Algore would have invaded Iraq

Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq? Definitely, concludes new study


Kelly McParland: Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq? Definitely, concludes new study - Full Comment

More revisionist history?

You loonies just don't stop, do you?

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen

When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was the world's most unhinged lunatic. He's now dead. So that moves Ann Coulter up to first place - David Letterman

O, when she is angry she is keen and shrewd; / She was a vixen when she went to school, / And though she be but little, she is fierce. — Shakespeare

Ah - the comic relief has arrived early from Daily Kos...

Interestingly, I've never been on DailyKos or any other site like that.
Wingnuts like you assume that others must inhabit wingnut sites.

Frankly, I just have little patience for stupidity like you posted.

Happy Holidays.

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen

When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was the world's most unhinged lunatic. He's now dead. So that moves Ann Coulter up to first place - David Letterman

O, when she is angry she is keen and shrewd; / She was a vixen when she went to school, / And though she be but little, she is fierce. — Shakespeare

You should go - they sound just like you...

could Al have done worse?

hey, at least those Iraqi's would have twisty light bulbs by now.....

Has anyone asked Al Gore?

What would that prove after the fact?

What else have they got to work with?

Is there no literature available at the time of invasion of whether or not he approved of it?

Don't know. But he had made statements that he believed that Saddam had WMDs and would use them. The Democrat leadership had access to the same intel as the administration and they also believed Saddam had WMDs and was willing to use them. The head of the CIA was a Clinton-Gore appointment and he assured Bush the intel was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had WMDs.

So does it make sense that Algore would listen to his own CIA head whom he had a hand in appointing? Yeah it makes sense...

Yes I have seen the quotes from 2002 but that still doesn't mean he supported the invasion.
Wrong. I thought this argument died a long time ago. Here are just five of several arguments that dispute this claim.
Not all of them did. There were a few who didn't. Congress failed. Only six members read any of the intelligence. The rest relied on Bush's word.
Yet all the UNMOVIC inspectors had already announced that Saddam gave up his WMD programs. Political analyst Ralph Whitehead said it best about Tenet: "Tenet's statement is so clear, direct, assertive and just completely wrong".
It makes sense but it's still only speculation.

This is why I'd rather go to the horse's mouth

Al Gore said in September of 2002:
He did not support the war in Iraq.


Couldn't post links because of:

you could post the site without making it a link

__________________

Bush is an idiot.

And before you start whining, of course this thread is about Bush. Incompetent Excuse for Bush #472: Someone else would have done what he did.

Actually the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, regardless of who became president.


If not invasion of Iraq - then what?!?

If you thought the invasion of Iraq was the incorrect decision, what would you have recommended president Bush do?


Here's the situation in March, 2003 that you and the president were faced with:


1. Saddam had refused to live up to the conditions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the final in a long list of UN resolutions Saddam had ignored since 1991 (*1).


2. The UN Oil for Food Program was rife with corruption, with Saddam buying off international players to get around UN sanctions against Iraq (*2).


3. Intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam was hiding quantities of WMDs and desired to develop more (*3).


4. Intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam had harbored, trained and funded international terrorists in the past and desired to do so again (*4).


5. Evidence and intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam had in the past, and was continuing to mass murder the Iraqi population (*5).


7. Evidence and intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam was not cooperating with agreed upon UN sanctions on Iraq, and the Oil for Food Program, resulting in additional hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths as a result of malnutrition and a lack of medicine and healthcare (*6).


8. 71% of congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (*7). Among the many reasons given to justify the attack on Iraq the Resolution included:


- the continuing repression and murdering of Iraq's civilian population


- the continuing support of international terrorist organizations and harboring of terrorists


- the refusal of Saddam Hussein to fully cooperate in the discovery and removal of weapons of mass destruction programs as proscribed by UN Resolution 1441 and previous UN resolutions


9. Many prominent Democrats (including those in the know from the previous administration) had pronounced that Saddam was hiding WMDs and desired to develop more (*8).


Here is what the invasion of Iraq produced:


Iraq is no longer a rogue nation, threatening its neighbors, and harboring, training and funding terrorism. It is no longer a WMD threat. Though many Iraqis have died since the beginning of the conflict (*9), undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been saved from certain death through starvation, lack of medicine and Saddam's mass murdering. Major terrorism against the West has been reduced, with no further attacks on American soil (*10). Unfortunately there has been a cost of some thousands of coalition troops, hundreds of billions of dollars, and damage to America's international reputation.


Here are your alternatives of going to war:


1. Continue with the status quo. Ignore that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, thus proving both the UN and the U.S.A. impotent. Ignore that the UN Oil for Food Program had been completely corrupted, and keep the sanctions in place thus allowing the additional deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of medicine as a result of Saddam diverting the Oil for Food Program money to building his palaces and his military, and buying off international players to get around the sanctions. With no international presence Saddam would be free to do as he pleased within Iraq, including further rebuilding his military capabilities, developing new WMDs, training new terrorism recruits, financing international terrorism, advising terrorist organizations on the development and use of WMDs, and continue to mass murder and starve the Iraqi people. Other rogue nations and terrorist groups would certainly see this as a sign of weakness in the West and a signal to accelerate their aggression.


2. Lift the UN sanctions against Iraq and allow Saddam to freely participate in worldwide trade and commerce. This might eventually save hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from certain death brought on by starvation and lack of medicine, depending on whether Saddam diverted money to these problems. But it would not necessarily halt Saddam's mass murdering. It would also allow Saddam to develop his oil fields, bringing in huge profits to be spent as he pleased. Of course this would include building his military, developing his WMD programs, including reconstituting his nuclear weapons program, and resuming his harboring, training and funding of international terrorism. This would most certainly have been seen by other rogue countries and terrorist groups as a complete capitulation by the West, and that America and the West could be defeated.


So now what is your choice? The cost of the war has undoubtedly been high for America in terms of casualties, money and reputation. But what of the costs of the alternatives? Would either alternative have saved casualties, money or America's reputation? 9/11 alone cost America over 3,000 of her citizens and almost two trillion dollars in the financial markets (*11). Would have being branded as paper tigers reduced the likelihood of further terrorist attacks on American soil and throughout the world? Or would it have encouraged even more terrorism, especially with an emboldened Saddam Hussein harboring, training and financing further terrorism, and potentially supplying terrorist groups with WMDs? And what of Iraq's innocent citizens? After the fiasco of the hundreds of thousands mass murdered in Rwanda (*12), and the hundreds of thousands of already needless deaths in Iraq, would you have been willing to turn your back on hundreds of thousands more in Iraq? These were your choices: Invasion with thousands of casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and a suffering of America's reputation. Or a retreating America seen as ripe for defeat by emboldened rogue nations and terror groups, likely resulting in increased worldwide terrorism, maybe eventually with Saddam supplied WMDs. No doubt that WMD terror attacks would have spawned new wars and destroyed the worldwide economy if the response to 9/11 is any indication. And would Libya and North Korea have voluntarily given up their nuclear weapons programs? Not likely. Can anyone reasonably argue that the world would be safer and more stable if Saddam had been allowed to continue as ruler of Iraq? (*13)


(*1) resolution 1441 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Resolution_1441

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikisource


(*2) oil for food Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USATODAY.com - U.S. weapons report details corruption of oil-for-food program


(*3) intelligence WMDs Fred Hiatt - 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. - washingtonpost.com

American Thinker: Play President, Real Threats


(*4) intelligence terrorists Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism

The Big Picture

Saddam's Terror Training Camps


(*5) intelligence mass murder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_Iraq

Saddam Hussein killer file

USAID: Assistance for Iraq - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves


(*6) intelligence starvation Iraq blames UN sanctions for 1.5 million deaths

Archived Weblog Entry - 05/23/2003: "Doctors say Hussein, not UN sanctions, caused children's deaths"

A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions | | AlterNet


(*7) congressional authorization Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Thinker: Who Lied About Iraq?


(*8) Democrat quotes Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0 - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)


(*9) Iraqi deaths Iraq Body Count

A Study In Lies | NewsBusters.org


(*10) attacks down U.S. says terrorism down, excluding Iraq - Security- msnbc.com

Terrorism Down Worldwide | Right Voices

News You Won't Hear: Terrorism Is Down Almost Everywhere | NewsBusters.org


(*11) 9/11 cost - When the Market Moves, Will You Be Ready? - Peter Navarro - Ph.D. economics, Harvard


(*12) Rwanda deaths Rwandan Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


(*13) Confessions of an Anti-Iraq War Democrat: Memories of a Purple Finger « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com