June 5, 2006


The love affair with Al Gore 2.0 has afflicted one Henry Porter, writing this rambling, borderline fellatial op-ed at The Observer, entitled "Al versus Hillary? No contest".

Porter lapses into incoherence almost immediately by suggesting that had Gore won the election, and then not invaded Iraq, we might not be facing the threat of a nuclear Iran today... "because President Ahmadinejad would not have been given the opportunity to maximise a position only made possible by Saddam's fall."

Got it? Somehow, if Saddam were still in power, Iran would not be ruled by Shiite mullahs at war with Israel and the U.S., and anxious to join the nuclear club.

Operating on the premise that the invasion of Iraq was so self-evidently misguided and wrong that those who favored it are thoroughly discredited and unworthy of serving as our leaders, Porter is able to dismiss Mrs. Clinton out of hand:

I cannot say whether he would be a good President, but he is infinitely more impressive than the leading Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war, has visited Baghdad twice since 2003 and is allowing Rupert Murdoch to hold a benefit for her in July. That alone must signal that she is already too compromised to be President, but also that she lacks the ability to explain herself and clarify a future, which, because of China, the national debt, oil prices and environmental threats, especially from hurricanes, is bound to be very different for all Americans.

America's future is bleak indeed. Especially from hurricanes. Pass the Kool-Aid.

Posted by dan at June 5, 2006 10:29 PM