Great.
Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize for fomenting hysteria, shrieking “global crisis” when it’s impossible to know whether one actually exists.
George W. Bush gets pummeled for waging war in Iraq, shrieking “WMD” when it’s clear none existed.
If you ask me, one’s as bad as the other.
What say you?
Tags: Al Gore, alarmists, anthropogenic global warming, Nobel Peace Prize
Sphere: Related Content
{ 4 comments }
Well, I’d say there’s a discenrnable difference between a president who destroys our balanced budget by leading us into a bankrupting morass of a war, and a citizen, no matter how prominent, expressing his passionate opinion.
So, no, I wouldn’t say one’s as bad as the other. I’d say that waging a war in the real world and producing a movie are two rather different things.
Thanks for dropping by, David.
My comparison isn’t between waging war and making a movie. What I’m comparing is how both resort to fear-mongering as a means to affect policy.
If you wanted to say Al Gore and Bill O’Reilly were on the same moral plane, that would be fine.
But it’s just not the same to have the President lie about something. Like judges, Presidents ought to be held to a higher moral standard.
Recent bumper sticker: “Bill Clinton: No Longer the Worst President in History.”
I don’t disagree that Presidents should be held to a higher moral standard.
But it’s not as if Al Gore is just some chump who happens to care about the planet. He’s got quite a platform—former Vice President of the United States of America—from which to spread his message.
That means he should also be held to a higher standard, yes? Certainly one higher than Bill O’Reilly I’d think.
Comments on this entry are closed.