« Fred Thompson Catches up with Rudy Giuliani | Main | TV's 'Mr. Wizard' dies at 89 »

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


Comments (141)

AlGore is such a dick.... (Below threshold)
Lee:

AlGore is such a dick.

Al Gore accused George H... (Below threshold)
jim:

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.

That's because George H.W. Bush ***did*** all these things - when Saddam Hussein was our ally. Gore is in fact referring to what George H.W. Bush did to ***support*** Saddam Hussein.

You know, that history that many conservatives would still rather forget.

For this very reason, all of you should really listen to Al Gore's statements. It as absolutely accurate about George H.W. Bush's efforts in bringing Saddam to power in the first place.

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!" That's because Gore knew then, as did George H.W. Bush himself, that this would be a terrible idea.

So, in essence, none of Gore's statements in the above clip, contradict the other facts: after Saddam disarmed and had full inspections ***ten years*** later, in 2002-2003, George W. Bush still invaded.

If you disagree with me, please find one statement of Gore's here that proves me wrong.

Gore's statement below remains true:
"He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!"

The only possible way to take this statement of Gore's as contradicting his later stance, is to ignore all the details of what Gore said ***both times***, into "Bush was bad for supporting Saddam! But then he said Bush Jr. was bad for invading Iraq!"

Please look a little deeper.

Jim,Doesn't that a... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Jim,

Doesn't that also mean that we should look farther beyond just the Bushes and Reagan to tell the story of what's going on in the middle east? Either side can frame whatever sized slice of the story they choose to look good, but the US, like Europe before it, took a not-so-good path in the Mideast. At least Bush Jr. changed the 'good at the time' way we dealt with the Mideast, which is a good contributor to the screwed-upness of a lot of it right now.

Al Gore is a duplicitous je... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Al Gore is a duplicitous jerk, and that's a courteous assessment. Which is precisely why he couldn't carry his home state.

Well AlLive by the... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Well Al

Live by the internet...

Die by the internet.

Bet you're now kicking yourself over 'inventing' it.

Hey Jim,If ... (Below threshold)
Pete_Bondurant:

Hey Jim,


If you cannot see a contradiction in what skinny Al Gore said to what fat Al Gore now says, you are on some serious drugs or Gore's useful idiot. Skinny Gore was trying to be tough Gore. Back then, I took him seriously and he did make some sense. Bush Senior made the mistake of not eliminating Hussein. Gore's point was Hussein was a dangerous tyrant. After the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, dangerous tyrants who ignored the UN, tried to assasinate a president, had a weapons program on hold until sanctions were lifted (according to David Kay and his successor) and was making friends with Al Qaeda had to be taken out. To allow him to continue to rule with all that behind him and the fact that the US was struck on 9/11 would have been irresponsible. It was Gore's administration that signed the Iraq Liberation Act. So how does one liberate Iraq Mr. Gore?

Jim, if the US was the ally... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Jim, if the US was the ally of Iraq. Please explain why they used Soviet equipment. They never had M anything tanks, M anything rifles or F anything fighters. They had T62 tanks, AK47 rifles and Migs. Jim, you are just a fu*king liar. What does a piece of shit like you know about anything? Nothing. Your unmarried parents should spank you.

Doesn't it make life simple... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Doesn't it make life simpler when you can hot-button your response to a hard negative?

"Bush 1 didn't do enough to take out Saddam Hussein in GW1" - when it's expedient to claim that.

Bush 2 did too much - when it's expedient to claim THAT!

Could it be that the REALITY - (I know, it's a wierd-ass concept that may or may not conform to your view of how the world should be, especially if you've got your political leanings cast in concrete) - is somewhere in between?

As far as the US providing stuff to Iraq - remember that for much of the Iraq-Iran war, we DID provide Saddam with intelligence. But you'll note, from the graph at http://www.solport.com/roundtable/archives/000082.php - that Russia, China and France provided most of the stuff Saddam needed, with 0.5% coming from the US.

Also, please remember we were (kind of) supporting Saddam against Iran - who under the Carter administration stormed our embassy and took the diplomatic legation hostage. That should have been the spark of a war - but wasn't, and should have been resolved quickly - but wasn't. I think we're paying the price now, for indecision and hesitation back then.

...and the chemical weapons... (Below threshold)
cirby:

...and the chemical weapons thing is just a damned lie, too. All of Saddam's chemical weapons were made using technology from pretty much everywhere EXCEPT the US. Germany, England, France, the USSR.. the list goes on and on.

The only things the US sold Iraq during the year or so we tried to get on Saddam's good side were a handful of unarmed CIVILIAN helicopters (which ended up as flying limos for Generals and such - Iraq had plenty of actual Soviet-made armed combat choppers, some of which were pre-fitted with chem-war dispensers) and some actual, real insecticides (since the Iraqi chemical industry didn't ever get around to making honest modern insecticides, and they were looking at massive crop failure in some sectors without them). Our total "arms" sales (the helicopters) represented a massive ONE PERCENT of world arms sales to Iraq in ONE year - something like one-seventieth of what the USSR sold them that year.

Not long after we tried the "deal with the dictator" strategy (the same sort or deal most leftists are babbling about trying now with Iran), Saddam started murdering Kurds and other tribes with his good old homemade (with the help of Europe and the USSR) chemical weapons, which is a big part of the reason we stopped even talking to Iraq for a while.

Of course, Powerline had th... (Below threshold)
jwehman:

Of course, Powerline had this story three years ago: (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006996.php)

True then, still true now.

I like it Lee, but he's a d... (Below threshold)
TR19667:

I like it Lee, but he's a dick with a big D....as in Dick

When will someone in Algor-... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

When will someone in Algor-abge's family have him comitted? Any shrink that wouldn't comitt him should have his license to 'practice' removed permanently. Listening to him, Wesley Clark and the democrat leadership of congress is like visiting the local nut house except the residents of the nut house sometimes make sense. They have an occasional flash of reality, not so with half the democrat party.

Doesn't that also mean t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Doesn't that also mean that we should look farther beyond just the Bushes and Reagan to tell the story of what's going on in the middle east? Either side can frame whatever sized slice of the story they choose to look good, but the US, like Europe before it, took a not-so-good path in the Mideast.

Sure, I totally agree with that. The current sorry state of the Middle East goes back to when the British were the major power there, even; and it's a tragic history of painful lessons that have been repeated without being learned, because they've been forgotten as quickly as possible.

At least Bush Jr. changed the 'good at the time' way we dealt with the Mideast, which is a good contributor to the screwed-upness of a lot of it right now.

I see Bush as not really changing the pattern at all, really; but I would definitely be willing to see a good analysis of the whole picture and with him in it as perspective.

Jim, if the US was the a... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, if the US was the ally of Iraq. Please explain why they used Soviet equipment.

I'll tell you what, Zeldorff - just go and read this article and get up to speed on history.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

Now Zeldorff, if the US was not the ally of Iraq, then why did Rumsfeld shake hands with him when he was Reagan's envoy?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

The rest of your refutation is a masterpiece of logic and wisdom. But you shouldn't talk about yourself like that.

Cirby, you also are out of ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Cirby, you also are out of step with the facts.

The US sold Saddam a ***lot*** of weapons and dual-use technology. Other nations sold even more - but we also allowed the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

"The U.S. sold Iraq $200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war...

Ted Koppel of ABC Nightline reported the following, however, on June 9, 1992: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]" and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted -- and frequently encouraged -- the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."

According to New Yorker, the Reagan Administration began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq American howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons. [35] Reagan personally asked Italy's Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[36]

The United States, United Kingdom, and Germany also provided "dual use" technology (computers, engines, etc.) that allowed Iraq to expand its missile program and radar defenses. The U.S. Commerce Department, in violation of procedure, gave out licenses to companies for $1.5 billion in dual-use items to be sent to Iraq.The State Department was not informed of this. Over 1 billion of these authorized items were trucks that were never delivered. The rest consisted of advanced technology. Iraq's Soviet-made Scuds had their ranges expanded as a result.[37]"

More info also here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says....

"Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.

"A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department. "

That's the facts, jack.

Could it be that the REA... (Below threshold)
jim:

Could it be that the REALITY - (I know, it's a wierd-ass concept that may or may not conform to your view of how the world should be, especially if you've got your political leanings cast in concrete) - is somewhere in between?

Sure. It could be that BOTH Presidents did stupid and terrible things. One in helping Saddam too much, one in invading Iraq despite all evidence that with less than 400,000 troops it would be a disaster.

It could also be, Jim, that... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

It could also be, Jim, that without the benefit of 20-20 foresight (kind of like 20-20 hindsight, without having to wait) they all just muddle through as best they can.

By the way - "Now Zeldorff, if the US was not the ally of Iraq, then why did Rumsfeld shake hands with him when he was Reagan's envoy?" - um, perhaps because he was an envoy, who was supposed to make nice to the people he met? Especially heads of state?

The American Experience | Nixon's China Game | The Nixon Visit

Nixon deplaned in Beijing on February 21, his flair for both diplomacy and drama well in evidence. Notes Nixon biographer Stephen Ambrose, "He knew that when his old friend John Foster Dulles had refused to shake the hand of Chou En-lai in Geneva in 1954, Chou had felt insulted. He knew too that American television cameras would be at the Peking airport to film his arrival. A dozen times on the way to Peking, Nixon told Kissinger and Secretary of State William Rogers that they were to stay on the plane until he had descended the gangway and shaken Chou En-lai's hand. As added insurance, a Secret Service agent blocked the aisle of Air Force One to make sure the president emerged alone."You'd find it hard to argue that the US and China were allies in '72.

Aw, cripes. I hate it when... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Aw, cripes. I hate it when a blockquote breaks like that.

Anyway, the last sentance still stands - we weren't allies of China in 1972, yet Nixon shook hands with Chou En-lai.

Now Zeldorff, if the US ... (Below threshold)
AngryMe:

Now Zeldorff, if the US was not the ally of Iraq, then why did Rumsfeld shake hands with him when he was Reagan's envoy?

Does that mean the Democrats are an ally of Syria:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/v3/04-05-2007.NI_05pelosi.GS2249SED.1.jpg

I must have missed the "shaking hands alliance" clause. Thanks for informing us.

The rate is still approxima... (Below threshold)
kim:

The rate is still approximately 3,000 enfranchised, and presumably less radical, Iraqi voters for every American dead soldier. A high, but fair, price.

Everytime Al Gore opens his mouth, somewhere something sentient freezes. Bad karma, me boy.
===============================

It's okay. Gore purchases ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

It's okay. Gore purchases falsehood offsets.

He's got a big thick stack ... (Below threshold)
kim:

He's got a big thick stack of them in his freezer at home.
===============================

Everytime Al Gore opens ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Everytime Al Gore opens his mouth, somewhere something sentient freezes.

Hmm, that must explain your recent posts.

This is hardly surprising. ... (Below threshold)
Mark in SF:

This is hardly surprising. Everybody knew Hussein was a bad guy. The Big Question was what to do about him. Continue the policy of containment or overthrow. You try to pin him as a hypocrite, but I didn't see him criticizing Bush Sr. for not pushing through to Baghdad.

hermie,Do you realiz... (Below threshold)
Mark in SF:

hermie,
Do you realize you are spreading a lie that Al Gore said he invented the internet?

jim:"The U.S. sol... (Below threshold)
cirby:

jim:
"The U.S. sold Iraq $200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war...

Let me finish out the quote you so cheesily edited:

"These were the only direct U.S.-Iraqi military sales and were valued to be about 0.6% of Iraq's conventional weapons imports during the war.[34]"

At about $2 million dollars each, that's a bit over 120 Jet Rangers or Hughes 500 copters approved for sale (not all delivered, by the way), non-combat aircraft that were, as I said above, mostly used to shuttle generals around. They could have been modified for attack roles, but never were - the officers liked their "flying staff cars."

One source claimed that the US copters were used to spray gas in some attacks, but the survivors of those attacks identified the Russian built helicopters as being the delivery vehicles (the US copters had pesticide sprayers available, but those will NOT work as CW delivery devices - they deliver the wrong spray pattern for CW - too much and too narrow), and a couple of the US copters were used as observation vehicles. Meanwhile the Iraqis had plenty of actual CW gear supplied by the Soviets from when they bought their actual attack choppers - but most of their CW attacks seem to have been artillery-based.

And as I also said, they had actual, armed, Soviet-made choppers (and fighters and such) to fly actual, real combat missions in. You know, out of that NINETEEN BILLION in Soviet weapons they bought during that war (versus, yes, $200 million bought from us in non-combat copters).

Almost everything they count as "dual-use" in those articles is really NOT "dual use," aside from the copters. Of the billion and a half in "approved" purchases, a billion of that was TRUCKS, which were never delivered (since, as I also mentioned in my first post, Saddam had started his campaign against the Kurds in the north). The "range was increased" bit was, of course, never proved or even partially substantiated.

It's kinda hard to count items that were never delivered because we stopped dealing with Iraq as "sales," by the way...

Of the other "dual use" equipment, the only thing that counted as actual dual use equipment was a handful of computers that nobody could ever trace as being used in their missile program.

The pesticides were actually used for, you know, killing insects, not as poison gas precursors or anything (the chemicals we sent were very much unsuited for this - intentionally).

The "export of biological agents, including anthrax" part is EXTREMELY dishonest, since the samples of anthrax that were sold to Iraq were from the American Type Culture Collection, an organization that was established to help various countries fight diseases (almost a hundred years ago). They're a private, non-profit company, and at the time they supplied those germs to Iraq, there were no restrictions of any sort for those sales, since they were for helping people fight diseases all over the world. They also shipped various other cultures, such as brucellocis and e coli. None of the cultures they shipped were anything like a "weaponized" strain (anthrax is available all over the world, and there are a couple of "reference" strains that people use to see how varied their local strains are - and yes, Iraq - like every country on the planet - has local strains of anthrax).


I wouldn't say that Iraq/Hu... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

I wouldn't say that Iraq/Hussein was exactly our ALLY during the 1980's, but I would say that the U.S. was hoping to use Iraq/Hussein for certain ends. We were pretty much hoping that Hussein would take care of Iran for us...but that didn't really work out.

And yes, we aided Hussein. It's not all that complicated.

We knew Saddam was a bastard then, but we hoped he was the lesser evil at the time. Maybe that wasn't a good call; maybe it was.

I tend to think it wasn't, but then, I have wonderful hindsight.

Oddly enough Lockheed Marti... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Oddly enough Lockheed Martin has, at their Georgia facility, 8 C-130s that were ordered by Iraq but never delivered. At 1970's prices, that's probably close to $120 mil right there. You can see them with Google Earth at N33 54'01.00" W84 30'59.60" They couldn't be sold due to export restrictions that got imposed, but they couldn't be scrapped since SOMEDAY they might be sold to Iraq. So there they sit.

Sitting in Georgia humidity, likely the engines are solid blobs of corrosion, the fuel tanks full of condensation, the air conditioning system full of snakes... hmmm. Snakes on a plane? Nah. It's been done... It'd probably take more to fix them than it would to buy a new C-130J.

Maybe they'll be sold for static displays someday, at a penny a pound. After everything even remotely usable's been stripped...

That's the thing, though.</... (Below threshold)
cirby:

That's the thing, though.

For a few years in the 1980s, Iraq was fighting against Iran, a country we were REALLY pissed at, due to the hostage crisis of the Carter years, and the two countries were right in the middle of "the Tanker War," which was screwing up a lot of the world's energy supply.

Hussein, while an asshole, seemed much, MUCH more reasonable to deal with than the crazy mullahs in Iran, so we tried to deal with him a little bit, in order to screw over the Iranians and possibly keep the next oil embargo from hitting.

Unfortunately, right about the time the Iran/Iraq war was winding down a bit, Hussein went out and started slaughtering civilians with poison gas, as well as a lot of other really nasty things, so we cut him off as well.

It was really a case of "the enemy of my enemy isn't exactly my friend, but as long as he keeps kicking that other guy in the nuts and doesn't do anything really stupid, we'll try to be a tiny bit nice to him, and maybe give him pointers on where to kick that other guy (you know, the crazy one who broke into our embassy and held a lot of folks hostage)."

(It also points out how the Democratic "we should talk to them" strategy can be really, really stupid - not only does it legitimize the assholes on the other side, but twenty years later, the Democrats will come forwars and bitch about how you were dealing with someone nasty - when it was partly their idea to begin with.)

ryan a, Khomeini was certai... (Below threshold)
kim:

ryan a, Khomeini was certainly more geopolitically frightening to us then than Saddam was. Can we have a mulligan on the '80's in the Mideast?

cirby, I happen to believe that most of the casualties at Jalaba were from Iranian nerve gas. And that the civilian casualties were a by-product of the bilateral use of gas in a war for water, the nearby Tigris tributary dam. Do you know?
=================================

That is not to say Saddam d... (Below threshold)
kim:

That is not to say Saddam didn't slaughter plenty of Kurds with gas, just that he wasn't engaged in genocide in Jalaba. He claims he read about it in the newspaper, and it was to be one of the charges at his trial, but they didn't get around to it.
============================

kim:There were some ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

kim:
There were some postwar allegations that both sides used chemical weapons, but they've mostly been unsubstantiated as far as the Iranian side's use. The Jalaba attack was certainly just Iraqi weapons, despite some postwar US comments to the contrary (probably just because we were so opposed to Iran so much at the time).

The Iranians showed no serious chemical weapons capacity at any time during the war, while the Iraqis were flinging it around with little concern for civilian casualties.

So no, I don't believe it was from bilateral use.

...and the use of Iraqi nerve gas and mustard gas against the Kurds was very, very well documented.

So Jim, what you are saying... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

So Jim, what you are saying is that as an ally of Iraq, the US purchased Soviet equipment for Saddam? Clinton shook hands with the leader of Red China but that didn't make them allies, or did it? Because we favored what we thought was the least of two evils does not make us allies of either. If only your knowledge and logic matched your proclivity at typing bullshit.

kim:ryan a, Kho... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

kim:

ryan a, Khomeini was certainly more geopolitically frightening to us then than Saddam was. Can we have a mulligan on the '80's in the Mideast?

a mulligan is about right when it comes to hussein. that's a good description of it. it was a bad shot. unfortunately, some of the fallout is the fact that we have a large chunk of Iraqis who don't exactly love us.

it's not like people in the ME have no memory...I'm sure they remember the fact that we buddied up to hussein in the 80's, and the shah in the 70s, when we thought we could get some good geopolitical mileage out of each of them.

that might be part of the reason why there isn't always a great deal of trust for us over there.

backing autocrats has its negatives, of course. but a lot of people tend to forget that.

Zelsdorf:Becaus... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Zelsdorf:

Because we favored what we thought was the least of two evils does not make us allies of either.

Indeed, we were never allied with Iraq. This is true. But we certainly had our relations didn't we? We had our reasons for dealing with them, and they weren't all about justice and liberty, that's for sure.

We dealt with Hussein in the 1980s, just as we are dealing with Mushareff of Pakistan today, for certain geopolitical reasons. These choices have their positive and negative aspects, of course.

The drawbacks of supporting/working with autocrats while purporting democratic ideals are pretty self explanatory.

But then, when and where do we draw the line?

ryan, that's easy, we draw ... (Below threshold)
kim:

ryan, that's easy, we draw the line when the autocrats turn on us.

Paki is a poser.
========================================

Thanks, cirby; your experti... (Below threshold)
kim:

Thanks, cirby; your expertise beats mine in this.
=========================

I love it when the dimmers ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I love it when the dimmers say Al Gore did not say what we heard him say. They and only they "know" what he meant. Al Gore said he invented the internet. Now it is a lie. Al Gore said Saddam had WMD, nuclear, etc., but now he didn't mean it like we took it. Pathetic Jim. Got anything better? Maybe you should quit while you are behind. ww

So you mean Al Gore is a hy... (Below threshold)
victory:

So you mean Al Gore is a hypocrite, kind of like our current president who promised to bring Osama bin Laden to justice and then broke off the search so he could invade Iraq? By the way, where is the person responsible for killing 3,000 Americans?

willie, was there a lot of ... (Below threshold)
victory:

willie, was there a lot of lead paint in your house as a kid? Your posts read that way.

Yeah! We aren't searching f... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Yeah! We aren't searching for Bin Laden. No. Not at all. I cannot believe that you even believe that. Say it ain't so. Victory, keep the invective to a minimum. It only shows you have no reasonable argument. ww

Al Gore's "hot air" is the ... (Below threshold)

Al Gore's "hot air" is the primary cause of Global Warming. That pompous windbag wouldn't know "reason" if it bit him in the posterior.

victory wouldn't know heavy... (Below threshold)
kim:

victory wouldn't know heavy metal poisoning if it bit him in the uranium. And he is a little slow on the uptake with his boring Bora Bora bit.

My pet theory is that bin Laden is in the Palestinian refugee camp north of Beirut, along with the remnants of his Iraqi forces under al-Abssi. Shakir al-Abssi is suspected of murdering Laurence Foley, a USAID official in Jordan, about the time that Val Plame was working overtly on the aluminium tube business, there. By the way, did you know that Powell said that Saddam sought fancy aluminium tubes from 13 different countries? That might be a good question for Obama.

Or for Val.
=========

I think the skinny Gore was... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

I think the skinny Gore was a better person than the current fat, far-left Gore. But that's just me. The skinny Gore made a little sense, at least. The fat one, not so much.....

Yeah, the skinny one invent... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yeah, the skinny one invented the internets, one of which is real, and the fat one invented global warming, none of which is real.
============================

"My pet theory is that bin ... (Below threshold)
victory:

"My pet theory is that bin Laden is in the Palestinian refugee camp north of Beirut, along with the remnants of his Iraqi forces under al-Abssi."

And you blame Al Gore for being delusional? What is the color of the sky in your world? Are there ponies? What a dipshit.

Kim, so smart, so funny. w... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Kim, so smart, so funny. ww

Do you think "victory" need... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Do you think "victory" needs to change his socks?

Well, just before the Anbar... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, just before the Anbar Awakening there was a poorly understood uprising in the Nomad's Land between Pakistan and Afhanistan and I wonder if bin Laden didn't decamp. Al-Abssi and his remnants have fled Iraq.

I understand my pet theory is highly speculative, but there must be some reason the Lebanese Army is pounding this band of outlaws so hard. If I'm right, hoo boy. If I'm wrong, well, you aren't the first to say so.
==================

For a few years in the 1... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

For a few years in the 1980s, Iraq was fighting against Iran, a country we were REALLY pissed at, due to the hostage crisis of the Carter years, and the two countries were right in the middle of "the Tanker War," which was screwing up a lot of the world's energy supply.

Hussein, while an asshole, seemed much, MUCH more reasonable to deal with than the crazy mullahs in Iran, so we tried to deal with him a little bit, in order to screw over the Iranians and possibly keep the next oil embargo from hitting.
cirby

you sure? What about Iran-contra? Weren't we dealing with both sides to get them to beat each other to bloody pulps?

Our history is nothing but messy in the Mideast, and it continues as such to this day. We support (possibly even "ally" with) Musharraf, Mubarak, and the Sauds to keep lids on there respective populations. One day these choices will come back to haunt us just as Iran/Iraq did in the 80's. As ryan a said: "backing autocrats has its negatives, of course. but a lot of people tend to forget that."

Well, al-Abssi mostly's bee... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, al-Abssi mostly's been around Syria and Jordan, but some of his fighters are from Iraq.

sean, what would you do about Musharraf and Pakistan?
========================

My gosh, he's a boring spea... (Below threshold)

My gosh, he's a boring speaker. He sounds like any of the narrators of 70s nature shows or schools' educational movies.

Our history is nothing but ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Our history is nothing but messy in the Mideast, and it continues as such to this day. We support (possibly even "ally" with) Musharraf, Mubarak, and the Sauds to keep lids on there respective populations. One day these choices will come back to haunt us just as Iran/Iraq did in the 80's. As ryan a said: "backing autocrats has its negatives, of course. but a lot of people tend to forget that."
-------------------------------------------------
So you admit that Bush is doing the right thing in the ME by getting rid of Saddam Hussein and building a democracy there. FDR made the same mistakes when he aligned with Stalin in fighting against Hitler. He made the same mistakes at Yalta in giving Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union (ie. stability over democracy for Eastern Europe).

Good, we have an agreement that Bush is doing the right thing, one country at a time.

what would you do about ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

what would you do about Musharraf and Pakistan?
kim

Musharraf is probably the "best" of the three I mentioned, but what do we do? This is of course a difficult question because if there were an easy, better idea that's what we would have done/would be doing. It's just that our foreign policy has gotten into this routine which may work in the short term, but blows back 20 or 30 years down the line. Promoting democracy is in our national interest, but this is not the same as installing democracy.

For instance, I believe there was recently a lawyer's strike for more voting rights in Pakistan that Musharraf has been suppressing. We should use our influence to promote this rather than allow Musharraf to have free reign. This does not mean that we should allow nor encourage Musharraf to be overthrown, but instead for him to gradually cede some of his power to the people when they call for it. It will not be easy or quick as Iraq was supposed to be.

So you admit that Bush is doing the right thing in the ME by getting rid of Saddam Hussein and building a democracy there.
LAI

Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but that rationale does not excuse everything the Administration has done. They cherry-picked intelligence, ignored much of the advice of generals about necessary troop levels, did not properly plan for post-war conditions, exacerabated problems by alienating the civil servants and army, undermine our legitimacy by holding people in legal black holes like Guantanamo, etc. So you can think that if you choose to, but you're not looking at the whole picture.

FDR made the same mistakes when he aligned with Stalin in fighting against Hitler. He made the same mistakes at Yalta in giving Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union (ie. stability over democracy for Eastern Europe).

Actually, our activities in the Mideast in the 80's would have been FDR supporting Stalin and Hitler against each other.

Well, it was pre-ordained b... (Below threshold)

Well, it was pre-ordained before 9/11, but is was supposed to be Al "Superman" Gore "saving the world from Sadaam" when the timing was right for his career, naturally.

Getting rid of Saddam was a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but that rationale does not excuse everything the Administration has done. They cherry-picked intelligence, ignored much of the advice of generals about necessary troop levels, did not properly plan for post-war conditions, exacerabated problems by alienating the civil servants and army, undermine our legitimacy by holding people in legal black holes like Guantanamo, etc. So you can think that if you choose to, but you're not looking at the whole picture.

FDR made the same mistakes when he aligned with Stalin in fighting against Hitler. He made the same mistakes at Yalta in giving Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union (ie. stability over democracy for Eastern Europe).

Actually, our activities in the Mideast in the 80's would have been FDR supporting Stalin and Hitler against each other.
-------------------------------------------------
Sean,
Just to show you that FDR made much bigger mistakes compared to Bush! Al Gore speaks on both sides of his mouth. And looks like you are doing Monday morning quarterback. I think it is cheap and easy. The bottom line is that Bush is doing the right thing and the criticism from liberals like Al Gore/Clinton etc.... have been dishonest.
How can you look at what Al Gore said and what Bill Clinton said and have the gall to say that Bush cherry-picked intelligence? If you say that Bush made a mistake in treating Dem president and vice president as serious, then I would agree with you. Bush should have treated Dem leaders as liars when they made the warning about Saddam Hussein and WMD/terrorism. We can definitely agree on that.

FDR made the same mistakes ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

FDR made the same mistakes when he aligned with Stalin in fighting against Hitler. He made the same mistakes at Yalta in giving Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union (ie. stability over democracy for Eastern Europe).

Actually, our activities in the Mideast in the 80's would have been FDR supporting Stalin and Hitler against each other.
-------------------------------------------------
BTW, let me explain this a little further for you so that you can understand it. FDR made a huge mistake at Yalta. Basically he gave away eastern Europe to the Soviet Union in the hope to achieve stability. He followed the realist foreign policy that Eastern Europeans were not ready for democracy at that time. So stability was more important. And this concession further encouraged the agression of the Soviet Union around the world including the ME. So we have followed that realist foreign policy in the ME up until Bush. So now liberals want us to go back to that realist foreign policy.

sean, they cherry picked in... (Below threshold)
kim:

sean, they cherry picked intelligence from a barren tree, or rather from a Potemkin Pear Tree, hung with wax fruit. Joe, Val, and all the other Arabists at the CIA had made it difficult to make good choices in the Mideast. The Rule of Law is good, though, and Bush insisted Saddam follow the UN's rules.
===================================

I LOVE IT!!!!!The ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I LOVE IT!!!!!

The USA certainly dodged a bullet in 2000 when we sent this clown packing.

Whew!

sean, your nuances about 'p... (Below threshold)
kim:

sean, your nuances about 'promoting' and 'installing' democracy are dizzying. Why don't you give George Soros a call?
===============================

Jo, Chad works his wonders ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Jo, Chad works his wonders in mysterious ways.
=======================

Why yes, yes I do.</... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Why yes, yes I do.

LAI:And looks l... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

LAI:

And looks like you are doing Monday morning quarterback.

Actually, plenty of people were saying these sorts of things could happen before the war; for whatever reason, though, they were ignored.

The bottom line is that Bush is doing the right thing and the criticism from liberals like Al Gore/Clinton etc.... have been dishonest.

Bush's rhetoric may be the "right" thing, but unfortunately his actions do not match the rhetoric. Insufficient troop levels; little sacrifice from the general public; weakened US credibility due to Guantanamo, rendition, advocacy for water-boarding, stress positions and other questionable practices; strong and continuing support for rulers like the Sauds due to our oil dependence, yet they are undoubtedly responsible for maintaining the conditions in which the terrorist-mindset thrives; etc.

How can you look at what Al Gore said and what Bill Clinton said and have the gall to say that Bush cherry-picked intelligence?

They said these things 10-15 (1998-1992) years ago (5-10 years ago back in 2002). Gore's statements may have been true when he said them, but the same statements were not necessarily true in the run up to the war. There were 10 years of sanctions and multiple bombing campaigns to degrade his capability in the interim.

Now, did we know for sure that Saddam had lost his capability? No. But the Administration spoke with absolute certainty the other way, they said they knew for sure Saddam had WMDs. They knew he had an active nuclear program. And now we know they were wrong (and many suspected as such in 2002). I'm sure you are capable of realizing there is a huge difference between the Administration's statements in 2002 with no inkling of skepticism vs. Gore's statements in 1992 with much more evidence supporting his positions.

[I realize this does not address the "essence" of Saddam, ie that he was a bad guy, supported terrorists and so on. But it has to get back to the ultimate justification for war: what threat did Saddam pose at the time - after sanctions and bombings and everything else? Some feel the answer to this question is that the war was justified, others don't. There's little that can be done to resolve our differences now.]

Bush should have treated Dem leaders as liars when they made the warning about Saddam Hussein and WMD/terrorism.

I do wish Dems were more vocal about their skepticism of the administration's claims or had showed more spine and voted against the resolution. They fell for the trap of looking "weak" and thinking it would have electoral consequences. Now I'm playing MMQB.

FDR made a huge mistake at Yalta. Basically he gave away eastern Europe to the Soviet Union in the hope to achieve stability.

I'll use an argument you used against me before (concerning Reagan's withdrawal from Beirut and how it was justified because of the focus on Soviet power). You're drawing a moral equivalence here to validate your reasoning. Our main concern was the War in the Pacific at the time of the Yalta Conference, not the potential for Soviet expansion. Should we have risked losing the War in the Pacific to alienate and potentially escalate hostilities with Russia after an already very bloody and costly war in Europe?

So, yes it may have been a mistake, but we had other, more pressing, concerns which forced our hand (btw, in this Yalta example you're playing MMQB). What was forcing our hand to deal with both sides in the Iran/Iraq war?

So we have followed that realist foreign policy in the ME up until Bush. So now liberals want us to go back to that realist foreign policy.

We still follow it in the Mideast, even in Iraq, one of our few exceptions was taking out Saddam (support for Lebanon being another). As I've already said we support other autocrats like the Sauds and Mubarak as we always have, and now our strategy in Iraq is to arm Sunni militias to assist in the fight against Al Qaeda. Is this the "right" policy, the "realist" policy, or something else? What repercussions will this have - does it mean that the low level civil war will escalate as the sides become more evenly matched? Once these groups take care of Al Qaeda, will they turn around and start using the weapons on us? How does this practice support the fledgling Iraqi democracy by increasing sectarianism and tribalism instead of dismantling it?

So to put it simply, I don't believe the Administration's policies are necessarily all that different from what they historically used to be.

I hope most of the resentme... (Below threshold)
kim:

I hope most of the resentment is over. The Iraqis are recognizing that it is nihilistic extremists promoting the Sunni-Shia divisions. Endgame can be awful.

Neither the mullahs of Iran, the leaders of the Wahabbi, King Abdullah, nor Sistani want the violence to continue. Who else is a player there? Oh yes, we are; overexposed Bobbies in a world righting itself.
========================

Don't give me second tier S... (Below threshold)
kim:

Don't give me second tier Sadr, pouting in the corner. He MAY mature into his father's shoes. Let us pray. Now, he's manuring into them.
==============================

Pop Goes the Weasel!... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Pop Goes the Weasel!

Cirby, let me answer you he... (Below threshold)
jim:

Cirby, let me answer you here:

Let me finish out the quote you so cheesily edited:

"These were the only direct U.S.-Iraqi military sales and were valued to be about 0.6% of Iraq's conventional weapons imports during the war.[34]"

Let me note for you, that in my original post I acknowledged this:

Other nations sold even more

I can understand if you think that this acknowledgement of this is not strong enough. Nevertheless, we took Saddam on as an ally and did a lot to support him; so Gore's earlier criticisms are true and correct.

This also includes the many ways the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations made sure that Iraq had weapons through indirect sources, such as third-world suppliers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29
"U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup"

"Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions."

"...According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." "

Now go read this:
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00776.html

The upshot: being aware that Saddam gassed entire villages of Kurds in 1987-1988, the Bush administration secretly ***increased*** support for Saddam in 1990.

Now, finally, as for your claim that the "dual-use" nature of what was sold Saddam wasn't really a big deal, raving liberal Bob Novak says you're wrong.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20020926/ai_n12473494
(Original article in Chicago Sun-Times)

"An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease- producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American- exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran."

And here's a direct quote from the 1994 US Congress report he's referencing:

"...microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

My point?

a) Reagan and George H.W. Bush supported Saddam Hussein and helped bring him into power. Interestingly, during the exact same period that Reagan and the H.W. Bush team were involved in illegally and secretly selling arms to Iran. (Oh, and also negotiating with terrorists - but that's another story called Iran-Contra.)

b) Therefore, what Gore is saying about H.W. Bush is absolutely historically accurate and a matter of the public record.

c) Clearly, none of this means that invading Iraq was a good idea either.

Actually, plenty of peop... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Actually, plenty of people were saying these sorts of things could happen before the war; for whatever reason, though, they were ignored.
-------------------------------------------------
These same people predicted that the US would 10,000 soldiers in the ground war to take over Iraq from Saddam. The UN predicted that Saddam may unleash a chemical/biological weapons that would devastate the env and the whole ME etc... These predictions didn't come to pass. So you cherry picked the predictions to fit your own view. THat 's cheap. We all work in business. Every plan has pros and cons. Also Turkey didn't allow us to use the base there. So we encountered difficulties and we should abandon the plan because of difficulties?

Bush's rhetoric may be the "right" thing, but unfortunately his actions do not match the rhetoric. Insufficient troop levels; little sacrifice from the general public; weakened US credibility due to Guantanamo, rendition, advocacy for water-boarding, stress positions and other questionable practices; strong and continuing support for rulers like the Sauds due to our oil dependence, yet they are undoubtedly responsible for maintaining the conditions in which the terrorist-mindset thrives; etc.
This is just another example of the dishonesty of the liberals in general. They spent years slandering the US military with phony accusations of torture, yet at the same time completely silent on the real torture by the terrorists. The troop level arg is just another example of the dishonesty of liberals again. Liberals tried to exclude the military from campuses around the country so that they can't recruit more people. This is doublespeak again. Also it means that Clinton decimated the military to such an extent that we didn't have enough troops for the IRaq operation as you claimed!

Now, did we know for sure that Saddam had lost his capability? No. But the Administration spoke with absolute certainty the other way, they said they knew for sure Saddam had WMDs. They knew he had an active nuclear program. And now we know they were wrong (and many suspected as such in 2002). I'm sure you are capable of realizing there is a huge difference between the Administration's statements in 2002 with no inkling of skepticism vs. Gore's statements in 1992 with much more evidence supporting his positions.
Here is a list of what Dem leaders said from 1998-2003. You can say that they lied. Dems seem to speak on both sides of their mouth
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/stacks/democrat.guest.html
An example:
Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002


"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002


"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

I'll use an argument you used against me before (concerning Reagan's withdrawal from Beirut and how it was justified because of the focus on Soviet power). You're drawing a moral equivalence here to validate your reasoning. Our main concern was the War in the Pacific at the time of the Yalta Conference, not the potential for Soviet expansion. Should we have risked losing the War in the Pacific to alienate and potentially escalate hostilities with Russia after an already very bloody and costly war in Europe?
Why did FDR have to give Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union? Are we fighting the common enemy in the Pacific? I said Reagan made a mistake in withdrawing from Beirut. FDR simply made a much bigger mistake. That 's the realist foreign policy. Bush changed that now and he should praised for it according to your standard. If you are intellectualy honest, we should be able to agree that Bush did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein and trying to build democracy there. One country at a time, right.

BTW, the args that Al Gore used can be applied to Iran today wrt sanctions etc... So again Al Gore condemned the very policy that liberals are advocating towards Iran today.


It could also be, Jim, t... (Below threshold)
jim:

It could also be, Jim, that without the benefit of 20-20 foresight (kind of like 20-20 hindsight, without having to wait) they all just muddle through as best they can.

The problem is, it wasn't even foresight, in 1980! This could be clearly seen to be a lousy policy that would produce trouble for us, in 1980. We had just been through this with Iran. (Who we later were also secretly and illegally selling arms to, at the same time! It's enough to make one's head spin.)

In Iran in the 1970's, we supported a strongarm dictator, the Shah, against his people. He so oppressed and angered them that they overthrew him and kicked him out - and then we put him back in **again**. Then finally when he was overthrown, and the Iranians selected a government they felt could be sure **not** to be our puppet - an Islamic theocracy that stated publicly it wanted our destruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_relations

We've supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, before they went nuts and turned against us. We've supported other strongarm dictators constantly, throughout the world. Pinochet, Batista in Cuba (resulting in Castro), Suharto in Indonesia, etc. etc.

Now in the 21st century, we're supporting brutal strongarm dictator ***freaks*** like the President of Uzbekistan, who enjoys ***boiling people alive****.

How's that going to play in a few years, when his people finally overthrow him? Think his people are going to be grateful to us and love us? Would you?

We always want to forget about how he got into all of these places. But forgetting about the past really does doom us to repeat it.

My point?a) Reagan... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

My point?

a) Reagan and George H.W. Bush supported Saddam Hussein and helped bring him into power. Interestingly, during the exact same period that Reagan and the H.W. Bush team were involved in illegally and secretly selling arms to Iran. (Oh, and also negotiating with terrorists - but that's another story called Iran-Contra.)

b) Therefore, what Gore is saying about H.W. Bush is absolutely historically accurate and a matter of the public record.

c) Clearly, none of this means that invading Iraq was a good idea either.
--------------------------------------------------
It simply means that Al Gore is either dumb or dishonest. He was so dumb that he didn't know Carter had helped the mullah gain power in Iran and the mullahs had declared war on the US by invading our embassy and held our diplomats hostages. He was so dumb to know that FDR basically gave away Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union! Also we were fighting the Soviet Union at the time. INn 1992, Bush was contrained by the UN resolution not to invade Iraq and he listened to all the args that liberals are trying to use today not to invade Iraq.

Simply put: Al Gore is dishonest. And liberals today still defend him and Clinton. That 's a shame.

Here is a link for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein


In foreign affairs, Saddam sought to have Iraq play a leading role in the Middle East. Iraq signed an aid pact with the Soviet Union in 1972, and arms were sent along with several thousand advisers. However, the 1978 crackdown on Iraqi Communists [8] and a shift of trade toward the West strained Iraqi relations with the Soviet Union, which took on a more Western orientation from then until the Persian Gulf War in 1991.


So Jim, what you are say... (Below threshold)
jim:

So Jim, what you are saying is that as an ally of Iraq, the US purchased Soviet equipment for Saddam?

And sold him our equipment, and allowed our companies to sell him dual-use equipment, and dual-use chemical and biological materials, and got him credit, and extended his credit, and more.

Clinton shook hands with the leader of Red China but that didn't make them allies, or did it?

You tell me? Incidentally, Bush Jr. has continued all the same policies of Clinton's administration towards China.

Because we favored what we thought was the least of two evils does not make us allies of either.

Direct public support, secret support, direct and indirect aid, and taking one of those allies off the terrorist watch list, **does** make us an ally of a country.

Clearly, we did this because it was in our best interests. However, we didn't cease this support after the end of the Iran-Iraq war; we increased it, even after he gassed his own people.

Jim, Iran declared ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Iran declared war on us. So Saddam is fighting Iran for us instead of our military. Was that your whole arg about the troops? Were the mullahs gone after the Iran-Iraq war? Was the Soviet Union gone after the Iran-Iraq war?
So now Bush Jr. took care of him and tried to build democracy there. You guys should be happy. You cannot speak on both sides of your mouth.
Still Algore is dishonest as Clinton, Biden ... Kuicinich is the only consistent anti-war and anti-American guy. So you should choose him as your pres. candidate.

He was so dumb that he d... (Below threshold)
jim:

He was so dumb that he didn't know Carter had helped the mullah gain power in Iran and the mullahs had declared war on the US by invading our embassy and held our diplomats hostages.

Was he so dumb that Reagan was also secretly selling Iran weapons and negotiating with terrorists?

He was so dumb to know that FDR basically gave away Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union! Also we were fighting the Soviet Union at the time.

Please explain how this is possibly relevant, to whether or not Gore was telling the truth about H. W. Bush or W. Bush.

INn 1992, Bush was contrained by the UN resolution not to invade Iraq

Funny, George H. W. Bush never even mentioend that UN resolution. Here's why he thought invading Iraq would be a bad idea:

http://www.millat.com/ghalibcom/events/iraq98/why_we_didnt_remove_saddam_.htm

(incidentally, this was originally published in Time, but has now been removed. So much for the liberal media...)

"...While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. ...The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well....Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

...We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.

and he listened to all the args that liberals are trying to use today not to invade Iraq.

Wow, so it's ***liberals*** fault. See, here I thought George H.W. Bush was a grown-up man with his own mind.

Incidentally, it's turned out that all those arguments were accurate. Ooops.

Iran declared war on us.... (Below threshold)
jim:

Iran declared war on us.

And we were still selling them weapons. Incidentally, wouldn't that make the Reagan administration traitors for Iran-Contra? Why or why not?

So now Bush Jr. took car... (Below threshold)
jim:

So now Bush Jr. took care of him and tried to build democracy there.

No, he's trying to build another puppet regime there.

You guys should be happy. You cannot speak on both sides of your mouth.

What, because one policy turned out to be a terrible idea, that means another policy can't also be a terrible idea?

Addendum to above - Bush di... (Below threshold)
jim:

Addendum to above - Bush did mention the UN resolution in that article. My apologies for posting too quickly.

LAI:These same ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

LAI:

These same people predicted that the US would 10,000 soldiers in the ground war to take over Iraq from Saddam.

The same people that said we would need ~400,000 troops to occupy and stabilize Iraq post-war(General Eric Shinseki, Former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb, Former President GHW Bush, Former Sec of State Zbigniew Brzinski, etc.) also said we would only need 10,000 to take over Iraq? I think you're a bit confused.

The UN predicted that Saddam may unleash a chemical/biological weapons that would devastate the env and the whole ME etc.

The important word there is "may". If he had them, he may have used them. That is merely a precautionary statement to warn our army of the potential dangers it would face. It is not a definitive statement like Rumsfeld's where he said: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

These predictions didn't come to pass. So you cherry picked the predictions to fit your own view.

No, I looked at the predictions of experienced military and political experts, not partisan hacks.

So we encountered difficulties and we should abandon the plan because of difficulties?

If the difficulties mean the penalties for action are greater than the rewards, than yes, you abandon the plan.

They spent years slandering the US military with phony accusations of torture, yet at the same time completely silent on the real torture by the terrorists.

All torture is wrong. Saddam's torture rooms, Al Qaeda's training manual, whatever else you can come up with. Now, I do realize there are "degrees" of torture, and that the practices the US currently uses are not as brutal, but that does not excuse them. We are not terrorists and should not use terrorist behavior as our basis for comparison.

The troop level arg is just another example of the dishonesty of liberals again. Liberals tried to exclude the military from campuses around the country so that they can't recruit more people. This is doublespeak again. Also it means that Clinton decimated the military to such an extent that we didn't have enough troops for the IRaq operation as you claimed!

The problem with this argument is that the all volunteer army was never constructed to be able to maintain a sizable occupation force for a significant period of time, it was not Clinton alone who did this. It is the basic premise of our current military strategy. If you don't realize this you're deceiving yourself about what our military capabilities are. That is why Rumsfeld attempted to carry out this war on the light and cheap because he was trying to "transform" the military to a smaller and more mobile force. That is why GHW Bush recruited many other countries to help in 1991. That is why Clinton worked with NATO in Kosovo (the same for GW Bush in Afghanistan). It is why we work through the UN to enforce sanctions. An invasion and occupation as was needed for Iraq either required a draft or the assistance of many other countries which we either did not receive and/or they were not committed for the long haul, and now we are stuck with the bill.

Here is a list of what Dem leaders said from 1998-2003. You can say that they lied. Dems seem to speak on both sides of their mouth

I already said I was very disappointed in the Dems pre-war. But that does not change the fact that there were many knowledgeable people saying the intel was suspect, the strategy was flawed, the planning was inadequate, etc. who I was listening to and not the Dems.

The last month and a half h... (Below threshold)
kim:

The last month and a half have been transformational over there. Y'all are arguing outdated talking points and busted paradigms. The Sunni and the Shia fundamentally don't want to keep beating each other up, and fortunately, Sistani and Abdullah will get us out of there before we rightfully get blamed for stirring up the Sunni-Shia horror, blame correctly placed over Saddam's grave.
==========================

Oh, yeah, and correctly lai... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oh, yeah, and correctly laid on al-Qaeda, too, particularly after we deposed Saddam. So yes, it is a very tight rope we must walk. I am certain that Sistani is in good faith, and I'm pretty certain the nine million enfranchised Iraqi voters are in good faith. I wish we all were.

But I'm beginning to have faith in the legal system with respect to Libby. A twelve member jury of Walton's and Fitz's peers has rendered their judgement, and Walton's been led spitting out the door, chagrined.
=========================

George H. W. Bush never eve... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

George H. W. Bush never even mentioend that UN resolution.
------------------------------------------------
Jim,
From your own source here
>Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.
Is that what liberals advocated? At the same time, criticizing him for not taking out Saddam. Basically Al Gore gave that big speech and the implication is that Bush Sr. should have removed Saddam. Is this not talking on both sides of your mouth?

LAI, no - because Al Gore i... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, no - because Al Gore is not accusing H.W. Bush of not invading, he's pointing out H. W. Bush's long involvement with aiding and supporting Saddam.

Slice it any way you want, those words are not there.

The last month and a hal... (Below threshold)
jim:

The last month and a half have been transformational over there.

That sure will be nice, if true. But we've been repeatedly assured that everything will be just awesome and peace is just around the corner, since the week of the invasion. So forgive me if I remain skeptical.

Ok, SeanThese same p... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Ok, Sean
These same people predicted that the US would LOSE 10,000 soldiers in the ground war to take over Iraq from Saddam. That didn't come to pass. So did they apologize for that prediction?

The same people that said we would need ~400,000 troops to occupy and stabilize Iraq post-war
------------------------------------------------
They are apparently wrong. They were wrong about the ground war in Iraq. So you cherry pick their prediction again. We are doing a fine job so far. The terrorists are encouraged to fight on because of all the talk about losing the war whenever the terrorists blowing up more women/children. We hear about Guatanamo/Abu Graihb every day for several years. Why not spending that effort in the PR war against the terrorists?


They spent years slandering the US military with phony accusations of torture, yet at the same time completely silent on the real torture by the terrorists.

All torture is wrong. Saddam's torture rooms, Al Qaeda's training manual, whatever else you can come up with. Now, I do realize there are "degrees" of torture, and that the practices the US currently uses are not as brutal, but that does not excuse them. We are not terrorists and should not use terrorist behavior as our basis for comparison.
-------------------------------------------------
The point is why liberals don't spend any effort to condemn the terrorists and shame them into the corner? Silence is more than condoning. I expect the liberals to loudly condemn the terrorists now. It is a PR war, and we should demand that at the very least.

The troop level arg is just another example of the dishonesty of liberals again. Liberals tried to exclude the military from campuses around the country so that they can't recruit more people. This is doublespeak again. Also it means that Clinton decimated the military to such an extent that we didn't have enough troops for the IRaq operation as you claimed!

The problem with this argument is that the all volunteer army was never constructed to be able to maintain a sizable occupation force for a significant period of time, it was not Clinton alone who did this. It is the basic premise of our current military strategy. If you don't realize this you're deceiving yourself about what our military capabilities are. That is why Rumsfeld attempted to carry out this war on the light and cheap because he was trying to "transform" the military to a smaller and more mobile force. That is why GHW Bush recruited many other countries to help in 1991. That is why Clinton worked with NATO in Kosovo (the same for GW Bush in Afghanistan). It is why we work through the UN to enforce sanctions. An invasion and occupation as was needed for Iraq either required a draft or the assistance of many other countries which we either
-------------------------------------------------
We were supposed to be able to fight two major regional wars during the cold war. What happened to that army under Clinton? Remember the IRaq war happened only 1 year after Bush took office and Rumsfeld didn't reduce any troops in that year!
The countries that were willing to FIGHT in Afghan already in IRaq with us (Britain, Poland etc...). YOu don't count France do you?
The UN predicted that Saddam may unleash a chemical/biological weapons that would devastate the env and the whole ME etc.

The important word there is "may". If he had them, he may have used them. That is merely a precautionary statement to warn our army of the potential dangers it would face. It is not a definitive statement like Rumsfeld's where he said: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west,south and north somewhat."
-------------------------------------------------
This is cheap Monday morning quarterback. Did any expert absolutely claim that the US military need not have chemical suits? Why did the US military put on the suit every time there was a scud attack?

LAI, no - because Al Gore i... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, no - because Al Gore is not accusing H.W. Bush of not invading, he's pointing out H. W. Bush's long involvement with aiding and supporting Saddam.
----------------------------------------------
He didn't mention that Bush was trying to deal with the mullah's problem created by Carter, did he?

LAI, no - because Al Gore i... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, no - because Al Gore is not accusing H.W. Bush of not invading, he's pointing out H. W. Bush's long involvement with aiding and supporting Saddam.
--------------------------------------------------
Also unless you mean that Al Gore is all talk. The logical conclusion of that big talk is to take action to correct it, right? Or you simply say that Al is all talk for the sake of politics.

I already said I was very d... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I already said I was very disappointed in the Dems pre-war. But that does not change the fact that there were many knowledgeable people saying the intel was suspect, the strategy was flawed, the planning was inadequate, etc. who I was listening to and not the Dems.
------------------------------------------------
Just like FDR didn't adequately plan for WW2. So he had to give away Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union. FDR made far bigger mistakes compared to Bush. But we conservatives always give FDR the credit for fighting the fascists. You go to war with the current capability you have as required by conditions on the ground. Churchill was against the Yalta agreement, but FDR went ahead in any case. We gave Truman the credit the cold war containment. Liberals are simply not honest enough to give Bush the credit for removing Saddam Hussein and try to undermine him every step along the way. The Reps were much more honorable when it came to foreign policy wrt FDR and Truman.

Also unless you mean tha... (Below threshold)
jim:

Also unless you mean that Al Gore is all talk. The logical conclusion of that big talk is to take action to correct it, right? Or you simply say that Al is all talk for the sake of politics.

HUh?

LAI, please explain how H.W. Bush's ****actions***, not talk, that supported Saddam, means that W. Bush's ***actions**** invading Iraq must be right.

And please explain how Al Gore saying both their actions were stupid, must be contradictory.

He didn't mention that B... (Below threshold)
jim:

He didn't mention that Bush was trying to deal with the mullah's problem created by Carter, did he?

I don't think he did. So? How does that make Al Gore wrong in what he did say, about either H.W. or W.?

Oh, and the 8 years before ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, and the 8 years before Bush was Reagan, not Carter. During which you may recall both the Iran-Iraq war and Iran-Contra. FYI.

LAI, please explain how H.W... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, please explain how H.W. Bush's ****actions***, not talk, that supported Saddam, means that W. Bush's ***actions**** invading Iraq must be right.
-------------------------------------------------
Biden told you that already and you didn't listen. Biden just followed Al Gore logic here

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002


"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

LAI:Why did FDR... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

LAI:

Why did FDR have to give Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union? Are we fighting the common enemy in the Pacific?

Why? Because what if we didn't give them Eastern Europe? Would it have escalated into another war? Would Russia and Japan have found some way join forces to oppose us? None of these can be known but there were legitimate reasons for not picking a fight here.

Now, you may be right that this was a bigger mistake than Reagan's, but I would also argue that it is also more excusable than Reagan's withdrawal from Beirut. FDR had just lost several hundred thousand men, had a hot war in the Pacific, and the entire continent of Europe to rebuild. What were Reagan's excuses?

Bush changed that now and he should praised for it according to your standard. If you are intellectualy honest, we should be able to agree that Bush did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein and trying to build democracy there. One country at a time, right.

Bush changed the policy towards one country temporarily, yet it was not even the countries that were (and still are) causing the majority of the problems with respect to terrorism (Saudi Arabia and Iran). Also, his proposed solution didn't exactly work out too well and some could argue it has made problems worse.

So, again, look at the whole picture. Your simplistic view of things makes things much easier to understand and accept, but it's not sufficient for this discussion.

BTW, the args that Al Gore used can be applied to Iran today wrt sanctions etc... So again Al Gore condemned the very policy that liberals are advocating towards Iran today.

Who has Iran recently invaded? Who are they using chemical weapons on? Are there genocides taking place in the country while receiving covert support from the US? Is the comparison between Iran and Iraq really valid? If you believe so, why?

I don't think he did. So? H... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I don't think he did. So? How does that make Al Gore wrong in what he did say, about either H.W. or W.?
-------------------------------------------------
Yes, because it is a dishonest attack. Just like you accuse someone of murder. Yet you never mentioned that that person killed in an act of self defense.

Carter allowed the mullahs to gain power in Iran. Reagan and Bush Sr. had to deal with that problem in addition to all other domestic problems we had to deal with (inflation, economic stagnation) and international problems (Soviet expansion in Angola, Nicaragua ...).


Now, you may be right that ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Now, you may be right that this was a bigger mistake than Reagan's, but I would also argue that it is also more excusable than Reagan's withdrawal from Beirut. FDR had just lost several hundred thousand men, had a hot war in the Pacific, and the entire continent of Europe to rebuild. What were Reagan's excuses?
-------------------------------------------------
Reagan had to deal with the problems left behind by Carter: the Soviet expansion in Niacargua here right in our hemisphere, Angola, etc... Reagan had to rebuild the army after VN war and Carter in addition to all the domestic problems left by Carter. He had to deal with Iran, another problem left by Carter. Do you want to push the whole ME towards the Soviet Union during this time?

Still it shows that FDR didn't adequately plan for WW2. He should have known that the Soviet Union was always a threat in any case so he should plan for that all along. Besides Germany didn't attack us, why not focus our forces in the Pacific to take care of Japan who did attack us. If we focused on Japan, we could have wrapped up the war much quicker using liberal logic.


BTW, the args that Al Gore ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, the args that Al Gore used can be applied to Iran today wrt sanctions etc... So again Al Gore condemned the very policy that liberals are advocating towards Iran today.

Who has Iran recently invaded? Who are they using chemical weapons on? Are there genocides taking place in the country while receiving covert support from the US? Is the comparison between Iran and Iraq really valid? If you believe so, why?
----------------------------------------------
Iran invaded our embassy and funded the Hezobollah terrorists that attacked our military at Beirut. You blamed Reagan for withdrawal from Beirut. So this was his way to get back at the Iranian for attacking us. You should support this using your own logic now.

"[H]e does have the capa... (Below threshold)
jim:

"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

LAI, your own quotes don't even support ***your*** argument.

If anything, Biden is saying there ***isn't*** a need to invade Iraq.

Yes, because it is a dis... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yes, because it is a dishonest attack. Just like you accuse someone of murder. Yet you never mentioned that that person killed in an act of self defense.

Neither Bush is accused of committing a crime. Both are accused of doing stupid things.

Whether or not an action is stupid, has nothing to do with whether or not it was done for self-defense, or for any other reason.

It is either stupid, or not.

"[H]e does have the capacit... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

LAI, your own quotes don't even support ***your*** argument.

If anything, Biden is saying there ***isn't*** a need to invade Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------
Jim,
Biden said that Saddam needs to be removed and he voted to support military operation, right! Al Gore said that sanctions wouldn't work against someone like Saddam. With the oil-for-food bribery scheme in place, sanctions would fail.
Do I have to lay out every details for you now?

Neither Bush is accused of ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Neither Bush is accused of committing a crime.
-----------------------------------------------
Al Gore basically accused Bush of being so evil/greedy that he turned a blind eye towards Saddam attrocities. No way around it. He didn't say that Bush was stupid and didn't know what he was doing. Al Gore said that Bush knew and ignored.

LAI, the argument is about ... (Below threshold)
jim:

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

Joe Biden's statement has nothing to do with that.

LAI, it is a ****fact**** t... (Below threshold)
jim:

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.

LAI, the argument is about ... (Below threshold)
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."

LAI, it is a ****fact**** t... (Below threshold)
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.

More GoreAl Gore >... (Below threshold)
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..."

"Iraq's search for weapo... (Below threshold)
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?

Just throw up one lousy ... (Below threshold)
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.

Oh, and in neither of your ... (Below threshold)
jim:

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

But, where in that above do... (Below threshold)
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?

LAI, your accusations of me... (Below threshold)
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.

Jim, Again, you are... (Below threshold)
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.

Again, you are trying to... (Below threshold)
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.

It breaks down like this, L... (Below threshold)
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... (Below threshold)

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!

So, if I read you correc... (Below threshold)
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.

The Dems wanted al-Qaeda ta... (Below threshold)
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.
=======================

Jim, YOu are still ... (Below threshold)
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 hi... (Below threshold)

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?

So, if the weapons and t... (Below threshold)
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.

YOu are still trying to ... (Below threshold)
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.

The Dems wanted al-Qaeda... (Below threshold)
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.

Hyperbole, be thy name. </... (Below threshold)
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?
===============================

Well Kim, that's a differen... (Below threshold)
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.

jim, some friendly advice: ... (Below threshold)
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

the dems could not be more ... (Below threshold)
jp:

the dems could not be more blind and ostrich like

more Gore hypocrisy and fai... (Below threshold)
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

jp, That is a good ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

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

Moved to Syria with the ... (Below threshold)
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." '

jp, that quote still shows ... (Below threshold)
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.

Kim: "Interesting, isn't it... (Below threshold)
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.

I think the Clinton adminis... (Below threshold)
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.

Al Gore:September ... (Below threshold)
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)

Al Gore:December 1... (Below threshold)
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)

Al Gore:. Sadd... (Below threshold)
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)

I think the Clinton admi... (Below threshold)
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?

Al Gore:Feb... (Below threshold)
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)

jp, you do realize that the... (Below threshold)
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.

For those here who keep vom... (Below threshold)
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!

Jim is simply dense. He has... (Below threshold)
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.

the only way you could be '... (Below threshold)
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...

So, in essence, you guys ha... (Below threshold)
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.

No, Jim, you're the one who... (Below threshold)
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...

Ah, but this was 1992 and n... (Below threshold)
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.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy