Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ah - the comic relief has arrived early from Daily Kos...More revisionist history?
You loonies just don't stop, do you?
Ah - the comic relief has arrived early from Daily Kos...
You should go - they sound just like you...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.
What would that prove after the fact?Has anyone asked Al Gore?
More revisionist history?
You loonies just don't stop, do you?
Is there no literature available at the time of invasion of whether or not he approved of it?What would that prove after the fact?
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.Is there no literature available at the time of invasion of whether or not he approved of it?
Yes I have seen the quotes from 2002 but that still doesn't mean he supported the invasion.Don't know. But he had made statements that he believed that Saddam had WMDs and would use them.
Wrong. I thought this argument died a long time ago. Here are just five of several arguments that dispute this claim.The Democrat leadership had access to the same intel as the administration
FACT Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program Consistently Withheld from Congress:
everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Departments dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate. [NYT, 10/3/04]
FACT Sen. Kerrey: Bush Has Much More Access to Intel Than Congress:
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman: The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress We believe these would be used for centrifuges. didnt deliver to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said its unlikely they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets, which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress. [10/7/04]
FACT Rockefeller: PDBs, CIA Intel Withheld From Senate:
Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): [P]eople say, Well, you know, you all had the same intelligence that the White House had. And Im here to tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only dont have, nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We dont have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him. They dont release their an administration which tends not to release not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others they control information. Theres a lot of intelligence that we dont get that they have. [11/04/05]
FACT War Supporter Ken Pollack: White House Engaged in Creative Omission of Iraq Intel:
In the eyes of Kenneth Pollack, a Clinton-era National Security Council member and strong supporter of regime change in Iraq, the Administration consistently engaged in creative omission, overstating the imminence of the Iraqi threat, even though it had evidence to the contrary. The President is responsible for serving the entire nation, Pollack writes. Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the US government â and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility. [Christian Science Monitor, 1/14/04]
FACT White House Had Exclusive Access to Unique Intel Sources:
The claim that the White House and Congress saw the same intelligence on Iraq is further undermined by the Bush administrations use of outside intelligence channels. For more than year prior to the war, the administration received intelligence assessments and analysis on Iraq directly from the Department of Defenses Office of Special Plans (OSP), run by then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith, and the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles led by Ahmed Chalabi. [MediaMatters, 11/8/05]
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.and they also believed Saddam had WMDs and was willing to use them.
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".The head of the CIA was a Clinton-Gore appointment and he assured Bush the intel was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had WMDs.
It makes sense but it's still only speculation.So does it make sense that Al gore would listen to his own CIA head whom he had a hand in appointing? Yeah it makes sense...
I want to talk about the relationship between America's war against terrorism and America's proposed war against Iraq. Like most Americans I've been wrestling with the question of what our country needs to do to defend itself from the kind of focused, intense and evil attack that we suffered a year ago, September 11. We ought to assume that the forces responsible for that attack are even now attempting to plan another attack against us.
I'm speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country, which I sincerely believe would be better for our country than the policy that is now being pursued by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.
You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 15 posts or more.
The point is: War with Iraq was inevitable.Who cares? Al Gore is irrelevant why elevate his importance by bringing him up?
The point is: War with Iraq was inevitable.
Maybe you missed my long post at the bottom of the first page.I don't agree, but if that's the point why bring Gore into it at all?
