Al Gore is at it again, blaming all the world’s environmental problems on others, in particular, George W. Bush, while revising history to suggest that he did more to solve anthropogenic global warming when he was Vice President, and would have done more if elected president in 2000.
Sadly, American media choose to give him a pass for his historical revisions, allowing him to say whatever he wants with total impunity.
After all, he’s a Democrat, and America’s press adore him.
Fortunately, the British press aren’t so beholden to the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, and don’t feel the need to bow at the altar he so arrogantly deigns to put himself on.
With that in mind, the British Independent published a piece about soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore Monday which included two paragraphs you’ll never see in a mainstream paper here (emphasis added):
Mr Gore claims that concerns over the environment formed his "principal agenda for eight years in the White House". But he is light on details of what he did while in office, beyond a brief mention of his work with the Kyoto treaty (which was never ratified by Congress).
During his tenure as vice president, America's carbon dioxide emissions shot up far faster than at any time in modern history - by 15 per cent, compared to just 1.65 per cent during President Bush's first term.
How delicious. It seems that CO2 emissions rose by almost tenfold under Clinton/Gore as compared to Bush/Cheney. Don’t expect to read that in the New York Times any time soon.
Of course, the reality is that Clinton/Gore did virtually nothing to “solve” global warming during their two terms. In fact, CAFE standards for fuel efficiency were not changed at all during their eight years controlling the White House. And, maybe even worse, maximum highway speed limits were actually increased by them.
Not something a fawning media every challenges their global warming god on during sycophantic interviews, is it?
As for concerns over the environment forming his “principal agenda for eight years in the White House,” nothing could be further from the truth.
For instance, take a look at The 2000 Democratic National Platform. What you’ll find is a 54-page document with a total of twelve paragraphs devoted to “Protecting our Environment” beginning on page 31.
I kid you not.
In fact, the subjects of Fiscal Discipline, Retirement Security, Investing in Americans, Investing in Communities, Opening Markets Around the World, Building a 21st Century Government, Valuing Work, Fighting Crime, Valuing our Families, Accessible, Affordable, Quality Health Care, and Choice all came before the brief discussion on Protecting our Environment.
As such, this was FAR from his principal agenda at the time. Furthermore, the term “global warming” is used only once in this section about the environment (emphasis added):
Democrats know that for all of us there is no more solemn responsibility than that of stewards of God’s creation. That is why we have worked for eight years to produce the cleanest environment in decades: with cleaner air, cleaner water, and a safer food supply; a record number of toxic waste dumps cleaned up; new smog and soot standards so that children with asthma and the elderly would be able to live better lives; and a strong international treaty to begin combating global warming – in a way that is market-based and realistic, and does not lead to economic cooling.
That’s it. One sentence in one paragraph of a 54-page platform with the term “global warming” in it.
Some principal agenda, huh?
And, how about his acceptance speech at that convention? After all, if “solving” global warming was his “principal agenda,” it should have been given great focus, correct?
Unfortunately, much as in the Party Platform, such is not the case, for in an almost 6000-word speech, this is all the time Democrat Presidential candidate Al Gore gave to global warming: “And I say it again tonight: We must reverse the silent rising tide of global warming, and we can.”
That’s it. One sentence in an almost 6000-word speech.
Think this was a high priority item for either presidential candidate or Vice President Gore? Not even close.
With that in mind, why isn’t this question being asked by our media? Why do Americans have to rely on foreign press outlets to examine past statements and actions of Democrats to compare them to current ones?
Putting this in perspective, on Sunday, CBS’ Lara Logan claimed that the press’ responsibility in Iraq is “to be the watchdog for all sides.”
Shouldn’t this be more true here at home? Or, do a clearly liberal press feel our enemies in Iraq and around the world are much more deserving of a watchdog than Republicans?