15 years ago Al Gore criticizes Bush I for ignoring Iraq's WMD's & terrorist links

Purple HawkPurple Hawk Posts: 1,300
edited June 2007 in A Moving Train
yeah yeah, the source....search u tube and you can find it there too...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_061307/content/01125111.member.html


ALGORE: Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly. Throughout this period, Saddam's atrocities continued. In March of 1988, Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children -- and none of us can ever forget the pictures of their bodies, of parents trying to shield their infants, even in death that were in our news media and around the world. The Iran-Iraq war then ended in August of 1988, and Iraq had not prevailed, but neither had it been defeated. As a result, you would think that the administration would give our policies a second look to see if they should be altered. But the Reagan-Bush administration never hesitated even when the news became much, much worse.

RUSH: Keep listening, folks. It just gets better with each bite.

ALGORE: In January 1989 President George Bush was sworn in. Based on plentiful evidence, he had reason to know that his ongoing policy regarding Iraq was already malfunctioning badly. Just last week we learned of a memorandum written in March of that year, just two months after his inauguration, to Secretary of State James Baker, as Baker prepared to meet with a senior Iraqi official in which the author of the memorandum noted that Iraq continued to cooperate with terrorists, that it was meddling in Lebanon, that it was working hard at chemical and biological weapons and new missiles. These are exact quotes from the memorandum to the administration. And most significant of all, in the same month, September of 1989, the CIA reported to Secretary of State Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology --

ALGORE: -- through a global network of front companies. Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation with a record of terrorism, continuing, was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not.

ALGORE: The text of NSD 26 blindly ignores the evidence already at the administration's disposal of Iraqi behavior in the past regarding human rights, terrorism, the use of chemical weapons, the pursuit of advanced weapons of mass destruction. Instead, it makes an heroic assumption of good behavior in the future on the basis of an interesting theory, namely, that Iraq would suddenly and completely change its ways out of a fear of economic and political sanctions.

RUSH: Stop the tape. I can't let this go. These are ones that are advocating sanctions now against Iran. These are the ones that advocate the "global test," bring the UN in, and let's talk to our allies and make sure we get permission from them and let's do sanctions. We must do sanctions, never military strikes! Listen to what he's calling for now. He's pooh-poohing sanctions. They don't work. Bush is stupid for thinking they will, against such an evil guy.

ALGORE: Well, it leaps from the page that George Bush, both as vice president and president, had done his utmost to make sure that no such sanctions would ever apply to Saddam Hussein. ... The question is unavoidable: Why should Saddam Hussein be at all concerned about a threat of action in the future from George Bush, the same man who had resolutely blocked any such action in the past?

ALGORE: To the contrary, Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    this news could've made a difference.

    But 15 years ago, who was President? And who was Al Gore?
    Feels Good Inc.
  • Purple HawkPurple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    Bu2 wrote:
    this news could've made a difference.

    But 15 years ago, who was President? And who was Al Gore?

    Gore was the Democratic VP nominee, trying to get elected by saying Bush was weak on national defense. my point in posting this is to point out politicians care about themselves, and their party, and getting elected, but not what's right. i don't mean to imply only democrats engage in this...

    is there anyone who will say what they believe in an election? i think we are all looking for leadership, and today's presidential elections are overtly obsessed with style over substance. hell, today's political DISCUSSIONS are obsessed with style over substance....i don't know...i'm just ranting...
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    I don't understand the point of this thread. Is it supposed to point out something? If so... what?
    I mean, Rush is pointing out factual data that existed in 1988 and 1989. In 1989, Iraq had not yet invaded Kuwait and had the U.S. mount a coalition of European and Arab allies to eject his military from soverign Kuwait. Saddam's arsenal and weapons development programs that did exist in 1989 were either destroyed by the aerial assault or dismantled in the ensuing weapons demolition campaign that followed.
    And YES... Saddam HAD chemical and biological weapons in 1988 and 1989 and he used them on the Kurdish rebels as well as the Iranians (the intended targets of the U.S. suppliers of these weapons). The U.S. cheered as Saddam wiped out the evil Iranians with chemical agents and mowed down the sword wielding Shi'ite fanatics with machine guns in 1988. Saddam was our enemy's enemy... therefore, our FRIEND, right? That's the whole policy, right? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"... right?
    ...
    If it is your intention to point out that because of Reagan policies that embraced the brutal regimes and tactics of Saddam Hussein and Usama Bin Laden against our enemies of 1989 (the Iranians and Soviets)... you have done a fine job.
    ...
    Addendum: You DO realize that it is 2007 today and NOT 1989, right? And also... that the Iran of 2007 is NOT the Iraq of 1989 (even though the spelling is really, really close).
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Purple HawkPurple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    Cosmo wrote:
    I don't understand the point of this thread. Is it supposed to point out something? If so... what?
    I mean, Rush is pointing out factual data that existed in 1988 and 1989. In 1989, Iraq had not yet invaded Kuwait and had the U.S. mount a coalition of European and Arab allies to eject his military from soverign Kuwait. Saddam's arsenal and weapons development programs that did exist in 1989 were either destroyed by the aerial assault or dismantled in the ensuing weapons demolition campaign that followed.
    And YES... Saddam HAD chemical and biological weapons in 1988 and 1989 and he used them on the Kurdish rebels as well as the Iranians (the intended targets of the U.S. suppliers of these weapons). The U.S. cheered as Saddam wiped out the evil Iranians with chemical agents and mowed down the sword wielding Shi'ite fanatics with machine guns in 1988. Saddam was our enemy's enemy... therefore, our FRIEND, right? That's the whole policy, right? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"... right?
    ...
    If it is your intention to point out that because of Reagan policies that embraced the brutal regimes and tactics of Saddam Hussein and Usama Bin Laden against our enemies of 1989 (the Iranians and Soviets)... you have done a fine job.
    ...
    Addendum: You DO realize that it is 2007 today and NOT 1989, right? And also... that the Iran of 2007 is NOT the Iraq of 1989 (even though the spelling is really, really close).


    the point of the thread is to illustrate that al gore was blaming iraq for 9/11, 8 years before it occurred,...creating false links, and misleading the American people.

    The point of the thread is to highlight politilization of foreign policy by the left.

    if you don't get the point of the thread...let add...

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them" - Slick Willy, feb 4, 1998.

    "we must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." Madaline Albright, Feb 1 1998

    "(Saddam) has given aid, comfort, and sactuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members"...Mrs. Bill Clinton October 10, 2002

    the point of this thread is to dispell the dopey myth that "bush lied."

    for every quote by Bush saying something about Iraq and terrorists, i can post two similar quotes by libs seeking office...so can we agree...bush DIDN'T lie?

    Addendum: You DO realize that it is 2007 today and NOT 1917, or 1968, or 1972. right? :)
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Bush lied.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Purple HawkPurple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    gue_barium wrote:
    Bush lied.

    Isn't your daddy calling?
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Bush lied, and lied, and lied, and lied, and lied.... and will lie til the day he draws his last breath.

    Everybody knows this, but you?

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Purple HawkPurple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    gue_barium wrote:
    Bush lied, and lied, and lied, and lied, and lied.... and will lie til the day he draws his last breath.

    Everybody knows this, but you?

    you obviously haven't been slapped around enough :)
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • RushlimboRushlimbo Posts: 832
    I'm convinced now. Bush didnt lie. Still has never lied. He is a good, decent man. I love puppies. Saltwater taffy is the best. Al Gore is to blame for 9/11 and the quagmire in Iraq. Whew, I feel liberated.
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • bingerbinger Posts: 179
    the point of the thread is to illustrate that al gore was blaming iraq for 9/11, 8 years before it occurred,...creating false links, and misleading the American people.

    The point of the thread is to highlight politilization of foreign policy by the left.

    if you don't get the point of the thread...let add...

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them" - Slick Willy, feb 4, 1998.

    "we must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." Madaline Albright, Feb 1 1998

    "(Saddam) has given aid, comfort, and sactuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members"...Mrs. Bill Clinton October 10, 2002

    the point of this thread is to dispell the dopey myth that "bush lied."

    for every quote by Bush saying something about Iraq and terrorists, i can post two similar quotes by libs seeking office...so can we agree...bush DIDN'T lie?

    Addendum: You DO realize that it is 2007 today and NOT 1917, or 1968, or 1972. right? :)


    So you still believe that Saddam had the WMDs?
    I want to point out that people who seem to have no power, whether working people, people of color, or women -- once they organize and protest and create movements -- have a voice no government can suppress. Howard Zinn
  • binger wrote:
    So you still believe that Saddam had the WMDs?

    nobody could be that fucking stupid still...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    you can't be serious, can you??

    there is a slight difference between 15 years ago and a few years ago

    what he was talking about was how the first bush administration vetoed sanctions against iraq WHEN HE WAS DOING THOSE THINGS

    they knew he used the gas and ignored it, hid it (which you may argue w/ the definition of 'hid' but they didn't let it be known) and then when they needed an enemy and he invaded kuwait they used it as a justification

    they weren't there when we invaded this time

    and keep in mind, cheney was sec of defense at this time
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    The point of this thread is not that bush lied. The point is that gore, slick willy, slick willy's wife, and every other tree hugging dem would've told the same exact lies had they been in his position.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    sponger wrote:
    The point of this thread is not that bush lied. The point is that gore, slick willy, slick willy's wife, and every other tree hugging dem would've told the same exact lies had they been in his position.


    not every dem, but most, i will give you that...but i wouldn't call them 'tree-hugging', look at slick willy and that clear cut rider he signed allowing the timber industry to go into federal parks and pick which trees THEY thought would be a fire hazard to protect the populace from those fires they have in places like california (which is caused by brush around the HOMES, not forest in the....forest)

    altho, this was already part of the agenda when they were campaigning in 2000
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    sponger wrote:
    The point of this thread is not that bush lied. The point is that gore, slick willy, slick willy's wife, and every other tree hugging dem would've told the same exact lies had they been in his position.

    I don't entirely agree... While the whole WMD thing would still be there, I don't ever see really any dem going through with invading Iraq after 9/11... Democrats are good for useless sanctions and a lot of bullshit promises, but I can't see any of the current (or recent past) democrats getting into Iraq, even Gore, who was more of a hawk then people realize... Regime change in Iraq was a desire all on the neo-con group in the whitehouse/defense department.


    edit: plus, I could only image the backlash from the republican party if a dem did invade Iraq and it turned out like this... they would have run him out of town in '04.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • MilestoneMilestone Posts: 1,140
    I can't see any of the current (or recent past) democrats getting into Iraq, even Gore, who was more of a hawk then people realize....


    Why not? After all....it was the Dems (Kennedy) that got us into Vietnam.
    11-2-2000 Portland. 12-8-2002 Seattle. 4-18-2003 Nashville. 5-30-2003 Vancouver. 10-25-2003 Bridge School. 9-2-2005 Vancouver.
    7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
    11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula.  5-10-2024 Portland.  5-30-2024 Seattle.
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    Milestone wrote:
    Why not? After all....it was the Dems (Kennedy) that got us into Vietnam.

    night and day, totally different people and administrations. The Bush crew (PNAC and the like) had clear intentions on regime change in Iraq since the Bush Sr administration.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    but I can't see any of the current (or recent past) democrats getting into Iraq, even Gore, who was more of a hawk then people realize...

    Huh? Would you like to review the list of Democratic congresspeople who voted to go to war with Iraq?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    know1 wrote:
    Huh? Would you like to review the list of Democratic congresspeople who voted to go to war with Iraq?

    I know who voted for the authorization to go to war... But do you really think that a democratic administration would have went on the all out fear-mongering PR campaign to sell the war to the UN, congress and the american people? I just don't see it happening.... If the intelligence said that Saddam was a player in 9/11, then yes, but an all out pre-emptive war for WMD? I highly doubt it.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    I know who voted for the authorization to go to war... But do you really think that a democratic administration would have went on the all out fear-mongering PR campaign to sell the war to the UN, congress and the american people? I just don't see it happening.... If the intelligence said that Saddam was a player in 9/11, then yes, but an all out pre-emptive war for WMD? I highly doubt it.

    Yes.

    And I also do not believe that congresspeople should be voting on the basis of fear-mongering from the other side. I expect that they should identify the facts and vote accordingly. Blaming the other side for "selling" something to you is pathetic.

    I also do not believe this is what occurred.

    Hey - if fear mongering worked, then we'd already have a bunch of global warming legislation.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    know1 wrote:
    Hey - if fear mongering worked, then we'd already have a bunch of global warming legislation.

    That's entirely different fear mongering (not saying it's any better)... The global warming is kind of like cigarette warnings... yeah, bad stuff is going to happen eventually... our ice caps will melt, drought will be a problem, coasts will be underwater, yada yada yada... it doesn't exactly entice the same sort of immediate fear as threats of mushroom clouds in one of our cities.

    know1 wrote:
    I also do not believe this is what occurred.

    Then what exactly did occur? Do you think if everyone from the administration wasn't on TV everyday and constantly feeding the eager media on this, that the war would have actually happened?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    the point of the thread is to illustrate that al gore was blaming iraq for 9/11, 8 years before it occurred,...creating false links, and misleading the American people.

    The point of the thread is to highlight politilization of foreign policy by the left.

    if you don't get the point of the thread...let add...

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them" - Slick Willy, feb 4, 1998.

    "we must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." Madaline Albright, Feb 1 1998

    "(Saddam) has given aid, comfort, and sactuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members"...Mrs. Bill Clinton October 10, 2002

    the point of this thread is to dispell the dopey myth that "bush lied."

    for every quote by Bush saying something about Iraq and terrorists, i can post two similar quotes by libs seeking office...so can we agree...bush DIDN'T lie?

    Addendum: You DO realize that it is 2007 today and NOT 1917, or 1968, or 1972. right? :)
    ...
    No...Prior to the Iraqi invasion/occupation of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein did possess Weapons of mass Destruction (Chemical/biological) in his arsenal. We brokered the deal with Hussein because he was on a rampage to destroy Iran... who were our identified enemy, therefore, our 'Friend', right?
    Hussein DID try to acquire nuclear capabilities but, the Israeli air strike in 1981 on the Osirak nuclear facility set back his weapons development peogram which never really got back on track because of the ensuing 8 year stalemate with Iran.
    Once Hussein marched on Kuwait, his military capability was completely destroyed and his weapons stockpile dismantled by the U.S. lead U.N. Weapons inspections and economic sanctions.
    Did Hussein use chemical weapons in the past? Yes... and we cheered as he mowed down Iranians. Did he use chemical weapons against his own people? Yes... against the Kurdish and Shi'ite Rebels looking to over throw his government... a suggestion made to them by our President, assuring that we would help them in THEIR revolution against Hussein's Ba'athist regime.
    ...
    Did Hussein seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Did he HAVE weapons of Mass Destruction? NO. There's your difference.
    ...
    And yeah... it is 2007 and it ain't 1968... but, except for maybe the lack of jungle vegitation and slanted eyes of our enemy, it sure looks like we are repeating the mistakes of 1968 all over again, don't it?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Then what exactly did occur? Do you think if everyone from the administration wasn't on TV everyday and constantly feeding the eager media on this, that the war would have actually happened?

    I believe it still would have occurred.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • ThumbingMyWay32ThumbingMyWay32 Posts: 1,224
    nobody could be that fucking stupid still...


    If we gave Saddam WMDs to use against Iran, who could be so fucking stupid to use it for their argument in one post then deny they exist in another?
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    If we gave Saddam WMDs to use against Iran, who could be so fucking stupid to use it for their argument in one post then deny they exist in another?
    ...
    I'm waiting for Dick Cheney to get so flustered at a press conference about this question and totally lose it one day and say, "GOD DAMN IT, PEOPLE... We KNOW Saddam Hussein had God Damn Weapons of Mass Destruction!!! I SOLD HIM THE FUCKING SHIT, MYSELF!!! So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT ALREADY!!!"
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • ThumbingMyWay32ThumbingMyWay32 Posts: 1,224
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    I'm waiting for Dick Cheney to get so flustered at a press conference about this question and totally lose it one day and say, "GOD DAMN IT, PEOPLE... We KNOW Saddam Hussein had God Damn Weapons of Mass Destruction!!! I SOLD HIM THE FUCKING SHIT, MYSELF!!! So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT ALREADY!!!"

    I do too. It would help fuse some of the hypocrisy in these forums. Nah... No it wouldn't. Don't let your own facts get in the way of your own argument.

    It's just comical for me to watch someone ask smartass questions like, "Where are the WMD's you idiot!?!?!?!?"

    .....Then explain the political climate of the Middle East during the 1980's, correctly, 10 posts later.....
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    I do too. It would help fuse some of the hypocrisy in these forums. Nah... No it wouldn't. Don't let your own facts get in the way of your own argument.

    It's just comical for me to watch someone ask smartass questions like, "Where are the WMD's you idiot!?!?!?!?"

    .....Then explain the political climate of the Middle East during the 1980's, correctly, 10 posts later.....
    ...
    Yeah.. I don't get it...
    He had them... we know he did because we gave them to him.
    He used them... we know he did because we wanted him to and we were happy that he did.
    He does something that pisses us off... so, we blow up his shit.
    He loses the war... we destroy his mechanized Army.
    He uses what he has on his own people... because we told them to mount a rebellion that we will back, militarily... but, don't.
    He surrenders... we go in and destroy whatever he has left.
    He wants more shit... we don't let him.
    Then, all of a sudden... he has them again? And this time, they're Nuclear?
    ...
    All this would mean is that we have the worst inteligence agents in the world and our Air Force pilots are really, really stupid... or Saddam Hussein and his military people are the greatest military/industrial strategists of all time. Or both.
    I don't buy either.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • ThumbingMyWay32ThumbingMyWay32 Posts: 1,224
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Yeah.. I don't get it...
    He had them... we know he did because we gave them to him.
    He used them... we know he did because we wanted him to and we were happy that he did.
    He does something that pisses us off... so, we blow up his shit.
    He loses the war... we destroy his mechanized Army.
    He uses what he has on his own people... because we told them to mount a rebellion that we will back, militarily... but, don't.
    He surrenders... we go in and destroy whatever he has left.
    He wants more shit... we don't let him.
    Then, all of a sudden... he has them again? And this time, they're Nuclear?
    ...
    All this would mean is that we have the worst inteligence agents in the world and our Air Force pilots are really, really stupid... or Saddam Hussein and his military people are the greatest military/industrial strategists of all time. Or both.
    I don't buy either.

    I blame the British.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • Purple HawkPurple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    No...Prior to the Iraqi invasion/occupation of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein did possess Weapons of mass Destruction (Chemical/biological) in his arsenal. We brokered the deal with Hussein because he was on a rampage to destroy Iran... who were our identified enemy, therefore, our 'Friend', right?
    Hussein DID try to acquire nuclear capabilities but, the Israeli air strike in 1981 on the Osirak nuclear facility set back his weapons development peogram which never really got back on track because of the ensuing 8 year stalemate with Iran.
    Once Hussein marched on Kuwait, his military capability was completely destroyed and his weapons stockpile dismantled by the U.S. lead U.N. Weapons inspections and economic sanctions.
    Did Hussein use chemical weapons in the past? Yes... and we cheered as he mowed down Iranians. Did he use chemical weapons against his own people? Yes... against the Kurdish and Shi'ite Rebels looking to over throw his government... a suggestion made to them by our President, assuring that we would help them in THEIR revolution against Hussein's Ba'athist regime.
    ...
    Did Hussein seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Did he HAVE weapons of Mass Destruction? NO. There's your difference.
    ...
    And yeah... it is 2007 and it ain't 1968... but, except for maybe the lack of jungle vegitation and slanted eyes of our enemy, it sure looks like we are repeating the mistakes of 1968 all over again, don't it?

    the current world looks NOTHING like 1968.

    the POINT of this thread is to show that libs, when it suits their electoral needs, can't run fast enough to connect saddam's terror links....(and yes, I'm equally disgusted with the Republican party as well, including Bush,...nobody in government is doing what is right...but that's a different thread)

    apparently when Bush does it, he is saying Iraq was involved in 911, when libs do it, they are making a legit point. basically, W followed Gore's advice, and he's attacked...it's like we are living in a parallel universe. why aren't dems held to the same standard by the left? is it all about winning elections?

    i just find it so disingenuine that people here are going to say Bush lied when he basically echoed democratic sentiment.
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • ThumbingMyWay32ThumbingMyWay32 Posts: 1,224
    the current world looks NOTHING like 1968.

    the POINT of this thread is to show that libs, when it suits their electoral needs, can't run fast enough to connect saddam's terror links....

    apparently when Bush does it, he is saying Iraq was involved in 911, when libs do it, they are making a legit point. basically, W followed Gore's advice, and he's attacked...it's like we are living in a parallel universe. why aren't dems held to the same standard by the left? is it all about winning elections?

    i just find it so disingenuine that people here are going to say Bush lied when he basically echoed democratic sentiment.

    I heard the monologue. I, for two, know exactly what you're talking about and mean, Hawk.

    Two thumbs up!
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Sign In or Register to comment.