Al Gore 15 Years ago on Iraq Terror

RMNIXON · 06-14-2007, 01:19 PM

YouTube - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

I guess he had no real problem with his boss giving them another 8 years or more to change their behavior? What a nice forgiving man he is not to demand to much tough action after being in office......and note the intelligence reports Bush Sr. ignored! We don't want doubts about that kind of information do we?

Something "leaps from the page" alright!

JaJae · 06-14-2007, 01:25 PM

He sounds like a modern conservative. Nuclear weapons, poison gas, can't be friends with Saddam, etc.

RMNIXON · 06-14-2007, 01:33 PM

Just think if Bush did not invade Iraq Al Gore could have used this same speech in a 2004 run for President with minor changes.

If you think I am joking listen again with that in mind.......

Roonie · 06-14-2007, 02:03 PM

What can possibly be the point of posting this now 15 years later when a lot has happened in between???

Are you that obsessed or desperate?

JaJae · 06-14-2007, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

What can possibly be the point of posting this now 15 years later when a lot has happened in between???

Are you that obsessed or desperate?

What changed in Iraq between that speech and W's inauguration? An aspirin factory got bombed?

Roonie · 06-14-2007, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What changed in Iraq between that speech and W's inauguration? An aspirin factory got bombed?

Again speech is 15 years ago!!! Move on.

Pathetic.

JaJae · 06-14-2007, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Again speech is 15 years ago!!! Move on.

Again, what has changed since that speech and W's inauguration? Nobody is forced to participate in this discussion. There are other threads.

This is a man who could be running for the next president of the United States and likely would be a front runner the primaries. He has been of the position that Bush lied about Iraq and that Saddam/Iraq weren't an imminent threat. Yet here he is stating the exact opposite. Nothing changed since this speech and now.

Just as people pulled videos from Kerry/Bush from the past and old skeletons out of the closet for other politicians running for president, this is no different.

The reality is this exact speech could very well have been given by Bill O'Rielly today.

Donkey® · 06-14-2007, 03:13 PM

None of these people had accurate intelligence to draw ANY serious conclusions on. The difference is that people like Gore were TALKING...not making decisions based on that shitty intelligence. Bush made the decision to take us to war. There's a huge difference.

nbiggershaft · 06-14-2007, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Again, what has changed since that speech and W's inauguration? Nobody is forced to participate in this discussion. There are other threads.

This is a man who could be running for the next president of the United States and likely would be a front runner the primaries. He has been of the position that Bush lied about Iraq and that Saddam/Iraq weren't an imminent threat. Yet here he is stating the exact opposite. Nothing changed since this speech and now.

Just as people pulled videos from Kerry/Bush from the past and old skeletons out of the closet for other politicians running for president, this is no different.

The reality is this exact speech could very well have been given by Bill O'Rielly today.

Pay attention to the context. He is talking about the 80's and our support of Iraq.

Scrum · 06-14-2007, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What changed in Iraq between that speech and W's inauguration? An aspirin factory got bombed?

Years of sanctions. Expiration of chemical weapons we sold him. Lack of funds to develop his own weapons.

JaJae · 06-14-2007, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Years of sanctions.

Which had no apparent effect on his foreign policy.

Whether or not he still had chemical weapons was fairly conclusive by Al Gore even before Bush took office. And Saddam had the funds.

There was no great change in Iraq between the time he gave that speech until Bush took office. He could have given that same speech when he ran against Bush without changing more than two sentences.

JaJae · 06-14-2007, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Pay attention to the context. He is talking about the 80's and our support of Iraq.

He's talking about a lot more than that. He's being critical of our policies leading up to Desert Storm. Which in retrospect what he was being critical about then is exactly what he's arguing we shouldn't have done now. The only major thing that changed since that speech is 9/11 and Bush invaded Iraq... with dual party support. And since then the invasion has not gone well at all and many politicians are pretending to have been against it from the start.

He was correct in most of what he was saying in this speech. And it still holds true today. If Ron Paul had been the one saying this we'd all be saying "That figures." But Al Gore? It seems like a slight shift of opinion.

AVengeance · 06-14-2007, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

None of these people had accurate intelligence to draw ANY serious conclusions on. The difference is that people like Gore were TALKING...not making decisions based on that shitty intelligence. Bush made the decision to take us to war. There's a huge difference.

No difference. It's all good-cop bad-cop. 9/11 would have happened if Gore were president. Gore would have gone to war with Iraq. We'd still be at war with Iraq. The UN uses the US military as its pit bull to propogate its communist One World Government. What took place would have taken place unless we had the balls to kick the UN the fuck off our soverign nation.

Thorgrim · 06-14-2007, 04:51 PM

Please, what is your evidence that Al Gore would have sent 150,000 soldiers to occupy Iraq?

Joe_Cool · 06-14-2007, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Again speech is 15 years ago!!! Move on.

Pathetic.

"That's old!" is only a valid argument if something has changed. So what was different?

Thorgrim · 06-14-2007, 05:05 PM

With the cold war ending not even a year ago, we were still practically in the Cold War

I'd say that's one huge fucking difference

The biggest difference is probably that Saddam had an active terrorist program, that dissolved under Clinton's diplomacy, you can see that real terrorism as when Iraq tried to kill Bush I

Also, Iraq was just beginning to dismantle it WMD program, that was quite active 91-92

I could go on and on, but I get the strange sensation that no one cares...how someone felt about a situation 15 years ago must dictate how they believe about a different situation over a decade later

RMNIXON · 06-14-2007, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Again speech is 15 years ago!!! Move on.

Pathetic.

Did somebody here force you to listen?

RMNIXON · 06-14-2007, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

None of these people had accurate intelligence to draw ANY serious conclusions on. The difference is that people like Gore were TALKING...not making decisions based on that shitty intelligence. Bush made the decision to take us to war. There's a huge difference.

It was September 1992. If it were not a case for the Election of Gore and Clinton who would do things different, not ignor intelligence as he suggests, then what was it about?

RMNIXON · 06-14-2007, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Pay attention to the context. He is talking about the 80's and our support of Iraq.

He mentions the period leading up to the Gulf War and after from the start. The target of the remarks are Bush Sr. not Reagan.....

nbiggershaft · 06-14-2007, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

He mentions the period leading up to the Gulf War and after from the start. The target of the remarks are Bush Sr. not Reagan.....

It's true, but for the most part he is saying Bush Sr. was a big influence in assisting Iraq. Much like people call Cheney a Hawk.
Gore says over and over again in his speech, Saddam did this and we looked the other way, Saddam did that and we looked the other way. All of which is true.
His position has never changed that Saddam was a bad guy and someone we shouldn't prop up.
Since our invasion of Iraq all Gore has said is that the immediate threat was a dishonest arguement, as was that Al Queda and 911 were linked to Saddam was a dishonest arguement.

There is no hypocrisy here. Don't give money and weapons to a terrible man does not mean pre-emptive invasion and occupation.