Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (300376)	9/25/2002 10:08:19 AM
From: 10K a day	Respond to of 769670

Truman was from Missouri.....dude...

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (300376)	9/25/2002 10:26:19 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Message 18032131 For what it's worth, wasn't Harry S. Truman also a member of the KKK for a short time as a young man? And didn't Harry S. Truman integrate the military? Now, I wasn't sure if you were using that to denigrate Truman, a Democrat, or not. I asked if you knew he was a Democrat, and you did and you spoke admiringly of him. So, I can only surmise that when you say Truman was also in the KKK (kluckers) that you must be saying that the KKK isn't bad, since someone you think was a great man was in it. Since that is wrong, I have to ask what motivated you to say such a thing? Which is in all likelihood a lie spread the father of all lies, Al Gore. Have you seed his latests brew? ______ AL GORE. LIAR THEN? OR LIAR NOW? Since you are informed talk radio listeners, you already know about Al Gore’s strange speech two days ago. You remember, the speech in which Al Gore tried to convince the American people that the Islamic terrorists who attacked America on September 11th “got away with it.” Gore’s goal, of course, it to try to create an aura of failure around Bush’s efforts in the war on terror. If he has to lie to do it, what the hell. After all, he’s a Democrat …AND he learned from the best, Bill Clinton. Simply put, Al Gore is a liar. He will say whatever he needs to say, be it the truth or not, to further his political ambitions. We use the Lexus-Nexus wayback machine to check out what Gore was saying about Saddam Hussein and the first Gulf War back in 1991. Here you go … read and comprehend: “I want to state this clearly, President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein’s survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus that the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that out objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop.” That was how Al Gore said he felt about the Gulf War in 1991. Now, 11 years later, this is how Al Gore has a different version of his own feelings: “Back in 1991 I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s departure from the battlefield.” OK. One of those statements is a lie. Was he lying in 1991 when he said that it was understood that the battle would stop after Iraq was pushed from Kuwait? Or was Gore lying in 2002 when he said he felt betrayed by our departure from the battlefield? You don’t really have to go all the way back to 1991 to find Gore at variance with his statements this week. Just go back about seven months. In February of this year Gore spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. The following excerpt appears in the New York Times article about that speech: 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 President Saddam Hussein. Again … lying then? Or lying now? boortz.com