Who wants to embarrass a freeper kanagroo court over Smirk & Iraq?

[AlGore-08.com]

There's some kangaroo court called "Intercourt.com" which has "indicted" real President Gore for his Iraq speech today, claiming the usual bs that Gore is unamerican for daring to question their Glorious Leader, Smirk.

There's only 48 hours to respond and I can't spend the time to write up something kick-ass. (I gotta travel outta town and offline for my soul destroying day job.) But I know that there are plenty of folks here who would enjoy enlightening these Freeps - - and who know the Iraq chronology so well they have the URLs to all of Smirk & Company's lies memorized. If anybody wants to volunteer to defend Real President Gore (and show that Smirk is just a lying sack of Cheney), IM me before 5pm PST 6/25. I'll IM you back the URL and the password to appear as the council for the defense.

Here's the pathetic indictment:

Subject: The People v Al Gore Has Reached Indictment in PoliticalCourt
>



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Al Gore:
>
> PoliticalCourt Case 2004:6-4 The People v Al Gore has been returned
> as an indictment.
>
> The case is 2004:6-4 and is now available at PoliticalCourt under
> 'Defend Complaint' awaiting a defense argument.
>
> You may provide a defense argument by using this access to the site
> and clicking Defend Complaint. Your access is as 'Defendant' and does
> not include verdict privileges.

(Snip)

> If you do not defend the complaint within 48 hours a court appointed
> defender will be provided. Upon submission of the defense argument the
> case will be presented to the Jury for verdict.
>
> The following argument is before the Court:
>
> Date of Infraction: 6/24/2004
> Infraction Type: Not Truthful
> Description:
> • Al Gore's speech of June 24, 2004 began with a reference to King
> George and a fear, the would be American's at the time had of
> executive power. Gore related it as the "most serious threat to
> democracy is usually the accumulation of too much power in the hands
> of an Executive, whether he be a King or a president." I do not recall
> there being a President during King George's time. The speech, shown
> entirely at LINK goes on to relate horrible things to the President.
> But he really summed up his own intentions in the opening remarks: "In
> addition, our founders taught us that public fear is the most
> dangerous enemy of democracy because under the right circumstances it
> can trigger the temptation of those who govern themselves to surrender
> that power to someone who promises strength and offers safety,
> security and freedom from fear." Gore's speech offered hatred and
> lies. His continuation of the current 'big lie' (that Al Qaeda and
> Hussein were not involved with each other) completely flies in the
> face of the 9/11 Commission members' statements and relies on the
> tainted staff report the media fell victim to. The problem with Gore,
> (well, this one) is that he takes an already discredited document and
> claims it to be true, then bases his entire diatribe on the lie as
> fact. Gore's speech should be condemned as an attempt to offer a rise
> against the government, not just a President. As his words rely upon
> the 'founders' (a concern he has not shown before): "I am convinced
> that our founders would counsel us today that the greatest challenge
> facing our republic is not terrorism but how we react to terrorism,
> and not war, but how we manage our fears and achieve security without
> losing our freedom", he somehow manages to deduce and in so doing,
> urges others to rise against the government based upon his own
> inability to constrain emotions when the facts disagree. I do not k
> now how many lessons this poor man has taken from Al Sharpton, but
> they have not sunk in. Sharpton at least appears to have emotional
> connection to his rhetoric, while Gore can only imitate a personality.
>
> Specifics:
> • Gore's speech made some interesting comments. He refers to Iraq
> as not an 'imminent threat', yet it never was said to be. He refers to
> the findings of the 9/11 Commission as "But now the extensive
> independent investigation by the bipartisan commission formed to study
> the 9/11 attacks has just reported that there was no meaningful
> relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda of any kind." Actually the
> Commission did not report that and the Administration has pointed that
> out. That was not even reported by the biased staffer's interim report
> the Commissioners did not even read. And Gore quotes the most unusual
> sources for his support, as if they mattered: "Europe's top terrorism
> investigator said in 2002, "We have found no evidence of links between
> Iraq and Al Qaeda. If there were such links, we would have found them.
> But we have found no serious connections whatsoever."" "A classified
> October 2002 CIA report given to the White House directly undercut the
> Iraq-al Qaeda claim." (Which if it is classified the former Veep
> should be prosecuted for releasing classified information in a time of
> war.) "Top officials in the Pentagon told reporters in 2002 that the
> rhetoric being used by President Bush and Vice President Cheney was
> "an exaggeration."" Yet he names no one. Then the lies grow: "Over the
> course of a year, the President and Vice President used carefully
> crafted language to scare Americans into believing there was an
> imminent threat from an Iraq-armed al Qaeda." The word 'imminent' once
> again is used as it never was. Half way through his speech he stops
> using the word 'terror' in any form. He uses it only seven times in
> the entire speech. Well, why should he use it? He declared the country
> is more at risk: "the greatest challenge facing our republic is not
> terrorism but how we react to terrorism".
>
> Argument:
> • This man was almost President and he is more concerned with our
> reactions to terror than he is with terror itself. And then Gore takes
> the time to refer to the 'Brown Shirts'. "The Administration works
> closely with a network of "rapid response" digital Brown Shirts who
> work to pressure reporters and their editors for "undermining support
> for our troops." " Gore's poorly veiled connection to Nazism is absurd
> and crass. He quotes "Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist", who
> said ""Let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you
> were thinking of saying anything negative of the President...you had
> to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to
> ruin your reputation." "When you boil it all down to precisely what
> went wrong with the Bush Iraq policy, it is actually fairly simple: he
> adopted an ideologically driven view of Iraq that was tragically at
> odds with reality." In fact, what part of the 'with us or with
> terroris m' did Gore not understand? Oh yes, the part that inferred
> that being 'with terrorism' might also include insurrection and
> sedition. Gore is a disgrace to this nation and his speeches have
> become more and more what we would have received had be been
> President. I urge the Jurors to vote guilty and find this dispicable
> and sorry little man responsible for his lies, distortions and
> un-American , pro-socialist view so others will know: this is a
> country of Patriots that may disagree with each other but when it
> comes to self-preservation, something Gore cannot fathom as a
> potential, we are not afraid of ourselves, we are not afraid of
> terrorists, we are surely not afraid of those among us who would aid
> them.
>
>
> The decision of the Jury is final and will be announced in a press
> release by PoliticalCourt. The finalized case will remain in the Case
> History of PoliticalCourt.

[WildClarySage]

1. Just give them the Cheney Salute

And forget it. This turd has already made his mind up. And it's such a small, fragile mind, that it can't handle the truth.

[AlGore-08.com]

2. Yeah, but there are folks who would enjoy posting a rebutal

In the middle of enemy territory

And a lengthy, well documented one at that. ;)