Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
Here's a video of Al Gore, one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq War
Um, you
do realize that this video is from 1992, yes? You do realize that the events Gore is referring to were from the mid-1980s, yes?
Are you seriously claiming that nothing changed in the intervening 20 years? This is the exact same disingenuous claim regarding the non-existent (yes, I used that word) WMD's. "He had chemical weapons! He gassed the Kurds!"
Yes, that is indeed true.
He had chemical weapons (that
WE gave him) and gassed the Kurds
IN THE 1980S. The supposed chemical weapons that were "found" regarding those canisters were the 20-year-old chemicals that had degraded to the point of uselessness.
Are you truly trying to tell us that nothing changed in the intervening years between the end of the first Gulf War and the start of the second?
All that said, you're misunderstanding the point of Gore's speech. It was not that we should invade Iraq. It's that Bush was incompetent and consistently and repeatedly did nothing while Iraq engaged in atrocities and, in fact, continued to reward and fund him.
quote:
He's complaining about the very thing he bitches about today! Un-be-lieve-able....
Incorrect. You clearly did not pay attention to your own source. Please tell us where Gore said anything about an invasion of Iraq? Be specific.
First, you need to step away from that video. It's incomplete and edited. Here's what you missed Gore talking about immediately before where the speech picks up:
President Bush, in his handling of our policy toward Iraq, has failed all of these tests, and failed them badly. His poor judgment, moral blindness, and bungling policies led directly to
a war that should never have taken place. And because of his naivete and lack of candor, US taxpayers are now stuck with paying the bill for $1.9 billion President Bush gave to Saddam Hussein even though top administration officials were repeatedly told Saddam was using our tax dollars to buy weapons technology.
[emphasis added]
Does that sound like someone saying we need to invade Iraq? No, that's someone saying that we should not have had to have invaded in the first place. Bush's incompetence led to Hussein getting out of control and, eventually, invading Kuwait.
But, that's vague. Let's get specific:
MS. ALBRIGHT: We conclude with a final question. Beginning January 21st, 1993, what will the policy of the Clinton-Gore administration be towards Saddam Hussein and Iraq?
SEN. GORE: Since this is the last question, before I answer it, let me invite the attention of those present to materials that I have asked my staff to prepare, which lays out all of the evidence that I have presented here with extensive footnotes referring in each case to the specific documents and to the specific evidence that I am relying on and quoting from in the speech. I have also asked them to prepare, and they have done so, listings of the technology that was specifically exported and a rather extensive month-by-month calendar of exactly when the warnings came, when they were ignored, and when the decisions were made to support Saddam in spite of those warnings. So, I invite your attention to the more detailed version of this presentation.
Now, Governor Clinton and I have spelled out what we believe is an appropriate policy toward Iraq. We believe that the elements of democratic resistance within Iraq deserve support and encouragement from the United States of America. We believe that Saddam must be required to comply with the UN resolutions, all of the UN resolutions, including the one, 688, which prevents him from persecuting his own people, the Kurds in the south, the Muslim resistance elements -- the Kurds in the north, the Muslim resistance elements in the south, and those Sunni resistance fighters in the middle part of the country who have formed a common bond with the Shi'a in the south and the Kurds in the north and are even now attempting to organize a more effective front against Saddam Hussein.
We believe that this kind of behavior simply cannot be tolerated. And we believe that American foreign policy ought to be based on a clear understanding of what American interests are in this new world of the '90s and the 21st century and based on American values, support for freedom, political freedom and economic freedom, and not the coddling of tyrants, which has been the hallmark of the Bush foreign policy.
Do you see anywhere in there a call for the invasion of Iraq or the removal of Hussein? Because I don't see it. Instead, it's a policy of sanctions and diplomacy.
And it worked. After a decade of weapons buildup funded and overlooked by the Reagan/Bush administration, there were ten years of disarmament and no progress on any weapons front.
quote:
This isn't a thread about going to war with anyone.
And yet, here you are saying that you wonder what it would take for those who are against the Iraq war to go to war and misquoting Gore regarding what he said about Iraq back in 1992.
So you'll pardon us if we find it disingenuous at best to hear you claim that you're not talking about that.
quote:
The thread is one of blatant hypocrisy.
Step right up, then, NJ. You're the one saying we should have gone into Iraq and yet here you are hedging on the questions of China and Darfur.
quote:
Why do communist sympathizers
Who are these "communist sympathizers"? Names, dates, places, please.
Otherwise, you're just pulling that phrase out of your ass in an blatant ad hominem.
Be specific.
Do not feed the trolls, people.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2