Al Gore: It doesn't matter which Bush is in Office, He lied and people died

You must watch this video of Al Gore in 1992, then the Vice Presidential candidate to Bill Clinton, as he rips then President George H.W. Bush up one side and down the other for ignoring the threat of Saddam Hussein. You won’t believe it until you see it. Al Gore accused George H.W. Bush of ignoring and then hiding from the American people Saddam’s efforts to build nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and Saddam’s ties to terrorists. Al was particularly outraged that Saddam used these chemical weapons against his own people. Take a look, and as you watch it, keep at the front of your mind that when George W. Bush pointed to the exact same things about Saddam Hussein as a reason for attacking Iraq, Al Gore screamed that Bush “betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!”

Interesting, isn’t it, that Saddam Hussein is a weapons of mass destruction-seeking terrorist despot who must be removed only when it’s politically expedient for Al Gore.

Hat tip: Rush Limbaugh

TV's 'Mr. Wizard' dies at 89
Fred Thompson Catches up with Rudy Giuliani
  • LoveAmerica Immigrant

    LAI, the argument is about whether or not Al Gore contradicted himself.

    Joe Biden’s statement has nothing to do with that.
    ————————————————-
    Al Gore > September 23, 2002

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

  • LoveAmerica Immigrant

    LAI, it is a ****fact**** that H.W. Bush knew what was going on with Saddam, and that he ignored it.

    Please show how Gore stating these historical facts, and also stating that Bush Jr.’s invasion and occupation of Iraq was a terrible idea, is a contradiction.
    ————————————————-
    Jim,
    Why are you so dense? You are acting like a little kid. Just throw up one lousy defense after another. This was in 1992 after the Gulf War. Bush Sr. just took care of Saddam, right? Did he mention the most recent historical fact that Bush Sr. just kicked Saddam out of Kuwait? Al Gore cherry picked the “facts” to fit his talking points. His dishonesty was so obvious. You should abandon him if you are honest as you insisted. The fact that you can’t just show it.

  • LoveAmerica Immigrant

    More Gore

    Al Gore > September 23, 2002
    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

    Al Gore > December 16, 1998
    “[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”

  • jim

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

    Thank you for coming back to the original subject.

    But, where in that above does Gore say that invading Iraq is a good solution?

  • jim

    Just throw up one lousy defense after another.

    LAI, I’m just keeping you on topic. Really. You keep dragging in one irrelevant side issue after another.

  • jim

    Oh, and in neither of your “More Gore” quotes, does Gore say that invading and occupying Iraq is a good idea.

  • LoveAmerica Immigrant

    But, where in that above does Gore say that invading Iraq is a good solution?
    ———————————————-
    Again, you are trying to be dense. Gore, Biden, Clinton, Rockerfeller …. in 2002 all said Saddam was a threat to be removed. All (except Gore since he was not a senator) voted to authorize the Iraq war to remove Saddam Hussein. If Gore were a senator in 2002, do you think he would vote against the resolution? Kucinich is the only guy running for pres who was against it from the beginning. Be honest for once!

    Also Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Acts in 1998. This was before 9/11. So you expected that we shouldn’t do anything different after 9/11?

  • jim

    LAI, your accusations of me “trying to be dense” are a bit ironic.

    The whole point of this article is to accuse Gore of contradicting himself, by saying that H.W. Bush was wrong to aid and support Saddam, and that W. Bush was wrong to invade and occupy Iraq.

    To prove the point of this article correct, you’d have to find a contradiction in those statements.

    The examples you’re bringing up have nothing to do with either of these statements. Therefore, they prove nothing. And statements by people who are not Gore prove nothing either.

  • LoveAmerica Immigrant

    Jim,
    Again, you are trying to be dense. Here it is. For 10 years, 1992-2003, Gore basically said that Saddam is a major threat: WMD, terrorism etc… His adm even signed the Iraq Liberation Act before 9/11. After 9/11, Bush just followed the prev adm policy to remove Saddam Hussein even by force. This was a reasonable decision and AlGore as a vice pres should know that. He turned around and attacked Bush as if he didn’t say anything about Saddam! That is the dihonesty for you if you still don’t understand.

    Bush made a reasonable decision and Al Gore should know it than anyone else given his past statements about a threat Saddam posed.

  • jim

    Again, you are trying to be dense. Here it is. For 10 years, 1992-2003, Gore basically said that Saddam is a major threat: WMD, terrorism etc… His adm even signed the Iraq Liberation Act before 9/11. After 9/11, Bush just followed the prev adm policy to remove Saddam Hussein even by force.

    No, that’s wrong. The Clinton policy was NOT to remove Saddam Hussein by ***invading and occupying Iraq***, and then ***continue to occupy the country afterward****.

    That was and is Bush’s policy, entirely. And in Gore’s opinion, this was a terrible idea.

    So, you can see that Gore was not contradicting himself.

  • jim

    It breaks down like this, LAI:

    Just because someone or something is a major threat, doesn’t mean that invading and occupying their country is:

    a) the only solution
    b) necessarily a good solution

    Now, we can and do disagree about it being a good solution.

    But that isn’t even the point of the current argument.

    The point of the current argument, is that Gore did not contradict himself in thinking that invading and occupying Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein was a good solution.

  • So, if I read you correctly, the Clinton/Gore plan was to “remove Sadaam, but not stay in country after”, meaning he PLANNED to cut and run even before he was able to attack, that makes me feel GREAT!

    There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to remove Sadaam without having to stay in country until the new government can fully stand on it’s own. What that means is that unless someone is willing to stay until the job is done, they should start the job at all!

  • jim

    So, if I read you correctly, the Clinton/Gore plan was to “remove Sadaam, but not stay in country after”, meaning he PLANNED to cut and run even before he was able to attack, that makes me feel GREAT!

    You’re not reading me correctly; you’re putting other stuff in, that I’m not staying.

    I’m just saying that what Clinton and Gore did NOT want to do, was to invade and occupy Iraq. Because if they wanted to, they would have done it.

    We can argue the separate merits of Clinton’s policy vs. Bush’s; but first we have to recognize they were not the same policies; and second, I’d prefer that we resolve this current point – that Gore is not contradicting himself.

  • kim

    The Dems wanted al-Qaeda taken care of and Saddam gone, but were too pusillanimous to do it themselves. Now that someone has done it, they criticize him. Why do you schizoids even trust yourself. No one else does.
    =======================

  • LoveAmerica Immigrant

    Jim,
    YOu are still trying to distract and avoid the main point. Let me say it again for you. Al Gore accused Bush of LYING to lead the country to war about the threat Saddam posed wrt WMD/terrorism while he conveniently forgot about the 10 year history of his own strong warning about Saddam. That ‘s the dishonesty.
    Here it is even more despicable. Even if Gore disagreed with Bush on the invasion, now we got rid of Saddam and start building democracy in Iraq. Did Gore stand up and say now it was a good thing to get rid of Saddam and no matter how we disagreed on the invasion, we are here and we have to win against the terrorists!

    I will check whether Al Gore is crazy enough to believe that Bush is behind 9/11. But liberals basically accuse Bush of being so evil that he was intentionally behind 9/11 to invade Iraq. 33% of the democrats believe this stuff. So it tells you how crazy and mean-spirited the liberals are.

  • Jim, he IS contradicting himself, because he in one breath he states that Sadaam was a threat, had or was pursuing nuclear weapons, used chemical weapons on his own people (all of the charges Bush made in his “pitch” to invade). In the speech above he REAMS Bush 41 for NOT ousting Sadaam, yet now that Bush 43 invaded Iraq, made it to Baghdad in less time than people thought it would take, and ousted a dictator, well, he lied about all the stuff Gore once stated himself.

    So, if the weapons and terror ties were true in 1992, how is it in 2003 they NEVER existed? Gore NEVER said that Sadaam “had the weapons before” or “had terror ties before” but not any more, he never claimed that, his claim is that Sadaam NEVER had WMD’s, that he NEVER pursued them, and that he NEVER had ties to terrorist groups.

    So which is it? 1992, where Sadaam should have been ousted, but Bush 41 didn’t do enough? or 2003 where Bush 43 did what Daddy and Billy Boy COULDN’T or (worse) WOULDN’T do?

  • jim

    So, if the weapons and terror ties were true in 1992, how is it in 2003 they NEVER existed?

    How about, through the 11 years of UN-enforced inspection between 1992 and 2003?

    Remember that?

    And the lack of WMD’s was confirmed by the UNinspections that took place during the run-up to the 2003 invasion – inspections which ended only because W. decided to invade anyway?

    Think about it. What is ***your*** explanation for what happened to those weapons in 2003 and after? What is ***your*** explanation for the Al Qaeda ties that never materialized in 2003 and after?

    The quote at the end of this article, with Gore stating “He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place.”, was in 2004. Gore is stating his opinion, an opinion backed by facts.

    And both opinions are consistent.

    In 1992, gore points out that before the first Gulf War, H.W. Bush supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq both militarily, politically and financially, and both in public and in secret. This turned out to be a very bad idea.

    In 2004, Gore points out that W. Bush invaded Hussein even though all impartial evidence showed Hussein no longer had WMD’s, had no ties to Al Qaeda and was a contained threat. This also turned out to be a bad idea.

    It’s like this: just because one thing is a bad idea, to turn around and do the exact opposite isn’t necessarily a good idea either. And a good indicator that it’s especially a bad idea, is if the latter is done in a way that goes against all impartial experts, for no given reasons.

  • jim

    YOu are still trying to distract and avoid the main point. Let me say it again for you.

    No, thank you. Here, I’ll say your point for you instead:

    a) Gore is bad.
    b) Gore said something I don’t like. Therefore Gore is bad.
    c) Why do you liberals love Gore? He’s so bad.

  • jim

    The Dems wanted al-Qaeda taken care of and Saddam gone, but were too pusillanimous to do it themselves.

    And the GOP were calling for invasion, then?

    Now that someone has done it, they criticize him.

    Kim, here’s how I see it:

    Let’s say someone has a bad infection on their arm, and a doctor comes in and tells him to rub dog crap on it and never wash it. That’s a bad idea.

    Let’s say a second doctor comes in, and says he can take out the infection. He then grabs a hammer and chisel, breaks the patient’s legs so he can’t run, and rips the infected area out of the patients’s arm – along with most of the patient’s arm. And in the process infecting the whole area around the patient’s arm that still remains.

    Did the 2nd doctor do it right? No.

    That’s how Gore is viewing Bush’s actions.

    I agree with Gore, but that’s a side point. The main point is, this is not a contradiction.

  • kim

    Hyperbole, be thy name.

    The rate is now approximately 3,000 enfranchised Iraqi voters for every dead American soldier, a high, but fair, price.

    I repeat, the Democrats wanted the job done, now complain that it is. Had the Democrats tried to do it, well, imagination fails.

    What’s the chance the next Democratic administration won’t have people like Tenet, Clarke, Beers, Berger, and Joe, Lying about Africa, Wilson in it?
    ===============================

  • jim

    Well Kim, that’s a different question entirely, but I don’t think it’s a fair price at all – because involved in that accounting is the death and destruction of the Iraqi people, who are now being killed at a higher rate than wehn Saddam was in power; the fact that the Iraq invasion and occupation has increased the funding, prestrige and recruiting of Al Qaeda; that our Iraq invasion-occupation has enabled Osama Bin Laden to escape us and hide from us; and that our presence in Iraq is risking destabilizing the entire region.

    And whatever the chances are for liars in office, if there is a next GOP one, I can only hope it won’t have people like Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, and Harriet Miers hurting our nation with their lies, manipulations, and what looks like the worst combination of wishful thinking, hubris and incompetence.

    But we’ll see – one thing with democracy is that we really do create the government we deserve.

  • MikeSC

    jim, some friendly advice: Avoid analogies. You’re really bad at them.

    How about, through the 11 years of UN-enforced inspection between 1992 and 2003?

    You mean the ones Saddam stonewalled and tossed out of his country while Clinton was in office?

    THOSE inspections? By the UN, who had more than a few people in Saddam’s back pocket?

    Gee, Saddam didn’t act like a guy who was hiding something. No sir.

    Saddam agreed to disarm and to make it obvious to us that he did so. He reneged on the ceasefire he signed in 1991 repeatedly. The war was over SOLELY based on him honoring what he agreed to.

    Think about it. What is ***your*** explanation for what happened to those weapons in 2003 and after? What is ***your*** explanation for the Al Qaeda ties that never materialized in 2003 and after?

    Moved to Syria with the capacity to re-arm quickly. I find it funny you criticize the US for selling dual use equipment in the past — then pretend that dual use equipment, apparently, can’t possibly be used to build weapons.

    The quote at the end of this article, with Gore stating “He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place.”, was in 2004. Gore is stating his opinion, an opinion backed by facts.

    Yet the facts are not presented. But, hey, you seem to like giving people benefit of the doubt and all…

    In 1992, gore points out that before the first Gulf War, H.W. Bush supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq both militarily, politically and financially, and both in public and in secret. This turned out to be a very bad idea.

    Yet again, the concept of the lesser evil not being a friend is lost on you. I thought lefties were huge on nuance and all.

    In 2004, Gore points out that W. Bush invaded Hussein even though all impartial evidence showed Hussein no longer had WMD’s, had no ties to Al Qaeda and was a contained threat. This also turned out to be a bad idea.

    No impartial evidence claimed he disarmed. People like you would have been paid to make those arguments as poorly as you’re making it here back then. Nobody was.

    Gore is a hypocrite. That was known for a while. That lefties will defend anybody with a “D” next to their name is sad, but also unexpected.

    You really don’t have a lot to offer here.
    -=Mike

  • jp

    the dems could not be more blind and ostrich like

  • jp

    more Gore hypocrisy and failures on this:
    http://commrnc.grassroots.com/resources/goreiraqspeech.doc

    “Now, back in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield, even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Shiites and Kurds, groups that we had after all encouraged to rise up against Saddam . . . . Now, a mere two years later, after we abandoned Afghanistan that first time, Saddam Hussein launched his invasion of Kuwait. And our decision, following a brilliant military campaign, to abandon the effort prematurely to destroy Saddam’s military allowed him to remain in power. Now, this needs to be debated and discussed by the Congress. You know, what this tells me is that the Congress should require as part of any resolution that it considers some explicit guarantees on whether or not we’re proposing to simply abandon the Iraqi people in the aftermath of a military victory there, or whether or not we’re going to demand as a nation that this doctrine of ‘wash your hands and walk away’ be changed so that we can engage in some nation building again and build the kind of peace for the future that our people have a right to expect.” (Al Gore, Remarks To The Commonwealth Club Of California, San Francisco, CA, September 23, 2002)

    just follow that link, it is mindboggling the flip flops on getting rid of saddam or not……Gore supporters are useful idiots

  • LoveAmerica Immigrant

    jp,
    That is a good source. Thanks. Like your punch line – Gore supporters are useful idiots

  • jim

    Moved to Syria with the capacity to re-arm quickly.

    That’s a great theory I’ve heard before, without one bit of evidence to support it. And considering how the entirety of Iraq was under the microscope before, during and after the invasion, and considering how embarassing this has been for the Bush administration, there would have to be some more concrete evidence for this than a couple of interviews with some Iraqi truckers who are probably looking for a way out of Iraq.

    Honestly, one might as well say they’ve been moved to Mars by the Easter Bunny.

    jim, some friendly advice: Avoid analogies. You’re really bad at them.

    Sorry you don’t like them. That could just as well mean they’re very good analogies, because they make you uncomfortable.

    You mean the ones Saddam stonewalled and tossed out of his country while Clinton was in office?

    Yes – those ones.

    The ones that eventually forced Saddam to remove all his WMD’s.

    You know, the WMD’s that weren’t there when Bush decided to invade anyway.? Those WMD’s that didn’t exist?

    The war was over SOLELY based on him honoring what he agreed to.

    OK. Great. Let’s agree that was the sole reason to invade then.

    When we invaded and found out he had no WMD’s – just like he said, and the weapons inspectors said, and impartial intelligence said, and even our agencies were saying before we invaded – that means our invasion and occupation of Iraq didn’t need to happen.

    Thanks for proving my and Al Gore’s point. Our work is done.

    No impartial evidence claimed he disarmed.

    Really?

    Fascinating!!

    Let me show you some evidence that doesn’t exist, then!

    The International Atomic Energy Agency, Jan. 2003:

    http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

    “Aluminium tubes: The IAEA has conducted a thorough investigation of Iraq’s attempts to purchase large quantities of high-strength aluminium tubes. As previously reported, Iraq has maintained that these aluminium tubes were sought for rocket production. Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets.”

    Niger docs –

    “Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents – which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger – are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. “

    The IAEA’s conclusion:

    ” * There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

    * There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

    * There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

    * Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

    UN Weapons Inspectors, 3 weeks prior to invasion: –

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

    “In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they’ve begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.

    U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

    # Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found “nothing.”

    # Example: Saddam’s presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found “nothing.”

    # Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the “Iraqi alibi air tight. ‘

    And post invasion:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

    Hans Blix:

    ‘ “I think it’s clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart,” Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency’s investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.”

    Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as “shaky,” and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

    “I think they chose to ignore us,” Blix said. ‘

    And the IAEA:

    ‘ Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

    ElBaradei said he had been “pretty convinced” that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.

    Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

    “We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong,” Cheney said. “And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing.”

    Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, “I haven’t seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney’s conclusion or statement, so — and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge.” ‘

  • jim

    jp, that quote still shows no hypocrisy.

    I refer you again to the painful example of the patient with the infection, which I made here at 3:40 AM .

    Gore is stating that a good job of removal and after-care is required. That in no way makes what W. Bush performed a good job.

  • Mark is SF

    Kim: “Interesting, isn’t it, that Saddam Hussein is a weapons of mass destruction-seeking terrorist despot who must be removed only when it’s politically expedient for Al Gore.”

    When did he say Saddam must be removed? You’re just making this up.

    Gore was criticizing Bush’s pro-Iraq stance pre GW1. Not Bush’s policy of containment post GW1.

  • jp

    I think the Clinton administration made it clear they wanted Saddam “removed” in 1998 – “IRAQ REGIME CHANGE” policy

    thanks for dumbing down the thread, useful idiots.

  • jp

    Al Gore:

    September 23, 2002: “Now, one of the central points I want to make clear today is that we have an obligation to look at the relationship between our war against terrorism and this proposed war against Iraq. We have a goal of regime change in Iraq. We have had for a number of years. . . . …. We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country…….”
    (Al Gore, Remarks To The Commonwealth Club Of California, San Francisco, CA, September 23, 2002)

  • jp

    Al Gore:

    December 16, 1998: “Larry King: The president pointed out that everyone agreed with this decision: the Security Council, the Joint Chiefs, yourself. Since he did mention you, was that tough for you to say yes to an OK to bomb people? Gore: No, it was not, because if you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” December 16, 1998)

  • jp

    Al Gore:

    . Saddam Hussein has “been in power for much longer than we would like,” but “some of what is now under way, with respect to Iraq, in [the Clinton] administration, is not something we can talk about in the public arena.” (CNN’s “Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer,” April 30, 2000)

  • jim

    I think the Clinton administration made it clear they wanted Saddam “removed” in 1998 – “IRAQ REGIME CHANGE” policy

    They did make clear they wanted him removed.

    There’s just nothing there that said they wanted to invade and occupy Iraq right freaking now, while we’re in the middle of another war, so the head of Al Qaeda can get away.

    thanks for dumbing down the thread, useful idiots.

    Making things clear how the facts don’t support what people are accusing Gore of, is actually the opposite of dumbing down the thread.

    I think a discussion based on facts, as opposed to vague associations and implications, is always better. Don’t you?

  • JP

    Al Gore:

    February 12, 2002: “Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table.” (Al Gore, Remarks To The U.S. Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, February 12, 2002)

  • jim

    jp, you do realize that the Gore quotes you’re showing don’t prove anything?

    That is, unless you find one where Gore basically says “We should invade and occupy Iraq right now! Even if we’ve already invaded and occupied another MIddle Eastern country! And even if it’s done totally wrong!”

    That, I’d love to see.

  • oakley06

    For those here who keep vomiting garbage such as:

    “You’ll note that what Gore did not say was, “George H. W. Bush should invade Iraq right now, and occupy it, and depose Saddam!””

    Could these please explain what Gore could have possible been referring to, but obviously didn’t have the balls to say, when he uttered these words in the same speech of this video clip:

    “I myself went to the senate floor twice demanding tough action, but these efforts were resisted to the bitter end by the Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle administrations.”

    I guess Al Gore’s definition of “tough action” is through passing of some policy, which liberals always seem to think magically fixes everything. WAKE UP! You honestly think Saddam would tearfully confess his crimes and cease his murders because the U.S. or anyone else administered a policy against him?? The only “tough action” available to stop a killer like Saddam is to kill him.

    But, let us sane people here remember that liberals live in a world of policy and government control. Where policy rules, where the vote and desire of the people is abolished, where evil does not exist (because it is somehow abolished by policy), and where everyone looks the same, acts the same, owns the same, and gets paid the same…except those in control who will live far above and beyond their slaves. That’s right folks. Slaves. If you desire to live like this then leave us free Americans be. MOVE OUT!

  • LoveAmerica Immigrant

    Jim is simply dense. He has no choice but to defend Al Gore ‘s dishonesty at any cost. Otherwise, he has to abandon his liberal illusion.

  • jp

    the only way you could be ‘more tough’ on Iraq/Saddam back then would’ve been to go in and remove him instead of signing the cease fire.

    even Dan Rather on 9/17/01 on Letterman said that we made a mistake by not removing Saddam in first gulf war and that he was probably tied into 9/11 and if not any number of other things, that he was evil and that he had sat “eye to eye” with him…

  • jim

    So, in essence, you guys have nothing and have been proven wrong, but aren’t admitting it.

    Sounds rather like a certain President you support.

  • oakley06

    No, Jim, you’re the one who has nothing for you have yet to answer my question. You say we never heard Gore state that H.W. Bush should have gone over and invaded Iraq. However, Gore did state that he had been to the senate floor twice…TWICE…asking for TOUGH ACTION to be taken against Saddam. So Jim, I shall ask again. What possible tough action could Gore have possibly been condemning H.W. Bush for not taking? The tough action he so desperately begged for then is precisely what Bush Jr. is doing now. But, ah so convenient it is for Gore to now condemn this Bush, in Howard Dean screaming style, of how wrong he is (And obviously Gore himself was in 92). Wake up Jim. Smell the coffee and come have a cup with me so we can discuss what possible tough action Gore so desperately needed during the H.W. Bush presidency that he is not getting now. I’m longing to hear your thoughts on this. Coffee’s brewing…

  • TheTruth

    Ah, but this was 1992 and not 2002, when circumstances had changed quite a bit. The sanctions against Iraq were working, and the weapons inspectors confirmed that there were NO weapons of mass destruction and as we all now know, Bush Jr and company fixed the intelligence to say the opposite of what the intelligence knew – Saddam was no longer a threat to the US. Besides, Saddam did not attack the US on 9/11 nor was he tied to that event in any way.