Albert Gore: Bush Administration Should Not Have Ignored Iraqi Ties to Terrorism

[epicSocialism4tw]

Whoa Nellie! Albert Gore is one confused puppy!

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html

[bendog]

Since the links from 1992, I'd guess you agree that it's a good thing then that WJC / gore got elected and defanged old Saddam. If he'd have gotten elected (wait he was!) in 2000, now we wouldn't be qWagmired either!

Nice find, mad yak!

[Crushaholic]

Didn't you get the memo? Bill Clinton got rid of those nasty WMDs and didn't tell anybody in Intelligence...

[bendog]

Bill didn't even tell himself!!! Talk about a guy who can keep a secret ..... oh wait, never mind. (-:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Albert is a tool.

Believe him at your own peril.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Albert is a tool.

Believe him at your own peril.

He's a politician...enough said...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by bendog

Since the links from 1992...

...that's what you call desperation, eh?



Angrydrama has really justified Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq this time, by God.

I know I'm sold!

[TheDave]

no way...We landed on the moon!

[Garcia Bronco]

I think Al Gore would have been a good President and that's why I voted for him. I mean the guy actaully had an environmental plank in his platform.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I think Al Gore would have been a good President and that's why I voted for him. I mean the guy actaully had an environmental plank in his platform.

[banging head on desk] I just couldn't get past donna brazille and jesse jackson. We'd had welfare reform and were moving away from quotas ..... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, ****ttttttttt.

[24champ]

Oops, I posted a thread on the same topic and didn't see this one.





Couple quotes stand out...

In January 1989 President George Bush was sworn in. Based on plentiful evidence, he had reason to know that his ongoing policy regarding Iraq was already malfunctioning badly. Just last week we learned of a memorandum written in March of that year, just two months after his inauguration, to secretary of state James Baker, as Baker prepared to meet with a senior Iraqi official in which the author of the memorandum noted that Iraq continued to cooperate with terrorists, that it was meddling in Lebanon, that it was working hard at chemical and biological weapons and new missiles.

These are exact quotes from the memorandum to the administration. And most significant of all, in the same month, September of 1989, the CIA reported to secretary of state Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network. of front companies. Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation, with a record of terrorism continuing was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not.

The text of NSD 26 blindly ignores the evidence already at the administration's disposal of Iraqi behavior in the past regarding human rights, terrorism, the use of chemical weapons, the pursuit of advanced weapons of mass destruction. Instead, it makes a heroic assumption of good behavior in the future on the basis of an interesting theory, namely, that Iraq would suddenly and completely change its ways out of a fear of economic and political sanctions. Well, it leaps from the page that George Bush, both as vice president and president, had done his utmost to make sure that no such sanctions would ever apply to Saddam Hussein. ... The question is unavoidable: Why should Saddam Hussein be at all concerned about a threat of action in the future from George Bush, the same man who had resolutely blocked any such action in the past? To the contrary, Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.

Interesting stuff...

[Spider]

Originally Posted by TheDave

no way...We landed on the moon!

Mt St Helen went Boom

[Rigs11]

Yeah interesting stuff....................for 1992. 10 years later when knumbskull decided to invade, the iraqi army had been severely weakened,sanctions had worked, and WMD's were no where to be found. As the inspectors had told knumbskull.Is this all that fat drugged up POS Limbaugh has left to talk about?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

Is this all that fat drugged up POS Limbaugh has left to talk about?

Rush and his protégé angrydrama will grasp at any straw - no matter how tenuous - in their ongoing effort to give Dubya a pass for the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, won't they?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Rush and his protégé angrydrama will grasp at any straw - no matter how tenuous - in their ongoing effort to give Dubya a pass for the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, won't they?

You're not even trying anymore.

I thought that it is interesting that Albert changed his tune so completely. Hmmmm....we couldnt be talking about politics, could we? Albert is just a tool too? YOU COULDNT SAY.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Rush and his protégé angrydrama will grasp at any straw - no matter how tenuous - in their ongoing effort to give Dubya a pass for the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, won't they?

The libs like Hillary, Kerry, Al get a pass for their rhetoric on Iraq in the 90s too eh?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by 24champbailey

The libs like Hillary, Kerry, Al get a pass for their rhetoric on Iraq in the 90s too eh?

There's a difference between rhetoric and ordering an ill-advised, ill-conceived, and ill-fated occupation of Iraq (not to mention justifying said invasion/occupation on false pretenses.)

I know angrydrama is too far gone on the Kool-Aid to understand the difference, but I expected a little more from you.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

There's a difference between rhetoric and ordering an ill-advised, ill-conceived, and ill-fated occupation of Iraq (not to mention justifying said invasion/occupation on false pretenses.)

I know angrydrama is too far gone on the Kool-Aid to understand the difference, but I expected a little more from you.

Still spinnin' I see, LA Propaganda Machine. You always seem to come back to irrelevant, off-base, out-of-left-left-left-left-field statements.

I see that the DNC doesnt consider honesty or integrity in choosing their disinformation clones.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by angryllama

I thought that it is interesting that Albert changed his tune so completely.

That's what intellectually honest people do, i.e., they change their mind, change course, etc., when new evidence dictates.

Too bad your boy Dubya doesn't seem to grasp this concept - he could have saved a lot of people a lot of pain.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Still spinnin' I see, LA Propaganda Machine.

You're trying to deflect blame for the debacle that is Iraq onto Al Gore, and I'm spinning?

Ha ha ha!

Thanks for the comic relief.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

There's a difference between rhetoric and ordering an ill-advised, ill-conceived, and ill-fated occupation of Iraq (not to mention justifying said invasion/occupation on false pretenses.)

I know angrydrama is too far gone on the Kool-Aid to understand the difference, but I expected a little more from you.

I disagree LABF, here you have Al Gore slamming Bush 41 for being friendly with a state like Iraq that is pursuing weapons of mass destruction. While some on here think WMDs is a punchline, it is a serious topic. In the 90s you had Al Gore and Kerry here talking about more aggressive action against Iraq because they were considered to them dangerous. Why would they press for more action against Iraq if the UN inspections were working? Even Hillary Clinton stated to her left base (Code Pink group?) that she did an independent study on invading Iraq and supported the President because she thinks it is the right decision.I do agree that there was a huge miscalculation on the planning of the aftermath of the invasion. It is politics to them, they don't take it seriously.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by 24champbailey

I disagree LABF, here you have Al Gore slamming Bush 41 for being friendly with a state like Iraq that is pursuing weapons of mass destruction. While some on here think WMDs is a punchline, it is a serious topic. In the 90s you had Al Gore and Kerry here talking about more aggressive action against Iraq because they were considered to them dangerous. Why would they press for more action against Iraq if the UN inspections were working? Even Hillary Clinton stated to her left base (Code Pink group?) that she did an independent study on invading Iraq and supported the President because she thinks it is the right decision.I do agree that there was a huge miscalculation on the planning of the aftermath of the invasion. It is politics to them, they don't take it seriously.

Isn't all of the above simply an attempt to deflect blame from "the decider?"

Bottom line: No matter what any of the Dems thought or recommended, none of them ordered the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You're trying to deflect blame for the debacle that is Iraq onto Al Gore, and I'm spinning?Ha ha
Thanks for the comic relief.

No one is trying to blame anything on Albert.

You must have some serious reading issues.

Albert basically gave the George W. Bush speech before Iraq II.

It is just like you to give the guy a free pass based on your shameful partisanship.

It is certainly interesting that Albert made such a demonstrative statement about Iraq ties to terrorism, and only later "changed his mind" when he found out that everything he said on that pedastal was a lie. Albert is a tool, and you are an even bigger tool for trying to change the subject on this thread to protect him.

Are you that insecure about the party that you volunteer to spam these boards for that you cannot let people even discuss the possibility of a member of your party being a BLATANT HYPOCRITE?

Folks like you are ruining our country. I put you in the Fred Phelps category. You are that big of a nutjob. Well, you might not even believe what you say. You may be reading the company schpeil from a script.

Just because I recognize you for what you are doesnt mean I am a supporter of Bush. It is just like you to deflect and change the subject.

So...answer the question honestly. How many hours a week do you volunteer to spam internet boards for the DNC? Which other boards do you spam besides this one? How long has the DNC been involved in their internet disinformation campaign?

[24champ]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Isn't all of the above simply an attempt to deflect blame from "the decider?"

Bottom line: No matter what any of the Dems thought or recommended, none of them ordered the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Yes the President gave the orders but congress backed him as well, that includes democrats too.

At one point or another they all wanted to see some aggressive action on Iraq because of their activities. Hillary specifically said that she did her own independent study on the issue of invading Iraq and told Code Pink it is the right decision to make. Obviously she did a complete 180. I don't know who you like on your side for 08', I would be suspicious of a potential nominee who said these things and does a complete 180 2 years later. Like I said at one point or another the Dems I mentioned wanted aggressive action on Iraq for their terrorist activities and pursuing of dangerous weapons. Now Lieberman is advocating a strike against Iran...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by angryllama

No one is trying to blame anything on Albert.

Stopped reading right there....

Originally Posted by angryllama

So...answer the question honestly. How many hours a week do you volunteer to spam internet boards for the DNC?

How long have you been spamming Internet forums for Focus on the Family?

Is it a paid gig, or are you just a volunteer?