How will the press slander Gore this time -- if there is one?

http://www.dailyhowler.com/index.shtml

The Daily Howler gives us a reminder of how the mainstream press has treated Gore over the years, and of the uphill battle he will have to wage to overcome the lies they pushed on the American people.

In San Francisco, in a speech before the Commonwealth Club of California, Gore suggested that Bush had turned his attention to Baghdad because Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would be easier to find than fugitive al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, whose fate remains unknown. He called the president's strategic doctrine of taking pre-emptive action "troubling" and said a hasty war against Iraq could increase the risk that terrorists gain access to its weapons of mass destruction.

First, he said, Bush should focus on the Sept. 11 plotters.

"The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized," Gore said.
"I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than was predicted."

As always, Gore was instantly savaged. Incredibly, here was the late Michael Kelly, in the Washington Post:

KELLY (9/25/02): Gore’s speech was one no decent politician could have delivered. It was dishonest, cheap, low. It was hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts—bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible.

Incredibly, that was actually published—thirty-six hours after Gore gave his speech. But that was what happened in those days if you made the mistake of being right.

Kelly may have died since, but the Washington Post is still around last I heard. It was in that newspaper. You wonder if the Washington Post even cares how low they stooped back then, or would the ombudsman dream up some kind of excuse? Opinion, sure, but we can now see how completely dishonest and reprehensible an opinion it was.