But Steven you overlook what is at the core of the debate.

For Gore's supporters it is not about facts or reason... It has now risen to the level of religion. (sadly, I am not joking)

They believe what they want and the facts be damned.

They think he won Florida, they even think he tells the truth.

James had a guy post a few weeks ago that said all sorta of whacky stuff like Gore would have connected the dots on 9/11 and stopped it etc.

Yet consider this....

Gore lost by the most narrow of margins. The internet lie cost him a monstrous amount of votes.

The case could STRONGLY be made that had he not told the Love Story lie and the Internet lie, he would be President today.

You'll never hear one of the zealots admit that.

my 2 cents

Paul

Problem is, Paul, Gore didn't lie in either of those two instances. In all too typical of Repug-fashion, conservatives used the Big Lie technique of repeating a lie long enough and loud enough that it became accepted as fact.

Both the so-called "internet lie" and "Love Story lie" have been thoroughly debunked.

But, what's troubling is that even if we assume Gore lied and if we can all agree lying is a very bad thing--then why aren't conservatives upset about Dubya's lies regarding Saddam's WMD?

Moreover, if we all agree lying is bad, aren't there varying degrees and levels of mendacity? For example, if I were to lie and claim I was captain of my HS basketball team--it would reveal a flaw in my character but very little real harm has been done to anyone. OTOH, if I were the Commander-in-Chief and I was to lie about a threat which either did not exist or was greatly exaggerated, causing the sacrifice of US troops---is that not a lie with some real consequence?

In the fantasy world of conservatives, lies aren't lies if they're told by conservatives.

Paul--yep, I had that same post on Gore that James got as well, and I concur, with your concluding remarks, as I posted this morning--if Gore hadn't had this character flaw, he would have won.

And Pet Troll: go read the rate lengthy responses that I posted yesterday. They have not been debunked--and the issue is really about perception, and it as the evidence shows, even mainstream media outlets (and Gore's own staff in 1988) saw the problem that Gore had.

They have been debunked, Steven. Merely saying you can produce media accounts, offering opinions and unsubstantiated halftruths, doesn't bolster your claims in the least. There are mainstream media articles that will argue the opposite of what you claim.

WRT internet lie; one cannot read Gore's comments in context and actually believe he was claiming to have created the internet. Moreover, when a guy like Vint Cerf (who *is* the co-father of the 'net) says, yeah, Gore's statements were correct--you're left with nothing but an Asst. Professor's job at Troy State.

Same story on the 'Love Story' lie.

As always, you miss the point.

And until you have at least the decency to identify yourself, I would appreciate it if you would knock off the personal refs. There is no need for it.

And now Steven, you know why I say it is a religion. LOL

Steven, you can afford Lexis/Nexis? Or is part of your state's budget problems because poly sci profs *need* Lexis/Nexis? ;-)

The Pollyanna act is old, Steven. If you wish to traffic in ad hominems, please don't be shocked to see a few returned.

Mr. Gold I have never attack you personally in all of our "discourse"--the closest I have come is calling you a "Pet Troll," but I would argue that fits your behavior quite well. Otherwise I have only attacked your analytic skills.

Oh, and I note you still hide beihnd your colorful moniker. As usual, you avoid the basic issue at hand and reply with an attack. It really isn't an effective debating style.

Quite frankly, I don't care who you are, I just find your need to attack me personally while hiding behind a nickname rather interesting.

So what you are saying is that you think that "Bush lied about WMD"? If so then Clinton lied about them while he was president? If that is also true, then Gore (who presumeably kept up with foreign affairs) is an even bigger liar than previously thought????

It is obvious that everyone thought that the WMD existed, and in fact they may still exist. It took us quite a while to find the MIG's buried in the sand. They may still turn up, but even if they don't that is not proof that Bush lied, or exaggerated. He used intelligence from several sources, including the past intel reports that Clinton used when he made the same statements.
How is it a "lie" now but not then?

Poor debbie.

Let me 'splain something to you about jet aircraft--they're remarkably fragile. You bury a jet in the sand and you may as well park it on a playground and let kids climb on it 'cuz it's flying days are over. This is because the dynamic components of a jet aircraft are not just fragile but have extremely low tolerances for being scored, abraded, or otherwise damaged. Plus, you get sand into fuel, lubricant or hydraulic lines and it's no more flight hours for that bird.

WRT Clinton, you have to understand the concept known as time. There's no doubt Iraq *at one time* possessed WMDs. Heck, Don Rumsfeld gave him some in the late 1980s. The question is: did Saddam have any *recently?*

What he is referring to is the fact that the Iraqis hid some of their planes underground:

Australian Special Forces who seized an Iraqi air base have found 51 MiG fighter jets - one of the biggest enemy aircraft discoveries of the war.

They also found armoured vehicles, anti-weapons systems and training materials on weapons of mass destruction, officials said yesterday.

Australian troops had been watching the air base west of Baghdad for about a week and had been warned it could be a storage site for weapons of mass destruction.

Lt. Col. Mark Elliott, Central Command spokesman for Australian coalition forces, said troops found instruction manuals and other training materials on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, but that it wasn't clear whether the material instructed soldiers how to use such agents - or how to protect against them.

The MiGs, which included MiG 25s and MiG 29s, the most sophisticated aircraft in the Iraqi arsenal, had escaped detection during coalition bombing because they were well hidden, in some cases buried or covered by trees. The jets had been towed miles from their bases, hidden behind berms or in shallow depressions, then carefully camouflaged so that they only became visible when the U.S. columns pulled within several hundred metres.

Bunkers capable of withstanding nuclear, chemical and biological attack were also found at the complex. Elliott said it was too early to say whether searching the vast network of underground bunkers would turn up weapons of mass destruction.

Source: The Toronto Star, April 19, 2024.

And Clinton did argue throughout his admin, that Iraq had not accounted for their WMDs, and that it was the official position of the US government, that they had WMDs.