Reply With QuoteGee, I don't see how anyone could possibly interpret that to mean that Al Gore was claiming credit for creating the Internet!Originally Posted by Al Gore
Gosh, you're right, he said he "created" the Internet, not that he "invented" it. Mea culpa.
Link.
Before you start in on all the Gore-defending "Well, he just meant that he encouraged development of a political atmosphere that made things like the Internet possible," let me say: give me a fucking break.
Gee, I don't see how anyone could possibly interpret that to mean that Al Gore was claiming credit for creating the Internet!
Clinton did make Oral...umm..relations not sex anymore. So I can thank him for enabling me to get blow jobs and not be committing adultery.
While you're looking at the TVs at Best Buy?
I am a busy, busy man. I have to take it where I can get it.While you're looking at the TVs at Best Buy?
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htmGee, I don't see how anyone could possibly interpret that to mean that Al Gore was claiming credit for creating the Internet!
Fear the snopes link.
OK, but I'm sure you know that they sometimes show the internal store camera on all the TVs at once, and on some of those plasma models that should provide some interesting entertainment.I am a busy, busy man. I have to take it where I can get it.While you're looking at the TVs at Best Buy?
Umm you mean Clinton's crooks because he had a Republican witch hunt chasing him for 8 years vs the Bush love-in where you would have to be seen sticking the knife in corpse on video with 20 eyewitnesses before someone might destroy the evidence and sweep it under the covers? Come on - You don't think the fact the Enron boys are all still wandering around free has something to do with Bush and Cheney? How bout that lovely little price fixing/energy crisis in California? No? Selling access to environmental preserves float your boat? SEC and cooking the books? These guys are just as crooked the only difference is no one in the government is interested in prosecuting them.When you don't really do anything (as Clinton didn't - Brinkley was right when he said, upon Clinton's election "we are about to go through years of wonderful speeches that make everyone feel good and absolutely no substantive actions of any kind.") it's probably easier to not screw up. But Clinton was surrounded by folks he chose who were run out of office for bribery and other scandals. And Clinton's "ready to go, let's dismantle Al-Queda plan?" Do you really want to go there? The plan from the guy who was completely unwilling to do more than shoot some tents for fear of public opinion, when he likely could have taken Bin Ladin?Playing along, though, first thing that comes to mind is that Stephanopolis/Morris/Gore won the two government shutdown battles, and Gore/that NSC advisor I can't remember the name of won Bosnia. I was thinking of the contrasts with:
1) Cheney fucking up the energy thing.
2) Rumsfeld, et al. insisting that we needed only like ten soldiers to conquer Iraq, and having it blow up in their face in the post war environment.
2) The same crowd being completely unable to convince a single important country to invade with us (Britian doesn't matter, they were there from the beginning).
3) Rice fucking up the 16 words in the SOTU.
4) 9/11. Bush pretty much sent Clinton's ready-to-go, let's dismantle Al-Queda plan back for review because, uh, Clinton wrote it, more or less. Then again, you could consider it a triumph that they've taken no political damage on this.
OK - I don't want this thread to turn into a Clinton's cabinet members who were crooks vs. Bush's cabinet members who may be jerks - I just wanted to know how someone could come out of the Clinton era of disgraced cabinet members and then say Bush has set a new low in his cabinet. Another issue on which we'll not agree (I dont think either one has anything to brag about, although I do think Rice and Powell are probably better than anyone Clinton ever had.)
I would like to see any link you can provide (NPR or otherwise) that demonstrates this tie between Saddam and Al Queda. I thought this was just part of the administration's misinformation campaign.
The irrefutable proof we (Powell) said we had about this was satellite photos, which have since turned out to be bad intelligence. Not to mention all the hype about nuclear weapons.Nobody, even the French, disputed that Sadaam had WMDs that were unaccounted for and that he had plans to build more, even if he moved them out or dumped them in the sand before we moved in.
Not sure what you mean by Iraq's position? Geographic? As in, we need a base in the Middle East, lets just use Iraq? Also, I hardly think a desire to hit us is reasonable justification for a full blow invasion. Iraq had no opportunity or capability to go along with the desire.Sure, but the fact of Iraq's position in the Middle East and ties to terrorism and the assessment of most rational analysts that Sadaam would LOVE to hit the US if he had the means certainly also factored in.
We will see if it gets better. I am going to assume you're just want to trot out what a bad guy Saddam is and that you don't really have this high of a tolerance level for these kinds of things.Because I believe that, given the long term perspective (we're only a few months into this,) Iraq and the region will be MUCH better off with Sadaam and his regime gone. If we start gassing entire towns or putting entire villages of men, women, and children on trains to mass execution sites and then razing their town so that there is no sign it ever existed, if we open the torture chambers back up, if we start filling big ditches up with thousands of civilians, if we drag women on the street every week and rape them and then behead them because someone acused them of wearing the wrong clothes or looking at a man wrong, or because a man turns them in because he was spurned, if we skin children alive in front of their parents to get them to admit to imagined crimes, if we put professional rapists into political prisons, then I'll admit that the whole thing was a wash and we shouldn't have gone in.
When you're shooting people for throwing stones, it's hard to call it an accident.OTOH, while we're losing some civilian lives to accidents
Edit: also, they're the one's losing their lives. All the American civilians are at home. I find this statement incredibly cavalier.
Maybe not. I suppose we'll see how it turns out in 3 more months.I just don't think it is fair to judge the overall results based on the first 3 months.
The 3rd Infantry has been deployed for a long time now. Portions have been deployed up to 10 months at this point. They're tired, they're annoyed at being jerked around (You're going home! Wait, you're not!), and they spent the pre-invasion time training on how to cut through the Iraqi army as fast as they could.
Due to Bush's wondeful diplomacy that ensured a complete lack of allied force as well as his reluctance to deploy National Guard units to Iraq, we've got a bunch of tired soldiers attempting to do jobs that they weren't trained for.
That's why we're "accidently" shooting civilians.
If this current deployment rate continues for much longer, the Army and especially the Reserves will be severly hurting for men. One weekend a month? Hah!
Heh - that link assumes that I think Gore said he "invented" the Internet, when I don't think that. Go beat up on Rywill! :P
That link also admits that the quote was "clumsy (and self-serving)", and whaddya know, it is exactly that. Gore was exaggerating his accomplishments and he got called on it.
Also also also! Snopes is somehow assuming that the quote is really hard to misinterpret when they label this whole thing as "false". I disagree - I don't think it's difficult at all for the average person to *take his words at face value* when they're listening to an interview on TV as opposed to reading a transcript. You get the luxury of applying some critical thinking to stuff you're reading, but when watching an interview, how are you supposed to do so if that means you're going to stop paying attention to further segments? And even after analyzing the quote in detail the way Snopes did, they still had to admit that even after you interpreted it to mean WHAT GORE REALLY MEANT (which, again, I don't think the average person would be able to when first watching the interview), his claim is still hard to validate on any level.
My immediate reaction to seeing the interview was probably the same as most people - "what the great holy hell is he talking about?!" Hell, the fact that he spent so much time clarifying what he meant once people began "misinterpreting" what he said is all the more proof to me that he recognized that he had screwed up.
I ain't saying he's evil or a vicious liar worthy of condemnation in hell or anything, I'm just saying that he deserved all the heat he took for that stupid quote.
Oh, we're going to do a my administration is better than your administration thread! And the topic is (survey says) exaggerations!
Lets hear about the evidence on the Iraqi nuclear weapons program again!
Well, perhaps one difference in our thinking is that I don't consider one administration "mine" and one "yours" - like 'em or not, as an American, they are all "our" administration. I actually don't hope for the worst in any of them, since they run our country. I mentioned the flaws in the Clinton administration when someone was talking about Bush setting a new low for administration advisors. At lunch today I was talking with someone who thought Bush and his folks walked on water and challenged them just as strong.
We have the same problem discussing these issues that our Congress has - people choose a side and then vehemently attack the other side, refusing to admit that "those guys" have any decent qualities or have done anything admirable. We want to make the "other" guys totally inhuman, we want to demonize them. No Democrat will entertain the possibility that Bush may be a decent and moral man doing what he thinks is genuinely the right thing to do. No Republican wants to allow the thought to enter his or her head that Clinton may have done some things that were good for the country or that he had any genuine compassion.
Where to start. How about some facts. Hospitals are up and running properly for non-baathist people for the first time in ten years. There are now over 50 different newspapers in Iraq. People are watching sattelite TV for the first time ever without the threat of being shot. Cellphones now work and are being sold for the first time. There isn't a food shortage, despite what you claim. However electrical and water services are spotty still, as they are particularly vulnerable to sabotage. Most of the violence is within the "Sunni Trangle", and as far as occupations go the resistance is about par for the course. (After WW2 in germany there was a resistance called "The werewolves" that used to snipe officers and bomb barracks for a few years after the end of the war)Yse you have lived under a dictator for 20 years, yes there have been atrocities....but if you asked someone "Gee isn't your life soooo much better now" which is what you all seem to be using to justify the war now that it is not about WMD according to revisionist history do you think any of them would say "YES"? I don't see it. We have not provided them anything to go on yet. We bombed the shit out of their infrastructure, killed thousands of civilians, because we are there it is not safe to go on the streets as you never know when you might get caught in a crossfire, and you have no running water or food and its 120 degrees. Should they all be saying "Hey I want a big mac?"...
From a realpolitik point of view, dependancy on the primary source of funding/religion for terrorism (Saudi Arabia) has been greatly reduced. A primary source of funding for hamas and hizbollah has been eliminated. Syria has lost its embargo oil pipeline, and has since been far more co-operative because they can no longer sell iraqi oil. There is no need to keep bases in Saudi Arabia, which was a major source of contention in the region.
And what is with your McDonalds obsession?
Bago - this is a country that has been under embargo for 10 years. Are you joking? The average man in the streets in Iraq sits around the cafe sipping espressos, while chatting on his cell and watching espn on Satellite TV? No one over there can afford any of that. The majority of the people are living in buildings with no power, tv's, phones or anything else....take off the rose colored glasses. Can one person provide proof that terrorist funding has declined? Also - you think killing thousands of Iraqis and invading a sovereign nation is LESS contentious then having some military bases in Saudi Arabia????? What planet was this on?
I believe the only one was Henry Cisneros, who stayed in office while being prosecuted for giving money to his mistress, or some fool thing.But Clinton was surrounded by folks he chose who were run out of office for bribery and other scandals.
The Clinton administration had plenty of politically motivated prosecutions, but very few convictions. Maybe you're thinking of Reagan?
Oh, and if you're going to smack Gore, at least get the entire paragraph:
Summary:But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
The Internet Society hosts a monograph called called "A Brief History of the Internet.....The paper notes these key milestones in Internet history.....1988: Kahn et al. write a paper "Towards a National Research Network." According to the Brief History, "This report was influential on then Senator Al Gore, and ushered in high speed networks that laid the networking foundation for the future information superhighway." .....
Another thing: There's evidence, and the CIA agrees, that "Saddam sent money Hamas". This isn't the case for "Saddam sent money to Al Queda."
I voted for Clinton and did not vote for Bush and yet I am getting lumped in with them or those guys or whatever group I am supposed to be defending!!!
I was going to type some more spammy drivel, but, per usual, the honorable representative from the state of sound reasoning, Mr. Jeff Lackey, has said it all.
Nah, Clinton won this one. And we can't claim these were all "politically motivated" - off the top of my head - remember the Espy bribery case? That was pretty clear cut - one would have to be very partisan to not admit he was crooked as a pretzel.
I'm not sure what Babbit's ultimate fate was (Sec of Interior) but he pretty much came clean when he was caught handing out casinos preferentially to Indian tribes who made donations.
Hazel O'Leary wasn't prosecuted, I don't believe, for her indiscretions with taxpayer funds.
I need to get back to my home computer so I can refresh my memory on some of these. I'm assuming we're sticking with actual cabinet members, and not people such as heads of Whitehouse Security, etc. appointed by the presidents.
Oh, and if you're going to smack Gore, at least get the entire paragraph:
Wasn't me that went after Gore, but his uncontrollable compulsion to lie during speeches, veerting off the written speech, was a documented issue with his own campaign folks during the election. Newsweek had an article on it right after he talked about his days growing up on the farm and working with the animals and doing his chores every morning before school, etc. As for the Internet quote - yeah, perhaps if you know everything about his career you can make some kind of rationalization, but the actual speech has him saying that he took the initiative in creating the internet. C'mon - we both know that is pretty plainly intended to make it sound like he led the creation of the internet. I've never been able to find where Gore actually DID anything that would qualify for "taking the initiative to create the internet." Even the monograph doesn't say anything about Gore doing anything. As I recall, his own staff members tried hard to find facts that would rebut the jokes that came from his claim and were unsuccessful.
Hey, I think Gore is probably a decent man who tends to ad-lib too frequently. I think the fact that he was so turned off by a lot of Clinton's shennanigans says a lot about him. If the worst thing we can find to throw at him is silly lies he told during the campaign, that's probably a pretty good sign.
One interpretation is that Gore was dishonest.
The other was that the So-Called-Liberal Media picked up on the "Gore is a liar" idea and blew that out of all propotion to what he actually said, while giving Bush a free pass. (Cocaine? Drunk driver? AWOL?)
http://www.dailyhowler.com/ covers a lot of this. Search for "farm chores".
I know you didn't say the Gore thing, I just need to quote better. :D
And as XPav pointed out; he really did spend summers doing chores on the Tennessee farm. Anyone could be accused of being a "serial exaggerator" if they had a hyperventilating press just reprinting GOP press releases attacking them.
And that first firstmonday.dk link has a bunch of stuff about how, yes, Gore was in on the internet thing from way back.
I'm telling you, Cisneros was the only one (and that was for stuff he did before joining the administration). Espy's conviction got thrown out.
And I wasn't talking about "who was dirtier" originally; I was talking about how Bush's advisors, collectively, have fucked up everything they've touched, in a way Clinton's couldn't hold a candle to. This is a problem when one of Bush's selling points was how great the people around him are.
I think he's discovering Clinton's first-term (and Carter's, and I think Reagan's first term) problem of having no strictly defined command and control in the White House. Independent operators are all over the place.
Well, we are forgetting some memorable screw-ups during the Clinton era (not sure I can spell Mogadishu). But I will say that Clinton was one of the best politicians this country has ever seen. Not the best person, not effective, but certainly an amazing politician.
I dunno, Jeff. I think I'd be more likely to consider this "our" administration if the chief officer had actually been elected.Well, perhaps one difference in our thinking is that I don't consider one administration "mine" and one "yours" - like 'em or not, as an American, they are all "our" administration.
Can't we let that die? Please.
No, no, we can't. It will never, ever, ever die - nor should it.Can't we let that die? Please.
Ok, just checking. I didn't think we could.No, no, we can't. It will never, ever, ever die - nor should it.Can't we let that die? Please.
Really, especially in light of the fact that (IIRC) later analysis showed Bush would have won Florida even after a recount, what's the point? I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but I think he's legitimately president.No, no, we can't. It will never, ever, ever die - nor should it.Can't we let that die? Please.
EDIT: Unless you're saying he's not president because he didn't win the popular vote. In which case I think you have even less of a point.
Seems odd that the fundamental mechanism that is supposed to be the underpinning of the American and most other modern democractic processes (ie the vote) should be seen as something of a headache of an issue when questions arise about the validity of the process. You might as well screw it and toss a coin for one guy or the other.
Well, he won the election, he won the recounts, and all of the re-re-counts showed that had the Gore folks gotten the recount they wanted, he would have won that. I think he was elected, like him or not.I dunno, Jeff. I think I'd be more likely to consider this "our" administration if the chief officer had actually been elected.Well, perhaps one difference in our thinking is that I don't consider one administration "mine" and one "yours" - like 'em or not, as an American, they are all "our" administration.
No, I'm not joking. You can see the pictures for yourself. If you recall, Saddam offereed to pay 25,000 dollars to hamas for every suicide bomber that went off. Now that saddam is no longer in power, he cannot pay hamas. Simple proof that "terrorist funding has declined".Are you joking? The average man in the streets in Iraq sits around the cafe sipping espressos, while chatting on his cell and watching espn on Satellite TV? No one over there can afford any of that. The majority of the people are living in buildings with no power, tv's, phones or anything else....take off the rose colored glasses. Can one person provide proof that terrorist funding has declined?
But why are you talking about the average Iraqi? The point is you asked for differences, and I provided a simple list of easily provable improvements to life in Iraq over the past three months.
You ask for proof of Television, power, decreased terrorism funding and I provide proof of each.
And what is with your obsession over Starbucks and McDonalds?
I'd like to point out that other Arab countries, like our buddies in Saudi Arabia do this also.
This also implies that the suicide bombings are primarily motived by money. I, and others, would disagree with that.
Posting Permissions