attackers now,,,, oh never mind let's stop the plan, there is now way we could pull it off, Gore is just too sharp
Reply-
0%
scott42611 year ago
Yes, he did cherry pick. That was one big mistake among many in that campaign.
As to 9/11, read my above entry. Yes, I do believe 9/11 would NOT have happened had ANYONE BESIDES BUSH been president! You cannot convince me otherwise.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Ebonvoice1 year ago
Funny...
I don't recall asking for a new updated way to vote...
I don't trust computers to record my vote correctly-- I'd rather have a paper ballot.
Hey, slate, who is this 'we' you're talking about, who have been so generous as to provide me with something I neither want nor need (which, btw, is something webcons constantly accuse us dreaded 'libs' of doing...)?
Reply-
0%
slate1 year ago
The (minority) democrat party asked for electronic machines and they all got together and had their usual meetings and such and the Republicans (majority) helped give them what they asked for,,, sorry that those in DC didn't give you a personal call on that one,,,, they must have lost the list
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
ROFLMAO, no we neg your mention of 2000 since you continually have been presented with proof of what Clinton did and ignore it (seems to be a trait with REPUBLICANS about ignoring things counter to what their current agfenda is). Altho it tends to be hilarious that the minute Clinton left office the US's ability to stop or intercept terrorists seemed to have ended and all we hear from the right is how Clinton didnt do something. Yet from Bush he does nothing to stop what the righties keep saying were well known plots. What DID Bush do for those 9 months?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
slate1 year ago
then there's no hope if you've gone that far down the hate Bush road,,, I wonder how the Gorester could have magically stopped it from happening? What did he and his big bro do for the 8 years we were being bombed around the world muchless the first twin tower attack? Somehow you seem to think that once he was Da Man on top he'd do things a different way and that those who attacked us would absolutely be first, found out and that Gore would have the Cahones to actually act on his own and stop it?
Reply-
0%
scott42611 year ago
I have already posted my answers to those questions, slate....
And BTW, I don't hate Bush. I hate what his policies have done to this country and to the world! And I believe (no, I KNOW...) he's a bumbling idiot...but I don't hate him, I'm just embarrassed for our country and I'm worried about the state of the world because of the damage he has done....
But then, there's no hope for those of you who have gone so far down the hate Clinton/hate Gore road....
You've drunk the Kool-Aid...in your eyes, the only thing Bush has done wrong is to support the ill-conceived immigration reform bill (and it doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure out that one, given his affection for big business...).
And of course, in your eyes, Clinton and Gore did and can do nothing right....
Reply-
0%
nccneon1 year ago
I'm proud to be in the hate Shrub camp. Even before he proved he was worthless I loathed his smirking smartass juvenile mug. Nevermind his policies for a second, he's a frigging SOB punk and a jerk.
Which goes a long way in understanding his policies.
Reply -
0%
slate1 year ago
LOLOL Scott look at many threads about Iraq I've posted many things about that topic I don't like and many others, you eally had to reach on this one trying to crawfish out of it,,,, I've also said in this very thread that Clinton did do some good things. That's something you'd neva be able to do about Bush, I'd imagine you'd do the usual and say he hasn't done anything good so how could ya.
I don't drink the Kool Aid of any party. For you to make the claim that since I try and show your side the folly of thinking only the right has problems while ignoring the sickness within yor own party, that I,m akin to a Jones Town wiled eyed fanatic, willing to drink poison for the 'team' makes me think you are becoming a bit delusional. Especially after watching you walk step in step in this ver thread, gleefully going with the crowd throwing their stones at Bush. Pretty audacious huh?
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
white-pawn1 year ago
That's highly arrogant to make a comment like that and not back it up with anything.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
