by David Phinney
Friday March 1st 2024



Al Gore Taps the Internet for Crusade Against Global Warming

by David Phinney

Feb. 28, 2007 — From the man accused of taking credit for inventing the internet, a new political crusade is heating up to fight global warming.

Fresh off his Oscar winning power-point presentation, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore launched a chain email lobbying effort this week to pressure Washington into heeding his documentary’s warning: time is running out for the world to reverse climate change. The email has a link to Gore’s Web site.

THE IDEA IS: Every recipient who gets his email is asked to forward it to ten friends. No doubt, the effort could explode exponentially and create a shock and awe capable of making Washington take notice — especially when Gore unloads those emails before Congress on March 21. (No word about whether the will be printed on recycled paper.)

Will this be a prelude to another bid for the White House? A number of prominent netizens predicted in Rolling Stone that the Democratic nomination would be his for the taking:

“If Howard Dean could raise $59 million on the Internet,” says (veteran Democratic consultant Bill) Carrick, “the mind boggles as to what Al Gore might do.”

Joe Trippi, who managed Dean’s campaign, believes Gore could raise as much as $200 million on the Internet: “Gore may have more money than anybody within days of entering the race.”

But Gore claims he detests the obligatory chore of raising money — a reason he repeatedly cites for staying on the sidelines of political office. I suspect Gore may have his eye on winning the Nobel Peace Prize instead. That would be a first for him. He already sort of, kind of, maybe won one presidential bid in 2000.

That may just be enough.


Reader Feedback

2 Responses to “Al Gore Taps the Internet for Crusade Against Global Warming

  1. Dilya says:

    I am asking the qsietuons about Hackett’s duties because his ad on tv implies that he led marines in combat. Civil Affairs Officers attached to marine division do not normally do that. I am not attacking his service, just trying to discover exactly what it was.Being a Civil Affairs Officer is a noble thing and carried the same dangers we all faced in the Middle East. If one’s role was not command or combat, however, one should not imply that it was.I would not have mentioned ribbons except it raised by a Hackett supporter. The whole ribbons thing came up because one blogger said that the ribbons proved Hackett had been in combat. This is not accurate, however.Ribbons are given for participating in a campaign. They are not just for combat. Everyone in the theatre gets one. There are insignia that go on the ribbon depending on the exact details.I offer this as factual background so non-military folks can understand that ribbons do not equal combat. Two ribbons were authorized for the global war on terror and I am sure that he earned those as did all who were over there. There is also one for service in SW Asia and one for being in an expeditionary force no matter where it is. That’s four, same as everyone over there.I would not have raised the qsietuons about his exact duties except you guys were congratulating yourselves on what a splendid commercial Hackett put together. This glee included the fact that it did a splendid job of disguising his party affiliation and using the president’s image.I noted also the vague and unusual words used to describe his military service. I still do not know what follow my marines means. I had never heard a marine officer said it that way and it made me curious.When I have spoken of my role in the war I have said I was the inspector general and this is what my duties were.I guess to some asking a direct question they don’t want to answer is an attack. I do not see qsietuons as attacks .Similarly, it is no attack to say a person was not in combat, unless there have been claims or implications that the person has.I am not disparaging his service or anyone else’s. I just want to know what it was. Nothing in the above post by the editor answers that question.The article is another example of the straw man argument. The article sets out a distorted version of what I have said and then shoves it over like a straw man. The only trouble is I never attacked Hackett’s service. I asked qsietuons that the above post still does not answer.Did Hackett lead marines in combat? Did Hackett command marines at all, if so who? Was he a member of division staff? This all I am asking. Note that the source listed is a marine who served with, not under the command of, Major Hackett.I reiterate that I speak here for myself alone. I am a voter in OH2. Advising Jean Schmidt and speaking for her are two different things. I do not speak for her.

  2. Elisangela says:

    Editor: The issue about the Iraqi forces in Baghdad was uneealtrd to asking what Hackett did in the war. I was addressing another issue altogether. Calling me a liar based on another straw man you erected, I see. In Fallujah, the marines handled the operation themselves while Major Hackett was there. That discussion was about where he was not what he was doing. It addressed only whether he had any firsthand knowledge of how well the trained Iraqi brigades were doing.You will have to compare dates on Iraqi army operations in Fallujah with the dates Major Hackett was there, he didn’t spend his entire 7 months there. I understood from his website that it was the later part of his stay, so that would be early 2005. Early in the training process some Iraqi troops ran like jackrabbits. I wrote about that too.Those of you who got your data on what I allegedly said in my blog solely from the misleading statements of OH2 should read my blog directly (and all of it) to see context. Our editor is a master of pushing over the strawman he tells you is someone else’s position.Also, have you seen the ad. Remember that when you watch it now after being told that it implies combat leadership you have the advantage the normal viewer does not have of being forewarned. everyone I asked about it said they thought he was saying he was in combat. He said he followed my marines to Iraq . I still have no idea what that means.To besieged by bush: Whose disparaging service now. Bahrain is an ally nation and is a secure area. Our base had lots of marine guards. I worked directly with the commander of the fifth fleet/navy central command. I have never claimed to be a combat leader or implied that I was. I was almost killed twice: once in a helicopter incident and once from a disease that stopped my heart. Our base was bombed about 30 meters from my office. One of our officers was shot in the head on the street. We regularly had demonstrations behind my flat. There were roving gangs of militant youths.I have no idea what dangers Hackett actually faced. That is what I want to find out. And I did travel out of the office once and a while.By the way, who got the idea that navy duty is risk free. We seize smugglers all the time. My stepsons are both assigned to the boarding parties. Anybody want to volunteer to be one of about 10 guys to go aboard the seized vessel to secure and inspect. We lost two sailors when the very old oil tanker they were trying to keep afloat suddenly sank. The guys on the USS Cole would probably differ with you too. We have cargo handlers and other ashore in Kuwait and Iraq.Asking what role a candidate for Congress actually played in the war is not disrespect for the armed forces or for his service. I know what push polling is Mr. Editor and this isn’t it.Also, see above. I sent an email to Hackett headquarters. No answer yet, but I am sure I will get one. I promise to share the reply without editing it. I will not, like some, quote sections out of context.To Manteo: What disrespect? Nice knee jerk reaction there buddy. I served in uniform from 1971 to 2004 when I retired. I assume you were in the service too.I was in Desert Storm and back again for five tours since 9/11. I am a life member of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Reserve Officers Association etc. My respect for men and women in uniform leads me to question the details when someone seems to be overstating their role. The service I know Hackett did was honorable enough, why embellish?Ask a few direct questions and the next thing you know you are no longer a veteran who served, who loves his country, who supports the troops etc. You are a hater of all that is good and decent; and worse.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.