Radiofree West Hartford - HYPOCRISY, THY NAME IS GORE by Tim Siggia

HYPOCRISY, THY NAME IS GORE

By Tim Siggia

June 29, 2006

"The evidence now makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that George Bush has repeatedly and insistently broken the law and the corrupt Republican Congress has shirked its constitutional duty to hold him accountable."

Thus declared former vice president and would-be president Al Gore in a recent fund-raising e-mail sent out under the banner of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The irony, of course, will be readily apparent not only to conservatives but to just about anyone with a memory span of more than six years. But wait, there's more:

"In my view, a president who breaks the law poses a threat to the very foundation of our democracy. As Americans with a stake in the future of our country, we must act quickly and decisively. We have less than five months to win the seats we need to control the Senate -- and pull our country back from the brink of a constitutional crisis."

Let these words sink in. They come from a man who, as vice president, was a key collaborator in what may be remembered as the most corrupt administration in American history. They come from a man who not only looked the other way as his president committed one crime after another, but in many cases, was himself an accomplice. More on that later.

First of all, let's address the accusations. Mr. Gore charges that President Bush has, in his words, repeatedly and insistently broken the law. What he does not say is what laws were broken. What statutes, what articles of the Constitution, were violated by Mr. Bush? Al Gore does not say. What he does go on to say, however, is that Mr. Bush's "nightmarish regime" has been responsible for an "unprecedented expansion" of executive power. "I have never seen leaders that act with the contempt for the truth that I have witnessed in George Bush's administration."

By now I am certain that you, the reader, are either drop-jawed in amazement at the utter brazenness of this declaration, or rolling around on the floor grasping your knees in laughter. First of all, Al Gore is here telling the world that he is no student of American history. Did George W. Bush suspend habeas corpus? Did he impose martial law? Did he send the armed forces to make war on those Americans with whom he disagreed? No, no, and no. Abraham Lincoln did all of that and more. So whatever George W. Bush has done with regard to expansion of executive power, it was certainly not unprecedented. As for the "contempt for the truth" part, might we remind Mr. Gore of one sentence that epitomized that very concept: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." But that, of course, was different. Everyone lies about sex, and besides, that president was a Democrat -- which of course makes all the difference.

Unlike the unspecified "crimes" of which Gore accuses George W. Bush, Bill Clinton's crimes were specifically enumerated in the articles of impeachment that were drawn up against him. Perjury and obstruction of justice were the two that stuck. These crimes having been proven, by the admission of those who excused Clinton on the flimsy grounds that his crimes "did not rise to the level of impeachment," did not the Senate then have a constitutional duty to hold him to account? Of course not! That was different. Clinton is a Democrat. These, of course, were not Clinton's only crimes, merely the ones the impeachment managers were able to nail him on. There were others as well, such as campaign finance infractions in having knowingly taken campaign dollars from foreign sources, and approving the sale of satellite technology which could be used for military purposes to a hostile foreign power -- which, of course, is tantamount to treason. But, of course, transgressions such as these are nowhere near as much of a threat to our free society as are the vague, unspecified illegal actions of which Mr. Bush is supposedly guilty -- at least according to Gore.

When he said that a president who breaks the law poses a "threat to the very foundation of our democracy," could Al Gore possibly have been referring to himself? Might the names John Hwang and Maria Hsia come to mind? Mr. Gore no doubt has spent the ensuing years trying desperately to purge those names from his memory. Of course he could say, in all truth, that this could not apply to him since he was not the president. But it still gives occasion for pause. During the 1996 presidential campaign, Gore did a few things himself of questionable legality, to say the least. Like the 61 fundraising calls he made from his White House office. When caught, he slid out on a technicality, citing, "no controlling legal authority" for his actions, which, technically, were not a violation of the Pendleton Act of 1883 which prohibits asking for money on federal grounds. Was this, however, ethical? The answer depends on whether we're talking about Democrats or Republicans.

In April, 1996, Gore attended a fundraising luncheon at the Hsi Lai Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights, California, at which Huang and Hsia raised $166,750 for Democratic National Committee. At least three of the contributors were foreign nationals, and $55,000 in contributions were laundered through monks and nuns who made these contributions in their own names and then were reimbursed by the temple from its general funds. Gore danced unconvincingly around this issue, saying first that the luncheon was for "community outreach", then later that it was "finance related", and then again that it was for "donor maintenance." Gore finally ended up denying that he even knew the event was a fundraiser at all. "I made a mistake," he said. "I should have known that it was related to fundraising. I did not."

What Gore either knew or did not know, of course, cannot be proven. But it hardly puts him in a position to lecture George W. Bush or anyone else about honesty or integrity. What we do know is that Al Gore served in a corrupt administration, and was himself, either knowingly or unknowingly, part of that corruption. For him to speak today of "corrupt Republicans" is the height of hypocrisy. If anything at all should be a cause for alarm among concerned Americans, it should be remembering how close this man came to becoming our president.