Responses to this message:
What about Occidental Petroleum and Al Gore? Funny someone should bring that up, but isn't it odd that Al Gore doesn't own one share of Occidental? What happened? Well, considering the investigation-happy 1990s, surely the Republicans that grundle-James loves so much (maybe their stalking behavior of everything Clinton reminds him of his own proclivities) would have investigated this to a fare- thee-well. But even their little elves couldn't uncover anything untoward; anyone wonder why?
Let's go back to March 2000, a time when the press had declared war on Al Gore for being Clinton's successor. They'd struggled mightily for eight years or so to nail Clinton, but he'd proved a tad too elusive or a tad too honest for them to do anything more than rig a partisan impeachment, so Gore became the target. A distillation from the New York Times, which can be found here complete with its damning headline:
http://www.colombiasupport.net/200003/nyt-goreoxy-0319.html
Gore Family's Ties to Oil Company Magnate Reap Big Rewards, and a Few Problems
NEW YORK TIMES
Sunday, 19 March 2000
By Douglas Frantz
_________________
The first thing to notice, and grundle-James is hoping folks won't, as he's looking to spread tar with a very broad brush, is that it's the "Gore Family" that's being smeared here, not Al Gore. Naturally, this being the Times, you don't really find this out until the end of the article, which I'll move up a little bit:
"The Elk Hills purchase sent Occidental's share price up about 10 percent at the time, which increased the value of stock held by Mr. Gore Sr. Since his death, the stock has remained in his estate, whose primary beneficiary is his wife. The vice president's most recent financial disclosure report valued the stock at $250,000 to $500,000.
"Mr. Gore is executor of the estate, but his aides say that he exercises no control over the stock in the estate and has never owned Occidental stock himself."
Yes, you read that right: Al Gore does not own and has never owned Occidental stock. This is, of course, buried at the end of the account, but the Times and grundle-James are counting on folks not getting quite that far in a convoluted tale of business dealings stretching over a period of 50 years.
I wonder why grundle-James didn't see fit to mention that last teeny, tiny fact?
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread
And check this out: The Top Posters' Page