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

blackredyellow

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?

Cosmo

Purple Hawk wrote:

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?

know1

blackredyellow wrote:

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.

ThumbingMyWay32

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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?

Cosmo

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

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!!!"

ThumbingMyWay32

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.....

Cosmo

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

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.

ThumbingMyWay32

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.

Purple Hawk

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.

ThumbingMyWay32

Purple Hawk wrote:

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!

Purple Hawk

El_Kabong wrote:

you can't be serious, can you??

i think you know me enough at this point to know I believe what i'm posting

Cosmo

Purple Hawk wrote:

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.

...
It only looks like 1968 because we are letting the suits (Democrats, Republican... they are both politician scum to me) make decisions that handcuff our military in a hostile environment. That is a mistake we made in 1968 that should NOT be repeating in 2007.
I'm not defending Gore or Clinton or Democrats or Liberals... I am attacking the one who actually made the call to get us in this fucking mess. And I can guarantee you... that if it were Clinton or Gore or a Democrat or anyone else that was in charge and made the same mistaken case based upon fabricated or exaggerated information to go into an Urban Warfare environment... and made the same decisons afterwards because they wanted to do it on the cheap... I'd be making the SAME attacks on them.
Can you say the same? Can you honestly tell me that if this was Gore's (or a Liberal Democrat's) War that you would still be making arguements that Republicans in Congress also said it was so... therefore, you would be defending President Gore's actions? Would you be arguing against the 'Gore lied, people died' group?
I don't take political sides when poor decisions are made that drives my country into the ditch... and when worse decisions are made that take us from the ditch to the swamp... regadless of whatever political label is attached to them. To me... a Nimrod is a Nimrod... plain and simple.