Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wehrwolfen, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism ​



    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64&feature=player_embedded]Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism - YouTube[/ame]​


    September 29, 1992 ~ This Is 20 Months After H.W. Bush Attacked Iraq. IOW’s Though This Is A Critique Of Bush By Gore It Is Also CONFIRMATION Of Validity To Attack Iraq Because Of Terrorism & WMDs. BIZARRE!

    Democrat & Democratic Presidential Nominee Al Gore blasts George H.W. Bush for ignoring Iraq’s ties to terrorists and disregarding Iraq acquiring weapons of mass destruction ~ nuclear program. Sounds like Iran Modus_eh?

    Read more:
    Bizarre Skeleton Closet: Democrat Al Gore Criticizes H.W. Bush Senior in 1992 For Ignoring Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction ~ Up Next Obama? « Political Vel Craft
     
  2. Glensather
    Offline

    Glensather Gothic Vampires

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2012
    Messages:
    945
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    World 1-1
    Ratings:
    +98
    Al Gore actually made sense back then.
    Except for the whole inventing the Internet thing.
     
  3. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    Does that include the accusation that Iraq still contained WMD after the first Gulf war? Seems that Bubba Clinton also harped on WMD throughout his 8 years in the W.H.
    Why Bubba went as far as having the Iraq Liberation Bill passed and then proceded in bombing Iraq for 4 days. That's if memory serves me right. But let's blame Bush, he's always an easy target. Right?
     
  4. healthmyths
    Offline

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,239
    Thanks Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,854
    Gore wasn't the only one!!!

    BEFORE BUSH ... When CLINTON was President...

    "..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
    "..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
    "Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
    "He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger- Clinton National. Security. Advisor 1998
    "posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
    "Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
    "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999

    "Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
    "Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
    "Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
    "Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
    "give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs.threat our security".Kerry 2002
    "..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
    "Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
    "He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
    "Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002

    Ah but all these Democrats are congenital liars RIGHT!!!
     
  5. tap4154
    Offline

    tap4154 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    547
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Surf City USA
    Ratings:
    +87
    He could have given that speech in Colin Powell's place at the UN, to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq!
     
  6. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,572
    Thanks Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +355
    Sadaam was an evil man. Few disagree. The WMD thing was a bit of poor intelligence but hey, if he could of had them he would have no doubt and its the thought that counts.

    Do you all disagree with George H Bush's decision to pull out? I understand not wanting to occupy the place for a decade but admit it seemed odd and probably odder with twenty years of hindsight.
     
  7. BlindBoo
    Offline

    BlindBoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    19,621
    Thanks Received:
    2,195
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,394
    Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"

    George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft

    Time (2 March 1998)

    The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.

    We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. 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. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. 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. 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.

    Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, By George Bush Sr.
     
  8. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    56,171
    Thanks Received:
    9,360
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +24,619
    Iraq's nuclear program which Gore speaks of in that video was dismantled after the 1991 war.

    .
     
  9. healthmyths
    Offline

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,239
    Thanks Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,854
    Well maybe you should have told these people BEFORE Bush!!!

    BEFORE BUSH ... When CLINTON was President...

    "..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
    "..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
    "Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
    "He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger- Clinton National. Security. Advisor 1998
    "posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
    "Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
    "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
     
  10. J.E.D
    Offline

    J.E.D What's tha matta?

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    10,904
    Thanks Received:
    1,774
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,576
    Righties still trying to justify the unjustifiable....10 yrs after the fact. Priceless.
     

Share This Page