January 18, 2006

Be Careful what you Wish For...

Al Gore, former Vice President and Patient Zero of Bush Derangement Syndrome, responded to charges of hypocrisy by White House Press secretary Scott McClellan via left wing Raw Story:

"The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.

When does refuting a hysterical, error-prone and contradictory speech by a law school dropout (even a famous one) justify the appointment of a special counsel? If anything, the fact that the case laid out by Gore is full of lies and distortions undermines his credibility to a staggering degree.

The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

Perhaps the former Vice President should read this December 22, 2005 letter from the Office of Legal Affairs in the U.S. Justice Department which specifically addresses these legal questions.

There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

Mr. Gore, which charges are factually wrong?

The Clinton/Gore administration conducted warrantless physical searches without implicit authorization under FISA, and asserted the Article II powers to do so, just as President Bush justified his executive order for NSA surveillance under Article II powers, with the colorable argument that the AUMF gave him statutory authorization as well. Mr. Gore, President Bush has far more legal cover than any of your administration's actions on this front. Talk to someone who graduated law school—say liberal constitutional scholar Cass Sunstein, or your own associate attorney general John Schmidt—and perhaps you'll find a more informed opinion.

Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs - even though factually wrong - ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law.

Mr. Gore, who are your "many legal experts?" Further, how many of them are directly or indirectly related to the Democratic Party? The NSA surveillance operation that you have not even seen was reviewed by two Attorney's General, Justice Department legal teams, NSA legal counsel, and White House counsel. Again, who are your experts?

If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

As I noted here:

What this NSA executive order matter will boil down to in the end is a separation of powers issue.

Did Congress have the legal authority to bind the Office of the Presidency in conducting warrantless searches performed for national security reasons, stripping the executive branch of an inherent constitutional power?

Every President from the dawn of international wire communications well over 100 years ago until 1978 assumed this right, and the courts have always deferred to this particular power inherent to the Presidency. This is supported by case law and precedent, and is summed up in the five-page Department of Justice briefing (PDF) delivered last week. In short, the Department of Justice seems willing to make the case that Bush was well within his constitutional powers...

Even after passing FISA, Carter himself did not feel strictly bound by it, nor has any President since, from Reagan, to George H. W. Bush, Clinton, to George W. Bush. They have all asserted (and over the past two weeks, their DoJ attorneys have as well) that the Office of the Presidency has the Constitutional authority to authorize warrantless intercepts of foreign intelligence. This power has been assumed by every president of the modern age before them, dating back, presumably to the Great Eastern's success in 1866 of laying the first successful transatlantic telegraph cable. From Johnson, then, through Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, Cleveland (again), McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and Taft, through Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, to FDR and on to Truman, Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and into the Carter administration, the Presidency has had the inherent and unchallenged power to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign powers for national security reasons.

This is a simple, unassailable fact, not matter how loudly demagogues shriek.

As the movie says, Mr. Gore, "reality bites."

The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.

Again, it is Mr. Gore that has been creative with both history and facts already presented. Far from condemning the President's program, most credible legal experts find that the NSA surveillance authorized by the President is justified by both Article II of the Constitution and statutory authorization of the AUMF provided by Congress to wage war, in which foreign intelligence operations are recognized as a component of military power. It is a shame that a man just a heartbeat away from the presidency has so little knowledge about the powers and responsibilities of the office.

The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program."

Which we will have, Mr. Gore, in spades.

Not only have your liberal friends in the ACLU and the terrorist-coddling Center for Constitutional Rights and their friends from the HAMAS-associated Council on American-Islamic Relations (though not those members already convicted of terrorism, I'd wager) filed suit, but the Administration is looking forward to testifying about the program in early February in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Please, continue to "bring it" Mr. Gore. You're proving to be the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since Howard Dean.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 12:32 PM | TrackBack


Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.

"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."

The following can be attributed to PRCB members:

"I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches. However, I stand behind the President in encouraging Congress to operate cautiously during the hearings so that sensitive government intelligence is not given to our enemies." -- Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation

"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform

"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 10:29 AM

Wow. You really are a bigot, aren't you, CY? You just have to tie CAIR to Hamas.

American Muslims are not to be trusted! The biggest Muslim advocacy organization in the US is aligned with Hamas!

Like I said before, I have more respect for the Stormfront krewe.

Anyway, why are you all so hung up on the number of warrantless searches? Whether its thousands, hundreds, dozens, or ONE-- the fundamental question remains, was the law broken? At least, that used to be the criterion back in, oh, say, 1998?

Of course, there is the other question of-- why do it? Why not comply with FISA? The FISA courts have turned down only four requests since they were established. And those were resubmitted and approved!

Timliness was not an issue; FISA provides for surveillance to begin as much as 72 hours BEFORE submitting the request to the FISA court. Obviously if almost all requests are approved, then it's not a question of whether the FISA court would or wouldn't approve.

Besides that-- since the pachyderms are firmly in control of the Congress, why not just change the law?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 10:41 AM

You showed your ignorance agin, Artie. The law is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - NOT the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. You still have not read it, have you?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 18, 2006 10:54 AM

Don't tell me.

Tell these conservatives who seem to be reaching their tipping point with all this eavesdropping.

Spin it anyway you want but we still have an administration spying on its own citizens without warrants.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 11:07 AM

FB, CAIR was founded by HAMAS, you idiot, and several of CAIR's founders are in jail for funding terrorism. I'm sorry you aren't bright enough to click the link and see for yourself.

If it looks like a duck, talks like duck...

You'd still call the hunter a racist. Par for the course...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 12:24 PM

Artie, there are literally more than a dozen legal reasons to conduct warrantless searches far outside of FISA's scope.

It never ceases to amzae me how those that scream the loudest know the least amount of facts....

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 12:30 PM

I call you a bigot, CY, because you ARE one.

That's okay, though, it's to be expected from any neo-confederate.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 12:43 PM

Such a one-trick pony, FB.

the irnony is that you are teh only person on this site that has flat-out refused to denounce specific racists in his own party. Pathetic.

You know, substance, even facts, would be a welcome change of course coming from you. No wonder you Kos-loving leftists are 0-17 in elections.

When all you have is slander and hyperbole and you can't rationally support your position with either logic or facts, you'll keep on losing.


Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 12:57 PM
"President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents...I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack."

John Schmidt (Associate Attorney General under Bill Clinton)

Perhaps Arthur and FB would like an opinion from the left side of the aisle...

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 18, 2006 01:05 PM

Better break the news to all these conservatives CY.

Don't think they're buying into the program.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 01:28 PM

Who's a racist in my party? Those who denounce black "conservatives" as uncle toms, lackeys, "house negroes" and suchlike?

Well, see, it ain't all like that.

There was a time when there were black republicans who weren't. People who could stand up in front of a black audience and not be regarded as kapos (I choose a term here that you may find more palatable.)

You consider it racist for black people to identify and recognize other black people who actively work against the interests of black Americans, but then, those kapos are singing to your own neo-confederate tune, aren't they?

When black people talk about race, "you people" are quick to howl about motes of "race baiting," forever ignoring the CSA-stamped beams in your own eyes.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 02:05 PM

I cited specific black and white Democrats who were racists and cited their offenses specifically. You still refuse to condemn them, and instead, make excuses for them.

I find it absolutely hysterical that you can't grasp just how bigoted that is. You still continue to call me a racist, which makes me giggle when I consider the source of the comment.

You firmly beleive that being conservative is "against the interests of black Americans" as if all blacks (or all people of any individual race) are served by any specific party's needs.

You would scream at the top of your lungs if someone announced that Hispanics should only vote Republican and that Hispanics who voted Democratic were race traitors, yet see no problem at all applying that same racist standard to blacks.

You have proven yourself impotent ideologically, and continue to prove your own bigotry every time you open your mouth.

Is there any chance we can get you to run for office?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 02:23 PM

Can we get this back on track now?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 02:49 PM

Just one point, CY- a small one-- your "cites of racism by Democrats" included Ted Rall referring to Condi as "house nig-" and Steve Gilliard calling Michael Steele "simple sambo."

If you want to call it racism, help yourself. I disagree with the definition. I considered Gilliard's entire diatribe against todays "black conservatives" a fair description of what rank-and-file black people feel about those particular politicians.

I posted links before to black Republicans who did not actively act against the interest of black Americans.

It is about their character, CY.

Oh, and as a certified neo-confederate, you're still a white supremacist.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 03:39 PM

Let me think about that for a second... um, no. Some of my relatives fought for the South when the North invaded. I am proud of their service in deense of their family. But I am not a neo-confederate, wanting the South to be born again. I do not beleive in apathied or slavery, and have never been a white supremicist.

You, however, are another story.

You feel it is fine for a white man to call a black woman a "house nigga" becuase he is a Democrat and she is a conservative. You support white-on-black racism as long as the ideology skews your way.

You feel it is fine for Gilliard to call a black conservative "simple sambo," because you support black-on-black racism, again, simply becuase one is Democrat attacking a conservative.

To top it all off, you honestly don't seem to get it. It's a scream. You cannot see just how racist your beliefs are.

It is hilarious as a case study of just how much you have to twist reality to justify your ideology.

Please, do continue.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 03:59 PM

Oops, I found another "race traitor" for you, FB:

...fashioned his first winning coalition in politics when he started to reject the Left’s nostrums because they conflicted with his own family-inspired beliefs. By the mid-1970s, he already opposed forced busing as a solution to black educational problems, because he doubted that black kids needed to sit next to white ones to do well. Noticing how white parents took advantage of Cincinnati public schools’ open enrollment policy, which allowed talented kids to select schools outside their districts, Blackwell became an early advocate for school choice. Mindful that many families in public housing seemed stuck there, Blackwell began to worry that government programs to help the poor were instead breeding dependence, and he became one of the few black political leaders of the 1970s to preach that the responsibility for rising out of poverty rested with the individual, not the government.

I like this part as well. Some of it sounds very familiar, for some reason:

Blackwell is fond of pointing out (as others have) that there is considerable overlap among these groups, especially since many blacks have entered the middle class and are socially conservative; indeed, polls show that African-American voters backed the Ohio marriage amendment in about the same proportions as other voters. When he speaks to black groups, Blackwell emphasizes his cultural positions as well as the common stake that all citizens have in the country’s economic success, something that today’s crop of civil rights activists rarely acknowledge. Speaking before an Ohio NAACP chapter several years ago, Blackwell quoted Booker T. Washington on the shared destiny of blacks and whites: “We are one in this country. We rise as you rise. We fall when you fall. . . . There is no power that can separate our destiny.”

Blackwell is betting that many black Americans may be ready for a candidate, like him, who doesn’t preach victimology and doesn’t see the world almost entirely in racial terms. Blackwell is a post-racial, post-civil rights campaigner; race rarely enters into his speeches and is barely a part of his political platform. And even when Blackwell does address racial issues—the achievement gap between black and white students, for instance—it’s to tout free-market solutions like vouchers and charter schools. So far, this approach has resonated with black voters, attracting 40 to 50 percent of them in his statewide elections, even though he runs on the GOP line.

Blackwell is one of three black conservatives running for governor in 2006. Michael Steele is running for the Senate. The next round of elections are going to be fascinating, and I'll be interested to see how if the "race traitor" cries liberals favor will be a viable strategy much longer.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 05:00 PM

Geeez FB,

All one has to say is BYRD. That is enough about racists in the Demoncrat party. I mean he was only the Kleagle (sp?) in his state and asked for the KKK to come back and restore order later.

Arthur - didya ever stop to think that maybe it's a Rove strategy to hold the hearings? I mean the more the Democrats say, "We don't think the president has the right to protect the country from terrorists" the more people are deserting the party. And I know you'll say, "Well there is a legal way to do this..." But the fact is that over 65% of Americans think it's a good idea - and more joining each day.

Rats leaving a sinking ship....I want all the top democrats to keep harping on all of this....keep it up...mid term elections are coming....

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 07:12 PM

Mr. Blofeld- Thank you for mentioning Robert Byrd. Anytime a Republican discusses the issue of race, Robert Byrd's youth is a prime subject.

Filed and closed.

CY- Yes, I do get it. You're proud of your ancestors sacrifices in the service of a country founded for the sole purpose of maintaining the institution of slavery. Congratulations.

I suppose I'd understand if some SS officer's grandson wanted to honor his ancestor's service, too.

I'd also understand an Israeli Jew's taking offense, which is something I don't think you get.

Is it racist (or anti-Semitic?) for a Jew to distrust kapos?

To quote the oft-maligned Steve Gilliard:

"...All they can do is claim we are idiots, we are on a plantation, we are too stupid to consider our own political fates. They cannot make a case to us, so they have to pretend to their patrons that they can't get a fair hearing."

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 07:34 PM

My family fought for their communities and their homes, not an ideology, just as soldiers in the Wehrmacht fought for their communities and countries, and not for Jewish genocide. Others here understand this; you've proven that you refuse to understand that distinction, or simply can't.

At the same time, you excuse both white and black racists as long as they share your political ideology. You ar an arrogant bigot, but a throughly amusing one.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 07:55 PM

So you are saying that Byrd was in his youth in 2001? Hmmm...let's (A HREF="" REL="nofollow">review the facts shall we (oh I already know you'll say the facts don't matter, but what the hey...). According to the linked article:

This ex-Klansman wasn't just a passive member of the nation's most notorious hate group. According to news accounts and biographical information, Sen. Byrd was a "Kleagle" -- an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a head. He said he joined because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values."

The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -- supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans -- for more than 14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. In fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of "injecting racism" into the Senate hearings.

The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Well....file closed, obviously the man must have changed his stripes (oops - don't want that to seem racist). The record is clear from the 40's through just 4 years ago....racist.

I once saw the following argument put forth:

Suppose a person was involved years and years ago with skin heads and the nazi party. And in that time was very, very invloved in leadership positions within that party (kind of like a kleagle). Now assume that the person had a "change of heart" and recants and becomes a Republican politician. Which democrat (besides maybe Byrd) would give him the "benefit of the doubt". Which news organizations would ignore his past?

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 07:56 PM

You just don't get it at all, do you, FB?

And then you use some lame quotation from Steve Gilliard that you think will bring the rest of us to our knees? Might just as well try. After all, you have not expressed a single original thought in anything you have written here. That dirtbag racist, Gilliard, could not carry Martin Luther King's luggage. He is as pathetic as you are, and you are too dumb to realize that you are the biggest racist here.

You are simply exhibiting more psychotic psychological projection of what you really find so abhorent in yourself. And you are too damn blind to realize it.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 18, 2006 07:56 PM

As for Gilliard, if he isn't afraid of "fair hearings" why does he spend so much of his time attacking conservatives on race, instead of playing up the wonderful merits of Democratic policies?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 07:57 PM

Oooops...Here is the article:

review the facts shall we:

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 07:58 PM

We could also talk about Hillary and the know what I'm talkin' about.

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 08:00 PM

So be it, CY.

I'll give you this: it's nice to see a conservative blogger with the stones to actually tolerate dissidence (and even the occasional admitted troll), rather than the immediate banning any dissident voices get at other conservative blogs. (tip o' the hat)

You think I'm a racist, therefore you think most black people are racist (I do express the views that the vast majority of black Americans share regarding these issues), and that's ok.

Spy- I, really don't give a rat's hairless arse what you think; anyone who believes in Saddam Hussein's complicity in the 9/11 attacks obviously hasn't three neurons to rub together.

Blofeld- puh-lease; how many times have we heard conservatives and republicans going on about the "liberal plantation?"

Or, as Al Sharpton said, "There were 2000 black people in the audience. If we were going to be offended by what she said, we would have been offended!"

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 09:19 PM

Neurons or not, Mr. Fat Bastard, where was it that you got your PhD? I got mine at the University of Maryland in 1974.

I never said that I 'believed', ignorant one, that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. You just made the accusation.

I DID note that there is an abundance of evidence that Saddam's elite military trained terrorists at three locations in Iraq - some 8,000 terrorists - and that some of their training included in-class simulations of aircraft hijacking techniques.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 18, 2006 09:30 PM


I was referring to Hillary's racist statement about plantations made during her speech on MLK day at the Caanan Bapitst Church of Christ in Harlem.

Al Sharpton? Do you mean the same addled-spinner who claimed on Hardball that Hillary "did not make the comments at a Harlem church". Even Chris Matthews said, "You're kidding me, Reverend."

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 09:34 PM

Oh...BTW Get-In-My-Belly,

I noticed you gave up on trying to defend the "conscience of the demoncratic senate" Byrd.

Shall we talk about Splash Kennedy and his association with the "good-ole-boys" OWL club - you know the one he gives $100 per year, but doesn't belong to, but is going to quit as soon as possible.

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 09:38 PM

Jeepers, CY, you now have Mr. Gore sobbing. I do believe he's peed himself!

Great post, logically taking the ex-Veep to task.

Y'know, I recall seeing Leon Panetta on TV some time ago. He was talking about a Republican, and parsing a speech this Republican gave. I had seen the speech, had even inadvertantly taped it, and knew what had been said. Panetta, in that smiling, squinty-eyed way of his, lied. Not mis-spoke, but lied. Again and again. After that, every time I saw Panetta on the TV, the first thing that popped into my head was, 'Liar!'

Now, with 'Uncle Al, the Loony's Pal' I get a similar effect. What pops into my head is, 'Crazy Bastard!'

What a loser Al is. Sad.

Posted by: benning at January 19, 2006 10:01 AM

I will say this for Loony Al, though. Had it not been for him we would not be having BLOG discussions. What? He was NOT the one who invented the Internet?

OK. Guess we can't give him credit for anything, can we ....

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 19, 2006 11:50 AM


Posted by: Specter at January 19, 2006 01:06 PM

Retired Spy and Specter.

What a couple of cards. And both such stickler for facts.

Gore was involved while a congressman in funding Defense Department initiatives which did become the internet. Much less dramatic but much more accurate than the tired urban myth of Al 'inventing the internet'.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 05:36 PM

Mr. Blofeld: That's a good one... though it's hard to write a good Scots accent, I do appreciate the reference.

Anyway-- you may refer to the good Reverend as addled, but on this matter he has one thing over both you and Tweety Matthews: he was there.

Hillary's "racist" statement? Dear boy, you've got me there. It certainly appears that the black people in the audience understood it all too well. They weren't offended in the least.

As for defending Robert Byrd... why would I have to defend a man to whom the NAACP gives a 100% rating? Defend him against what-- working toward policies that benefit black people?

Of course, you do have to consider the source-- the NAACP is, after all, made up of black people.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 19, 2006 07:15 PM

I don't know how to break this to you, Artie, but the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was using the predecessor to the Internet long before Al Gore ever became a Congressman - in the 1960's.

Big Al was just a minor player prior to its official deployment in 1983. It was actually Clinton who referred to Gore as the one who invented the Internet.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 19, 2006 07:53 PM

Sadly you couldn't actually show where President Clinton said waht you attributed to him.

Oh well.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 09:50 AM

These are Gore's exact words, as presented by two scholars in the field, Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, on September 28, 2000:

"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Looks to me like ol' Al was trying to toot his own horn a bit, wasn't he?


Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 06:40 PM

And you talk about others' reading comprehension.

"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

"I invented the Internet."

Now tell us, superbly educated one, how those two statements are equivalent?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 11:56 AM

Where was it, exactly, that "I" said that Al Gore had said that he invented the Internet?

I believe I made a tongue-in-cheek comment to the effect that, "What? Al Gore did not invent the Internet?"

He took the initiative in creating the Internet? The initiative was taken by others in the 1960's. Al Gore did not enter the Congress until 1977.

Indeed, he 'supported' it. It was not just his initiative.

He was trying to capitalize on the spade and shovel work done by others in his statement.

He was not totally a blowhard.

You ARE!

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 01:06 PM

I already replied to this, but my reply was lost somewhere.

I really do not feel like repeating myself, but please do show me a quote where I wrote that Gore had made that specific claim. You know, "I invented the Internet."

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 02:20 PM