I just love stuff like this. Shows how Democrats say whatever it takes to get elected....whatever will be the best for their careers and poll numbers.
video here
Now liberals, don't come here with the "Repubs do it too" crap...defend Gore...
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Rewind: Gore Blasts G.H.W. Bush for Ignoring Iraq Terror Ties
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
So you linked to this video detailing how Bush and Reagan helped and supported a terrorist regime to prove that democrats are weak on terror?
Off topic post warning!!!!!!
For any who might care, I've begun posting at my own blog, marshallart.blogspot.com. All are welcome, at least for now.
Correct Philip. The wingnuts are ranting all over the place about this, but it has absolutely no relevance to Iraq today.
I listened to the whole clip and I didn't here anything where Gore said we should invade and occupy Iraq. Did you?
Exactly right,jumbled one,that is why looking at responses you make at this "RIGHT ON" blog is so entertaining.You don't see or "here" anything.AND now the comedy relief you provide gets even better as you have a partner to provide comedy responses with.In
fairness,jumbled Jim,the bizarro ravings you banter with Phil-lip service do make me smile and remind me of other comedy teams like Abbott and Costello,or,Laurel and Hardy.Please keep on questioning Phil-lip for replies as you have taken your laughable tripe to yet another level.
Well, Jim, you talked about the video, I talked about the video, but apparently that moron scorpion can only offer weak insults amd childish name calling.
Obviously, the default republican response when they have no valid argument (virtually always) is attack, attack, attack.
In fact, you can tell when you've won the debate by the way republicans abandon all interest in the topic at hand and start using words like "dummocrat" or "libtard", or when they start labeling you as insane.
It's nothing personal, they are just too weak minded to hear any ideas that conflict with their worldview.
Great find, game! This is priceless!
I agree. I'm very proud of you for helping to expose the role that Reagan and Bush I had in supporting a terrorist regime that has cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to overthrow.
Let's not forget that it was a liberal democrat whose responsible for empowering islamo terrorist: JIMMY CARTER!
You could also add SLICK WILLY to that list, how many times were American interest attacked throught the world during the Clinton administration? Why did Sandy Burglar steal and destroy documents pertaining to the Clinton's admin's stance on terrorism and his failure to bring Bin Laden to justice?
Why are we, in Harry Reid's words, "losing" the War in Iraq? Maybe it has something to do with the rules and restrictions the POLITICIANS have applied to battle tactics! You cant fight a war and be PC, it doesn't work!
It's time to take our country back from these liberal, commie assholes who would rather press charges against our troops and label them murderers and terrorist then acutally support them!
Philip - ever heard the expression "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Well if you studied war or knew somthing about war you would under stand this is why Regan/Bush used the Taliban to fight the Russian's during the "Cold War," Kinda like how Russia/China are arming Iran, N Korea, and islamo terrorist with weapons to fight us the USA!
Do you really think Russia and China are our friends?
Let's not forget that it was a liberal democrat whose responsible for empowering islamo terrorist: JIMMY CARTER!
Lets also not forget that it was the CIA under Reagan that trained and equipped the mujahedeen that would later become Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.
Also, don't forget that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992.
Why did Sandy Burglar steal and destroy documents pertaining to the Clinton's admin's stance on terrorism and his failure to bring Bin Laden to justice?
"On Wednesday, we quoted Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman that no original documents were destroyed, and that the contents of all five at issue still exist and were made available to the 9/11 Commission. But that point didn't register with some readers, who continue to suggest a vast, well, apparently a vast left- and right-wing conspiracy. The Washington Times, the Rocky Mountain News and former Clintonite Dick Morris have also been peddling dark suspicions based on misinformation.
The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an "urban myth," prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was "so inaccurate as to be laughable." In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror "after-action" report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.
"Those documents, emphatically, without doubt--I reviewed them myself--don't have notations on them," Mr. Hillman tells us. Further, "there is no evidence after comprehensive investigation to suggest he took anything other than the five documents at issue and they didn't have notes." Mr. Berger's sentencing is scheduled for July, and Mr. Hillman assures us Justice's sentencing memo will lay out the facts and "make sure Mr. Berger explains what he did and why he did it." Meanwhile, conservatives don't do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left. "
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006534
Do you really think Russia and China are our friends?
No, and our occupation of Iraq does nothing but weaken our position and strengthen theirs.
C'mon,psycho Phil-lip service,don't
drag Jim into your tirade about how
you take offense to us morons.I even complimented the comedy that allows Jim to have a sidekick for the laughable drivel that you attempt to make sound reasonable.I
only look forward to the next amusing episode in the saga of how
can anyone continue to really think
in such amusing fashion.Remember,I'm not needed to refute your "facts."There are many
intelligent bloggers easily doing this already.
where?
philip--
If you imply that Republicans are the devil AND what Al Gore is saying is truthful, you still imply that Gore speaks the truth, namely, that Saddam Hussein was a big time sponsor of international terrorism.
And this didn't end in the 1990s, since Hussein harbored big name terrorists and trained thousands more, and funded suicide bombers. The Clinton Administration thought the weapons program was such a threat that Operation Desert Fox was implemented in 1998 and the Iraqi Liberation Act was signed.
Saddam Hussein was supported in the 1980s by Western governments as a counterweight to the Iranian regime, which has messianic ambitions for the world to this day. Remember, Stalin was also aided in order to defeat Hitler. If you know anything about the Ayatollahs, you will understand why what had to be done had to be done during the Iraq-Iran war. This history is irrelevant to Gore's description of Iraq as a sponsor of international terrorism-- while we can debate Gore's interpretation of the facts, the facts he presented are indeed the facts.
I have never said that Saddam didn't support terrorists. You would have to be an idiot to think that he had some sort of moral opposition to terrorism as a tactic. The point is, you all are focusing on this as a "gotcha" moment, but ignoring the substance of what he said, namely that Saddam's rise to power and subsequent crimes against humanity were aided and facilitated by republicans. Right down to republican approval for the sale of chemical weapons.
To use Jason's formulation, if you are agreeing that what Al Gore says is truthful, you also are agreeing that republicans are partly to blame for Saddam and for the thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars that we've wasted fixing the problem that they created.
I don't think, Philip, that you're going to get too many Republican/conservatives who would disagree that Reagan and Bush 41 played a part in the problems of today. It's a sad reality that is balanced by the facts of the time, which was that in arming the Afghans we were helping to battle a bigger threat (at the time) and that supporting Hussein was the same type of deal. Considering the lefty penchant for tears at the thought of our own armies battling evil, one would think there'd be some props for helping others defeat those threats for us.
But still more to the point, is the fact that all the things for which Bush is accused of lying, is being spewed by this buffoon we call the Goracle. It's just another example of this idiot saying one thing as if his contradictory remarks of the past won't be remembered or brought out of the closet. Al Gore is a complete idiot and a liar and this is the point of bringing this out. To defend him or to deflect criticism from him doesn't speak well for you.
Gore said Saddam Hussein was dangerous in 1992.
Gore said Bush I looked the other way while Saddam got more dangerous.
Gore said the U.S. needed to do more to address the Iraqi threat, and then was part of the administration that disarmed Saddam
10 years later, Gore said a war against Iraq was unnecessary and would be a tragic mistake
It sounds to me like he was right every step of the way
Republicans, on the other hand caused the problem by helping Saddam rise to power
They approved the sale of chemical weapons that he used to commit crimes against humanity
They left the opposition forces in Iraq high and dry after promising to support them, allowing them to be massacred after the Gulf war
They advocated regime change 10 years later without planning for the most basic and obvious security problems
They sold the war to the public by dishonestly linking it to 9/11 in the minds of the public
They refused to listen to experts, rather appointing partisans with no experience to head the reconstruction
There is no reason that any Republicans should have any credibility on matters of national security whatsoever
Phil,
You are a Democrat hack. Did Jim call for reinforcements and you anwered the call?
PCD,
How about that Republican Sherrif Baca?
Phil,
You worn out hack, you got nothing and you prove it time and time again. Like Gore, you are a one track mind on a narrow gauge railway going to nowhere.
Phil,
Regarding your 9:33PM remarks of June 13;
Beginning from the top:
1. Gore stating the obvious.
2. Gore trashing the opposition.
3. Gore stating the obvious in the first part, but those unarmed Iraqis their own people in the north and south, as well as Kuwait and Israel with Scuds.
4. Gore trasing the opposition again. Here, he's beginning to change his tune for political expediency.
5. Your hearing is faulty.
6. I believe he was already in power due to internal conflicts and coups. As stated, GOP support was for the purpose of messing with Iran who Carter had stirred up.
7. Already acknowledged and conceded.
8. We didn't like that either, but the UN approved action didn't extend to removing him from power. Generally, the left likes to do things the UN way.
9. Regime change was advocated during the Clinton admin, Bush executed the idea, and no war proceeds without SNAFUs. It's SOP.
10. This is a blatant and contemptable lie ingrained in the minds of some of the public by Dems.
11. They were counselled by experts of varying opinions as are all presidential admins and went with those they felt were best. The left would've said the exact same thing if Bush listened to the other experts and problems arose anyway. This was uncharted territory. Anyone who thinks they could've predicted events with accuracy are dealing from 20/20 hindsight.
12. You could not on your best day prove the Dems are better. Frankly, from day one, the Dems predicted all sorts of disasters regarding the Iraq invasion that have yet to occur. They predicted Hussein would beat us back from the first assault and we had him running within hours. They predicted American death tolls that still hasn't happened. Instead of the Arab world turning on us, Lybia halted their weapons program, Egypt changed their behaviors and Pakistan has helped us (not as much as I'd like). It isn't a quagmire, civilians are supporting us more and more.
I have problems with some aspects of the war and now with certain Republicans regarding homeland security and the borders. I'd still take a Republican over a Dem any old day of the week. Dems don't have a clue about this stuff.
Marshall said,
"10. This is a blatant and contemptable lie ingrained in the minds of some of the public by Dems."
No way, no how. I will refute this over and over and over again. Although it is no doubt true that no major Bush Administration official ever actually said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 you will rarely find a mention of Saddam, his brutal regime and WMDs without invoking "9/11". Why do a majority of Americans BELIEVE that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and that we attacked Iraq because of 9/11? From the Dems? From the media? Hell no! From the administration and its supporters.
Listen to Rudy's speech at the 2004 Republic Nation.
Then read these two paragraphs from the Authorization for Use of Military Force:
" (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. "
Now show me how number 10 is a "contemptible lie".
That was Republic National Convention.
Jim,
Boy am I glad I scanned back this far! You offer up that which doesn't support your premise. Again. Point 1 does NOT refer to 9/11 by speaking of the continuing threat posed by Iraq. This was a threat felt by the previous administration and many foreign nations. It has nothing to do with 9/11.
Point 2 talks about how this resolution is, while aimed at the actions about to be taken against Iraq, consistent with the overall determination to deal with terror and, as it says, it INCLUDES nations, orgs, or persons involved with the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't say, imply or in any way tie Sadam to 9/11. But I will concede the possibility of other lefties taking it to mean that. You can't fault the administration for the inability of lefties to comprehend basic English.
Now if you can provide a link to Rudy's speech at the Convention, I'll have a listen. I'd look it up myself, but based on your track record, I don't feel like it would be a good use of my time.
Oh, and BTW, Jim. I have no problem with the mention of 9/11 for even the thinnest of connections to any other discussion of terrorism. Once again, if lefties want to believe that implies someone making any connections, that's their fault. They need to pay closer attention, or have some adult explain things to them.
Post a Comment