What Al Says......

President Bush
CALLS FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL
Quiescent Congress and Judiciary Enabling Tyranny

Special for Scoop Independent News

From Washington, DC
Michael Collins

Al Gore delivered a devastating indictment of President George Bush today in a major speech before three thousand cheering citizens at Washington DC’s Constitution Hall. (Full Text of Speech)

He provided a detailed specification of crimes against the U.S. Constitution and concluded by calling for the immediate appointment of a special counsel by Attorney General Gonzalez whose position is sorely compromised by conflict of interest. The future of the American experiment in rule by laws rather than men, the Constitution rather than tyranny, is at stake. Gore made the case that Executive Branch abuses of the Constitution represent rule through tyranny.

Gore quoted former Congressman Bob Barr who said, “The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will.” Gores bill of particulars included the following actions:

1. Appointment of a special counsel immediately to investigate gross violations of the U.S. Constitution. Gore said, “Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.” The specific investigation should “pursue the criminal issues raised by unwarranted wiretapping of Americans by the President.

2. “Whistle blower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrong doing” by the President and his team.

3. The Senate and the House should hold hearings “into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President.”

4. “The Bush proposals for the Patriot Act “should under no circumstances be granted unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have recently been revealed.”

5. Gore called on “any telecommunications company” providing the government with access to private communication to “Immediately cease and desist their complicity in that apparent illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.”

6. Finally, going off of his prepared test, Gore said that any candidate for public office in 2006 should face a litmus test, regardless of party, based on their support for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the President’s transgressions against the Constitution.

Bush: “…a threat to the very structure of our government.”

1 | 2 | 3

http://www.electionfraudnews.com

Michael Collins is a writer who focuses on clean elections and voting rights. He is the publisher of the voting rights web site, www.ElectionFraudNews.com. His recent articles include: Coalition Paper Ballot Call Spares Vote Villains; Paper for President. The Time is NOW; A Formula for Catching Election Fraud; and Teardown: The Mainstream Media Turns on Bush. A complete list of articles is available here http://electionfraudnews.com/MichaelCollins.htm .

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Beyond Kyoto

Op-Ed Contributor
Moving Beyond Kyoto
By AL GORE
Nashville

WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.

Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.

In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground — mainly in the form of coal and oil — and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth’s atmosphere.

The concentrations of CO2 — having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years — have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.

As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.

Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north polar ice cap — which helps the planet cool itself — is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.

On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, “In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”

We — all of us — now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.

Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.

As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.

This threat also requires us, in Reagan’s phrase, to unite in recognition of our common bond.
Next Saturday, on all seven continents, the Live Earth concert will ask for the attention of humankind to begin a three-year campaign to make everyone on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate crisis in time to avoid catastrophe. Individuals must be a part of the solution. In the words of Buckminster Fuller, “If the success or failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and what I do, how would I be? What would I do?”

Live Earth will offer an answer to this question by asking everyone who attends or listens to the concerts to sign a personal pledge to take specific steps to combat climate change. (More details about the pledge are available at algore.com.)

But individual action will also have to shape and drive government action. Here Americans have a special responsibility. Throughout most of our short history, the United States and the American people have provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon — all were the result of American leadership.

Once again, Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success.

To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.

This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States that it probably cannot be ratified here — much in the way the Carter administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.
Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 — and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.

If by the beginning of 2009, the United States already has in place a domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution, I have no doubt that when we give industry a goal and the tools and flexibility to sharply reduce carbon emissions, we can complete and ratify a new treaty quickly. It is, after all, a planetary emergency.

A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course; countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.

There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product — countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis — really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?

Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their future — indeed, the future of all human civilization — is hanging in the balance. They deserve better than a government that censors the best scientific evidence and harasses honest scientists who try to warn us about looming catastrophe. They deserve better than politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced — even as the danger bears down on us.

We should focus instead on the opportunities that are part of this challenge. Certainly, there will be new jobs and new profits as corporations move aggressively to capture the enormous economic opportunities offered by a clean energy future.

But there’s something even more precious to be gained if we do the right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience what few generations in history have had the privilege of experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.

Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection. He is the author, most recently, of “The Assault on Reason.”

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Another Blank Check, No Compromise, Betrayal

The only Democrat who has been against this war from day one, has consistently spoken out against it and has never voted for any blank check for the war preznit is Albert Gore.

Run, Al, Run

The question is not whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid flinched in their negotiations with the Bush administration over the continuation of the Iraq occupation.

They did. Despite some happy talk about benchmarks that have been attached to the Iraq supplemental spending bill that is expected to be considered by Congress this week, the willingness of Pelosi and Reid to advance a measure that does not include a withdrawal timeline allows Bush to conduct the war as he chooses for much if not all of the remainder of his presidency. This failure to abide by the will of the people who elected Democrats to end the war will haunt Pelosi, Reid and their party -- not to mention the United States and the battered shell that is Iraq.

This "compromise" legislation is such an embarrassing example of what happens when raw politics overwhelms principle -- and political common sense -- that House Democrats have divided the $12O billion measure into two sections. That will allow Republicans and sold-out Democrats to vote for the president's Iraq funding, while anti-war Democrats and their handful of Republican allies can vote "no." Then both Democratic camps can vote separately for the second section -- including a federal minimum-wage increase and more than $8 billion in funding for domestic programs -- while Republicans oppose this section.

Presuming that both parts pass the House, they will then be sent to the Senate as a single bill for members of that chamber to accept or reject. The end result of this confusing set of legislative maneuvers will be twofold: Lots of House members will be able to avoid accountability for their votes, while Bush will get his blank check. Even Pelosi says she'll vote against the Iraq funding section of the House bill because it lacks "a goal or a timetable" for extracting U.S. troops from the conflict. But, no matter how she votes, Pelosi will have facilitated a process that gives the president more war funding than he had initially requested

But the real story now is not the refusal of the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to hold steady in the face of the president's cynical claim that refusing him a blank check to maintain his war through the end of his presidency somehow threatens U.S. troops. That has happened and no matter what games are played with voting procedures, the reality is that the Democratic leadership has failed to lead at the most critical juncture.

The question that remains to be answered is a frustrating but significant one: How many Democrats and responsible Republicans will refuse to accept this ugly political calculus?
What we know is that there will be opposition. MoveOn.org, which provided critical cover for the Democratic leadership during earlier fights on the supplemental and related matters, is now urging all Democrats to vote "no" on the war funding -- and it is threatening in-district ad campaigns against Democrats and Republicans who back the measure.

The most genuinely anti-war members will not need any encouragement to reject the deal.
Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has led the fight to get Congress to use the power of the purse to bring the troops home, immediately announced that he would not follow Reid into the abyss of surrender to a White House that is getting everything that it wants.

"Under the president's Iraq policies, our military has been over-burdened, our national security has been jeopardized, and thousands of Americans have been killed or injured. Despite these realities, and the support of a majority of Americans for ending the President's open-ended mission in Iraq, congressional leaders now propose a supplemental appropriations bill that does nothing to end this disastrous war," says Feingold. "I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the President to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history."

Anticipating the cynical gamesmanship of the debate that will play out this week, the Wisconsin Democrat says, "There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq."

Feingold is, of course, right. But how many senators will join him in voting "no"? That question is especially significant for the four Senate Democrats who are seeking their party's presidential nomination: New York's Hillary Clinton, Illinois' Barack Obama, Delaware's Joe Biden and Connecticut's Chris Dodd. Dodd says he is "disappointed" by the abandonment of the timeline demand; if he presses the point as he did on another recent war-related vote, he could force the hands of the other candidates. If either Clinton or Obama do go ahead and vote for the legislation, and certainly if both of them do so, they will create a huge opening for former North Carolina John Edwards, who has staked out the clearest anti-war position of the front runners for the nomination. But this is about more than just Democratic presidential politics: A number of Senate Republicans who are up for reelection next year -- including Maine's Susan Collins, Minnesota's Norm Coleman and Oregon's Gordon Smith -- may well be casting the most important votes of their political careers.

Collins, Coleman and Smith have tried to straddle the war debate. If they vote to give George Bush another blank check, however, they will have removed any doubt regarding how serious they are about ending the war -- as will their colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Al Gore Takes A Shot At Conservative Canada

He's right!

(AP)

Al Gore condemned Canada's new plan to reduce greenhouse gases, saying it was "a complete and total fraud" because it lacks specifics and gives industry a way to actually increase emissions.

Under the initiative announced Thursday, Canada aims to reduce the current level of greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020.

But the government acknowledged it would not meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, which requires 35 industrialized countries to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.The country's emissions are now 30 percent above 1990 levels.

The conservative government's strategy focuses both on reducing emissions of gases blamed for global warming and improving air quality. But the plan failed to spell out what many of its regulations will look like.

Gore said the plan did not make clear how Canada would reach its 2020 emissions goal. He also criticized the plan for allowing industries to pollute more if they use emissions-cutting technologies while increasing production."In my opinion, it is a complete and total fraud,"

Gore said Saturday. "It is designed to mislead the Canadian people."He said "intensity reduction" _ which allow industries to increase their greenhouse gas outputs as they raise production _ was a poll-tested phrase developed by think tanks financed by Exxon Mobil and other large polluters.Canadian Environment Minister John Baird rejected Gore's criticisms."

The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the administration of which the former vice president was a member," Baird said in a statement.Baird also invited Gore to discuss climate change and the government's environmental policies with him.Gore was in Toronto to present his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," at a consumer environmental show.

He acknowledged that as an American, he had "no right to interfere" in Canadian decision.

However, he said, the rest of the world looks to Canada for moral leadership, and that was why Thursday's announcement was so "shocking."

Canadian opposition Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Sunday that Gore was right."

Mr. Baird is embarrassing Canada around the world," Dion said. "The world expects Canada will do its share _ more than that, that Canada will be a leader and we are failing the world. We are failing Canadians."Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Hey, Rudy: How are Those Psych Tests Coming?

Message to Rudy Giuliani: Are you certifiably insane?
By Mary MacElveen
April 26, 2007

I could not believe the lunacy coming from Rudy Giuliani’s when he said, "But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have. If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer." He said that to place fear in all of us if a Democrat is elected president in 2008. Hey, Mr. Giuliani, I for one am tired of the fear-mongering. Like most Americans and the polls show it, we want to live free, breathe free and have hope restored to all of us. We are tired of the bondage of fear, Mr. Giuliani.

If one looks back President Bush’s speech on the U.S.S. Lincoln in which the sign “Mission Accomplished” hung in the back ground, his only accomplished mission was to place fear in the citizenry. He has turned America into a country that no longer represents the model long ago promised all of us by our founding fathers.

Thanks to his Patriot Acts and Military Commissions Act, he stripped our sacred document known as the United States Constitution. With his signing into law both Patriot Acts and the latter Military Commissions Act, he turned a free country into a state that models one being led by a dictator. After all, we know he often refers to himself as “the decider” In essence what he showed in signing those acts into law, is that Osama bin Laden and the terrorists that attacked us indeed won.

Speaking of bin Laden, Keith Olbermann compared that statement made by Giuliani to any number of fearful messages coming from bin Laden. I do not want a president that resembles a terrorist.

Speaking of casualties being felt by our men and women in the armed services in which nine died this past weekend due to a suicide car-bomb, I for one am tired of America’s blood and treasure being sacrificed for this present Republican administration. In my last piece in which I spoke of their deaths, I cited how President Bush attended the Virginia Tech convocation, but never attended one single military funeral.

In my email box this morning a striking email was sent to me by a soldier that has served in Iraq in which he said to me, “The war has been going on for so long that it is no longer fore front news, it's horrible to think that people would get sick of see what our boys are doing, but they do.” He also said that he would not want the president or the media to show up at his funeral because it is a time to mourn those lost by family and friends and without the interruption of his presence at it. I can respect that.

In promulgating this war and with the help of the media in past years and even in the present they do not deserve to attend any funeral of a soldier whose life has been cut short.

I think that America is thirsting for a new leadership to stave off these casualties, but not do so in a defensive way as Giuliani alluded to. It is through the act of diplomacy. Diplomacy has not been present within this Republican administration, only the use of force. I have often said any dummy can drop a bomb. Senator John F. Kerry stated in speech when he said he would not be running in 2008, we have to get back to the “heavy diplomatic lifting” as he targeted the Bush administration concerning Iran.

I think in order to stave off further loss of life our soldiers, we need an administration that says to its diplomats, you will not come home until we have brokered a deal for a long and lasting peace.

We cannot remain addicted to war-mongering if we are to survive as a human race and we must end this addiction to it. Those that do support it are in need of some serious rehab.

Should we stay the course through another Republican administration in which anyone of these Republican candidates will continue this war in Iraq; the casualty rate will continue to rise as each day passes. I say that of the Republican candidates because I do not hear any message coming from them that they will take this country in a new direction and divorce themselves from Bush’s brand of fear and war-mongering.

It has been reported by The Lancet that over 600,000 innocent Iraqis have died who did nothing to us to deserve this and we have displaced millions of Iraqis. Guess where the new wave of those that may wish to do us harm will come from? I have often spoken of the blow-back effect and should we keep on this present course, I believe a ticking time-bomb has been set and just awaits the American people.

Keith Olbermann in his on-air commentary said, “Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq, than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?” add to that the number of Iraqis killed as mentioned above. I have often said that the Iraqi people have suffered a 9/11 event from the inception of this illegal war on a daily basis for over four years now. It is time for new leadership in Washington D.C. to stop this slaughter of these innocent people.

Giuliani has stated that by electing a Democrat, it will take us back to a pre-9/11 way of thinking. If anything, I want to go back to a pre-December 12th, 2000 way of thinking. That is the day that the Supreme Court handed down the Bush V. Gore decision that handed this presidency over to Bush. I want the right to have every vote counted. Our democracy and the furtherance of it demand it. Our soldiers protect that freedom and for anyone to usurp the will of the people diminishes our soldiers in the eyes of the American people.

On September 11th, 2001, this is what America’s mayor Giuliani had to say "I turned to Bernie, and I said, Thank God George Bush is our President” Note to Giuliani, God had nothing to do with him being our president, five of the nine black-robed injustices did.

I would give anything to go back in time in which the Supreme Court stayed out of this case in which one of the terms used in handing down that decision was the “irreparable harm to George W. Bush” When I heard that phrase and knowing what has transpired since, I have often asked; well what about the rest of us?

Perhaps with a President Gore in power he could have implemented many of the findings in the commission he chaired on Aviation Safety and Security. In that commission report, please take note of this passage, “Although the threat of terrorism is increasing, the danger of an individual becoming a victim of a terrorist attack -- let alone an aircraft bombing -- will doubtless remain very small. But terrorism isn't merely a matter of statistics. We fear a plane crash far more than we fear something like a car accident. One might survive a car accident, but there's no chance in a plane at 30,000 feet. This fear is one of the reasons that terrorists see airplanes as attractive targets. And, they know that airlines are often seen as national symbols.” While addressing this fear and easing the minds of the American people, he did foresee within this one report that planes would be seen as attractive targets.

You will be amazed as you read this Hardball transcript where it states, “Condoleezza Rice today said that she’d never been briefed on planes being used as missiles. She reiterated that today, even though we know that Richard Clarke – and this has been uncontested – had prepared as far back as 1996 for planes being used as missiles at the Atlanta Olympics.” There is that familiar name, meaning, Richard Clarke who tried to warn President Bush of impending threats coming from al Qaeda. Maybe if Rice had read the complete commission report chaired by Al Gore, she would have been brought up to speed.

Much was lost to all Americans when within that commission report chaired by former Vice President Gore, when it stated, “When terrorists attack an American airliner, they are attacking the United States. They have so little respect for our values -- so little regard for human life or the principles of justice that are the foundation of American society -- that they would destroy innocent children and devoted mothers and fathers completely at random. This cannot be tolerated, or allowed to intimidate free societies. There must be a concerted national will to fight terrorism. There must be a willingness to apply sustained economic, political and commercial pressure on countries sponsoring terrorists. There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice. There must be the resolve to punish those who would violate sanctions imposed against terrorist states.”

I have heard from people throughout these past six going on seven years that Al Gore if he were allowed to go on and become our president would have been soft on terrorism. Oh please look again at what he said in this commission report. He had the forethought and knowledge that this could be done by terrorists. By the way, this report came out on February 12th, 1997. This report could have been used to help stop the attacks we all felt on September 11th, 2001. This report could have been used to save both American and Iraqi lives. It could have been used to save the lives of our soldiers which now total over 3,300 who have lost their lives in Iraq.
When Gore mentioned, “There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice” through those commission findings, in juxtaposition we have this statement coming from President Bush when he shouted out through that bullhorn at Ground Zero, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." One must ask; well have they heard us? No, because this president targeted the wrong people. He has failed at capturing Osama bin Laden. To show the stupidity of this present Republican administration, Bush promised to capture Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” which turned into, “I do not know where he is, he is not important and is not our priority” Yet, Giuliani wants this brand of leadership to continue? What are you certifiably insane, Rudy?

I do believe if Al Gore went onto become our president, he would have paid attention to the Hart/Rudman report on terrorism. He would have paid attention to a counter-terrorism expert in Richard Clarke who warned President Bush of the impending threat of al Qaeda. You would not have seen a President Gore fix the intelligence to meet any plans on attacking Iraq. You would not have seen a CIA agent in Valerie Plame being outed in a Gore administration.

While I have not stated which candidate I would back for the 2008 Democratic nomination, if Al Gore were to say at some point, “I am willing to fight for you; are you with me?” as he stated at the 2000 Democratic National Convention that would seal the deal for me. I once said of Al Gore, “I thirst to drink from the cup of intelligence” that is because we have seen anything but during this present Republican administration.

Author's note: To contact me, my address is, xmjmac@optonline.net

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Will Gore Run? Looks Like He Just Might

Gore campaign team assembles in secret
By Tim Shipman in Washington, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:59pm BST 21/04/2007

Friends of Al Gore have secretly started assembling a campaign team in preparation for the former American vice-president to make a fresh bid for the White House.

Al Gore is third favourite for the Democratic nomination

Two members of Mr Gore's staff from his unsuccessful attempt in 2000 say they have been approached to see if they would be available to work with him again. Mr Gore, President Bill Clinton's deputy, has said he wants to concentrate on publicising the need to combat climate change, a case made in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, which won him an Oscar this year.
But, aware that he may step into the wide open race for the White House, former strategists are sounding out a shadow team that could run his campaign at short notice. In approaching former campaign staff, including political strategists and communications officials, they are making clear they are not acting on formal instructions from Mr Gore, 59, but have not been asked to stop.
His denials of interest in the presidency have been couched in terms of "no plans" or "no intention" - politically ambiguous language that does not rule out a run.

One of his former campaign team said: "I was asked whether I would be available towards the end of the year if I am needed. They know he has not ruled out running and if he decides to jump in, he will have to move very fast.

"He hasn't asked them to do this, but nor has he told them not to."

In an interview on Thursday, which touched on the prospects for next year's presidential election, Mr Clinton commented: "You've got the prospect that Vice-President Gore might run."

The most recent opinion polls show Mr Gore as third favourite to take the Democratic nomination, on about 17 per cent support, only a whisker behind Barack Obama, 45, who is aiming to become the first black US president, and ahead of John Edwards, 53, the senator whose wife was recently diagnosed with cancer.

Vice-President Gore's allies believe that Hillary Clinton, 59, the frontrunner, is unable to win the presidency. The most recent poll shows a growing number of voters think negatively of her, in contrast to Mr Gore, who enjoys far greater popularity than when he lost the 2000 presidential race despite polling more votes nationally than the eventual winner, George W Bush.

The second aide approached by Vice-President Gore's allies said: "There is no love lost between Gore and Hillary. They don't think she can win and they're probably right. If Gore runs, he's got a really good chance of getting the nomination. And he has a good chance of pulling off the election, too."

Gore-watchers believe that a new book he is publishing next month on the state of US politics will keep his name in the public eye. Many of his supporters helped to run the unsuccessful presidential campaign of John Kerry in 2004. But since Sen Kerry abandoned his presidential aspirations this year, many of his leading advisers have yet to align themselves with any of the other candidates.

They were expected to join the campaign of Sen Edwards, who was Sen Kerry's running mate last time.

The former aide, who has himself signed up with Sen Edwards, said: "The question is: where have all the Kerry people gone? The answer for most of them is nowhere. Now ask yourself why."

Among the senior officials not yet committed is Michael Whouley, who was national field director for the successful Clinton-Gore 1992 presidential campaign, national campaign manager for Mr Gore when he stood for re-election as vice-president in 1996, and then a senior adviser to Mr Gore in 2000.

Considered one of the most talented Democratic "ground war" experts, he masterminded John Kerry's political resurrection in the New Hampshire presidential primary three years ago, putting him on course for the nomination. Last year, he oversaw the Democratic victory in the mid-term elections.

Two months ago, a former Gore aide, Elaine Kamarck, convened a group of former aides in Boston to consider the possibilities of a Gore campaign.

James Carville, President Clinton's former strategy chief, suggested last week that Mr Gore, who has piled on the pounds, could shed weight over the summer to make himself more media-friendly for a White House run.

"I wouldn't be surprised if he lost 15lb or so," said Mr Carville. "And I think if people thought he could get us out of the mess we're in with Iraq, they wouldn't care how fat he is."

A poll of leading Democratic and Republican strategists found that one in four thought Mr Gore would emerge a strong contender. "He already has emerged - he just has to announce," a Democrat told the magazine Opinion Journal.

A Republican said: "Gore could be the toughest Democrat to beat."

At least eight websites are campaigning to "Draft Gore" into the election. More than 70,000 people have signed an online petition, and more than 120 groups of Gore supporters meet each month around the country to promote the case for a Gore presidency. One website offers the chance to download a song called Run Al, Run!


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Gore and the BFEE

Feb. 5, 2007 -- This editor discussed some troubling aspects of George W. Bush's criminal personality with Democratic Party insiders at this past week's Democratic National Committee Winter meeting in Washington, DC.

The subject was Bush's conversations with Vice President Al Gore on election night in 2000. It will be recalled that when Florida was declared for Bush after having been declared for Gore, the Vice President, who was at his Nashville, Tennessee campaign headquarters, phoned Bush at his hotel venue in Houston and conceded. Just prior to Gore making a public concession, the returns showed Florida as being too close to call -- a mere 600 votes separated Bush and Gore in Florida -- and Gore phoned Bush back. Bush responded to Gore, "Let me make sure if I understand.

You're calling me back to retract your concession?"

Reports at the time stated that Bush was "not happy" to receive Gore's phone call. However, according to Democratic Party sources who were were with Gore in Nashville and could hear Bush on the phone, the conversation became menacing towards Gore and his family. In what amounted to a tantrum, Bush reportedly called Gore a "son of a bitch," spoke about the presidency as being part of Bush's "legacy," and made veiled threats against Gore and his family. Bush victory celebrations were already underway at the Houston hotel and at the Governor's Mansion in Austin at the time the phone calls were made.

Did Bush threaten Gore in 2000? If so, Bush committed a felony.

Section 871 of the U.S. Code prohibits knowing and willful threats to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm against successors to the president, including the Vice President. Section 879 of Title 18 U.S. Code prohibits knowing and willful threats to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm against categories of persons who are protected by the United States Secret Service, including members of the immediate family of the Vice President.

From press reports, it was revealed that Gore responded to Bush by stating, "You don't have to to get snippy about it . . . Let me explain something, your brother [Jeb Bush, the Florida Governor] is not the ultimate authority on this."

A Gannett reporter who was at the Houston campaign headquarters told this editor that there was definitely an aura in the suite where the Bush family was gathered that the "fix" was in and nothing could be done to prevent a Bush victory. However, if Bush, in any way, threatened the safety of the Vice President and/or his family, that would constitute a federal crime.

Gore surprised a number of election observers in 2004 when he told Lesley Stahl on CBS's 60 Minutes that he decided not to run for the office many felt was robbed from him in 2000:

Stahl: "You know, you’ve been all over television, all over the newspapers for this last week. You’ve given back-to-back interviews. You’ve answered virtually every question except one (laughs) and that is, are you or are you not gonna run in 2004? Are you gonna run?"

Gore: "Well, I’ve decided not to run. And I--"

Stahl: "You’ve decided not to run?"

Gore: "I’ve decided that I will not be a candidate for president in 2004 ... And I found that I’ve come to closure on this. I don’t think it’s the right thing for me to be a candidate in 2004."

Stahl: "The ambition to be the commander in chief, the ambition to sit in the Oval Office, that’s gone?"

Gore: "Well, I personally have the energy and the drive and the ambition-- to make another campaign. But I don’t think it’s the right thing for me to do. I-- I think that a campaign that would be a rematch between myself and President Bush would inevitably involve a focus on the past that would in some measure distract from the focus on the future that I think all campaigns have to be about."

Stahl: "You say you had the ambition. You still have it even you said. Still have the dream?"

Gore: "Well, you know never say never. But I-- I-- I make this decision in the full knowledge and-- and awareness that-- if I don't run this time, which I'm not gonna run (CHUCKLES) in 2004, that-- that's probably the last opportunity I'll ever have to run for President. Don't know that for sure, but probably it is."

Stahl: "You think you could beat the President?"

Gore: "Look, I think I could."

Stahl: I'm still trying to understand why you're not gonna run.

Gore: "The last campaign was an extremely difficult one. And while I have the energy and drive to go out there and do it again, I think that there are a lot of people within the Democratic Party who felt exhausted by that. Who felt like, okay, I don't wanna go through that again. And I'm frankly sensitive to that-- to that feeling."

Stahl: "Now I've heard you say a couple of times, 'this time.' You said, 'I'm not gonna be a candidate this time.' What about 2008?"

Gore: "Well, I've also said that I-- I make this decision in-- in the full awareness that it probably means that I will never have another opportunity to run for President. Now I'm not-- I'm not-- planning on some-- some future race."

At the time of Gore's 60 Minutes interview, in which he ruled out a presidential run in 2004 and 2008, many Washington observers commented that Gore seemed frightened of running -- and not because he was afraid of losing. If Mr. Bush and his crime family in any way threatened Gore or his family, it is one more reason why this dangerous sociopath and his political operatives within the administration should be immediately removed from office by the Democratic Congress.


....and the truth shall set us free.