Pirate's Cove

No, really. My post title is the short line for a Washington Post "edistory" by Peter Baker

Somehow, it seemed only fitting that at the moment of Al Gore’s triumph, George W. Bush would spend the day in Florida, scene of the fateful clash that propelled one to the presidency and the other to the Nobel Prize.

What a difference seven years makes. The winner of that struggle went on to capture the White House and to become a wartime leader now heading toward the final year of a struggling presidency. The loser went on to reinvent himself from cautious politician to hero of the activist left now honored as a man of peace.

Seriously, I just cannot laugh harder at articles like this. And the MSM makes derisive comments about the blogosphere? Somehow, Bush’s being the president of the United States of America is reduced in light of the Goracle winning the Nobel Peace Prize-the same one awarded to a known terrorist leader, Yassar Arafat. I have to wonder if the Post understands, or even remembers, that it was people like Yassar who attacked the United States on 9/11, or that Saddam Hussein was paying families of Yassar’s people $25,000 so that their children, wives, and fathers could go off to Israel and blow themselves up in pizza parlors.

And since when did Al actually become a man of peace? Pushing global warming hysteria has nothing to do with promoting peace-it is just a way for Gore to line his pockets and gain prestige within a certain community of sheep with credit cards. It reminds me of the Cabbage Patch dolls craze-for those who are much younger then me (I am 40), there were literally riots in stores to gain these: think iPhone with violence-people were convinced their kid HAD to have one, and fought for it like gladiators. Of course, the Cabbage Patch dolls actually provided a tangible product. Gore’s offsets don’t, except you have a nice tree somewhere that you will never see.

For the Gore camp, it was a day of resurrection, a day to salve the wounds of history and to write another narrative that they hope will be as enduring as Florida. "We finally have their respective legacies," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and a veteran of the Clinton-Gore White House. "Bush earned the Iraq war, and Al Gore earned the Nobel Prize. Who knew Al Gore would one day thank the Supreme Court for their judgment?"

You know exactly what Emanuel means: Bush stole Florida. He sure doesn’t want to let a little something called The Law get in the way, nor remember that 27 of the 28 voting precincts in Florida that had issues were run by Democrats, that Gore tried to keep the military vote out……to heck with this line of though, old news, moving on.

When history is written, who will be remember: Gore or Bush? Gore will be a foot note on a web page, with people going "that was nice. Can you go outside and clear the frost off my car windshield, honey? Chilly for a September." Bush is a US President, part of history, and, for good or bad, will be remembered. If Iraq turns out well, he will go down in a positive manner. Regardless, he will be much more then a simple footnote.

Two candidates who presented themselves as safe stewards of a prosperous country have instead become evangelists for changing the world, albeit with drastically different visions.

One wants to stop a mostly natural process, the other is attempting to deal with global terrorism and protect the USA. I know which side is a little more important. I can give you 2,996 reasons why.

They have spent those seven years shadowboxing, never reconciling. Gore has been one of Bush’s most vociferous critics, while the White House has always looked on the former vice president with derision.

Really? I cannot remember Bush or his press secretaries even mentioning Gore. Maybe the Post thinks that is mean. Funny how the Post puts Al in the role of school girl with pig-tails picked on by the local bullies, eh?

Still, presidents through history have secretly yearned for the validation of the Nobel Peace Prize. The only one to win it in office was Theodore Roosevelt, and his medal remains on display at the White House. Interviewed by al-Arabiya television last week, Bush seemed to rue the idea that he is not seen as a man of peace, bristling when asked if, in fact, he is a "man of war."

"Oh, no, no," he said. "I believe the actions we have taken will make it more likely peace happens. I dream it will be — the last thing I want to be is a president during war." Referring to his vision for spreading democracy, he said that "peace will succeed as more and more people become free."

Has Peter Baker ever been a president? How does he know that they "secretly yearn" for one? It would be easy to say that liberals do, but, it is not till recent times that liberals needed validation of the international community to see if their job was being done well. Previously, most cared more about taking care of the people of the USA, and making their lives better. Go figure.

If Bush’s policy of spreading democracy and doing away with mass organized terrorism works out, with no help from liberals, who root for the terrorists, Bush will go down in history as a great president. Liberals are so deranged at the mere mention of his name that they will do anything, even cavort with our enemies and provide them aid and support-otherwise known as treason-to accomplish their mission.

Five out of five Prozacs for serious liberal dementia.