Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq’s ties to terrorism

CSPAN October 1992

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

I guess ethics and journalism are oxymorons.

Boomer said: I kind of feel sorry for the BDS crowd come next January. How will they be able to live their shallow lives without having someone to blame for the world’s problems.

No need to feel sorry for them for they will be living in a win-win-win-win scenario no matter what happens. To wit:

* GOP wins/nothing bad happens – This will prove that the GOP is a fascist outfit and democracy is dead since no one likes them and would vote for them. The election was stolen (again) and only dumb luck protects us from blowback from our imperialist policies.

* GOP wins/something bad happens – The election was stolen and now we’re paying the price for Bushitler’s imperialism.

* Dems win/nothing bad happens – The people have spoken and now that the world knows that non-imperialists are in control, America can rejoin the community of nations for we will be nicer and less asking for it.

* Dems win/something bad happens – It’s not their fault!!! If only Bushitlerburton Inc. hadn’t tried to conquer sovereign nations on the basis of a lie and a greed to steal their oil, we wouldn’t have brought this down upon us. Don’t blame us! You morons should’ve elected us the last two times!

See? All upside for the Dems and downside for the Stupid Party, regardless of who wins and what happens. It’s like under the Goreacle’s theory of ManBearPig when it doesn’t snow much, it’s a sign of global warming and if it snows a lot, it’s a sign of global warming. Warm, cold, wet, dry, whatever – anything and everything is proof of global warming (and the need to have Dems rule us) just as anything bad that happens in the world is proof of Dubya’s malevolent incompetence (and the need to have Dems rule us.)

Any questions?

All emphasis’ are added.

1) We won’t have access to all of the intel until it is declassified. IIRC Some of that will take up to 70 years.

2) Here’s one reason why they stopped at 9/11/2003. “Asked about the issue on Meet The Press (September 14, 2003), Cheney answered:“The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.”
” (Source)

3) How is THIS a lie? Bush was asked what message he wanted to send Iraq shortly after we went into Afghanistan…”Well, my message is, is that if you harbor a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. If you develop weapons of mass destruction that you want to terrorize the world, you’ll be held accountable. ”

4) THIS is a lie?! “We cannot pretend that this regime is one that can be trusted not to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is a problem that the world had better get serious about very soon. ” I guess we know what the Soros moonbats ‘pretend’ are factual statements. It was a lie to say Iraq under Saddam can’t be trusted?

5. How is this a lie? “Well, I think—I guess the way I would characterize is [our allies] are uniformly concerned about the situation in Iraq, in particular about Saddam Hussein’s failure to live up to the U.N. Security Council resolutions, especially number 687, that he pledged to at the end of the war, that said he’d get rid of all of his weapons of mass destruction.” Uniformly? Is that the problem?

6. This is obviously opinion (except for you-know-who. “And this is a man who refuses to allow us to determine whether or not he still has weapons of mass destruction, which leads me to believe he does. He is a dangerous man who possesses the world’s most dangerous weapons. And it is incumbent upon freedom-loving nations to hold him accountable, which is precisely what the United States of America will do.” He stated his belief (and a reason why) that Saddam had WMD’s. To state later that he does posses them is not a lie, it could ONLY be incorrect.

Clearly if you believe Bush and the others knew Saddam had no WMD’s then you would believe it was a conspiracy to get us into war.

I didn’t even agree with his bombing campaign of the aspirin factory. And most commentators at the time felt it was a “wag the dog” scenario.

After the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was trotted out as a convenient boogie man whenever Clinton needed a distraction.

And yes, I know there is no such thing as absolute intelligence. However, none of the intelligence regarding Hussein and his ambitions warranted immediate action my the American military.

That doesn’t mean that Bush lied. I don’t know that the study ever says that he lied. It plays this childish word game with the phrase “false statements” which can (depending upon context) can mean either that someone lied, or that they made statements based on erroneous beliefs.

The study doesn’t even say what the MSM wants us to believe that is says, but it uses the right phraseology to allow the MSM & other leftist groups to run with it and call Bush a liar. And that was the point of the study.

2. If Bush statements of Iraq having WMDs are false and he should be impeached then can we also re-impeach Clinton since he said the same thing when he was in office? How about all the Dem Sens who said Iraq was a danger and had WMDs…?

I could live with that. Release Compean and Ramos to make room for Bush and all the Dems who were parroting him 5-6 years ago. A small loss to see Bush go, a great boon to get rid of Pelosi.