AP: Gore Says America 'Betrayed' by Bush

[grytpype]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-gore-bush,0,1490500.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

Al Gore, who lost the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000, assailed the commander in chief Sunday, accusing him of betraying the nation by invading Iraq.

"He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure, dangerous to our troops, that was preordained and planned before 9-11," Gore told Tennessee Democrats at a party event.

The former vice president said that he, like millions of others, had put partisanship aside after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and wanted Bush to lead the nation. Instead, Gore shouted to the crowd, Bush "betrayed us."

Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the electoral vote to Bush, likened the Republican's administration to that of former President Nixon.

Wow, strong stuff there.

[Manix]

1. ...give em hell Al !!

nt

[PinkTiger]

2. They got it wrong.

He didn't lose the election. The presidency was taken from him.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frances]

4. He got more electoral votes

because of Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, and O'Connor. He did not win more electoral votes.

[Mari333]

5. bU$sh got 5-4 Supreme Court vote to stop the vote counts

GOP SC that selected him
Rhenquist
Scalia
Kennedy
Thomas
O Connor
and they got some goddamn good lucrative jobs and so did their kids afterwards!
Hes not my pResident. Hes a frat boy who daddy got into the white house.
Al Gore is the president.

[shooga]

25. Scalia

got rewarded with Duck Hunting Trip ... maybe Scalia was allowed to play "The Most Dangerous Game" with Big Dick.


I think Gore is understating our grave situation ... Dean is the man .... Kerry is Bush-Lite.




http://www.geocities.com/jaak7777.LIHOP

[Webster Green]

6. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Thats a good one!

[alittlelark]

11. More electoral votes because 90,000 (mostly black)

voters were purged from the rolls. Who did you vote for??! I think I can guess!

[mhr]

12. Because Kathleen Harris and Jeb Bush Slashed The Voter Rolls In Florida

This web site tells the tale!

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta

[bleedingheart]

16. Bush had his daddy's supreme court buddies rule in his favor

proving once again that when rich kids don't win fair and square they cry foul...and twist the courts to their advantage.

[JPace]

22. The repugs STOLE the votes....

and when it was contested, the repug
supreme court handed it over to AWOL.

[tom_paine]

24. Wrong.

If one discounts the Florida electoral votes, born of a severe corruption (from voter roll scrubbing to improted mobs intimidating and physically assualting vote counters and MORE!) and invalid in the eyes of many

he did not.

[rocktivity]

23. Gorde did lose the PRESIDENCY to Bush

It's the election that he won.


rocknation

[Semi_subversive]

7. I f only he'd taken a slightly lower road

and bashed * in the election for the piece of shit that he is, we'd be in a much better place now.

[bleedingheart]

15. But remember that CNN and Fox and all the rest would have twisted

it around to paint Gore as the evil guy picking on the poor cowboy.

[chelaque liberal]

20. Like the way they effectively neutralized Dean

for(how terrible) being "angry".
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-AP-on-TV-Deans-Scream.html

That liberal media!

[countmyvote4real]

8. He's SO right.

God bless Al Gore.

And I don't mean that in the Southern sense of "Bless his heart (what a moron.)"

If only, blah blah blah

I'm glad that he continues to speak out no matter how much abuse he'll receive from the press and his own party.

He is SO right.

[daleo]

9. I wonder how much Gore regrets

That he didn't fight harder in Nov and Dec 2000. Although it is hard to say what else he could have done, given the stacked court. People are going to have to start thinking hard about what strategy to use this Nov/Dec, as it could be even worse. Sorry, I don't have any ideas at the moment.

Another term of Bushco/PNAC and the whole world could be plunged into WWIII. Maybe the human race has to learn a lesson - even here at DU, the notion of nuking this country and that country gets bandied about far to freely. The unthinkable is becoming thinkable again.

[AlGore-08.com]

13. Fight harder? How do you mean? What should he have done?

If you mean he should have fought harder during the recount, Gore did everything legally possible to get the votes counted. When the SCOTUS ruled, the only option left to Gore was to start a civil war.

And if you mean fight harder during the campaign... I think the problem is that a lot of folks have forgotten (or maybe never knew) that Gore did not start out with a huge lead and then sqandered it. Actually, Gore started out 20 points behind Bush and nobody expected him to win. Bush was expected to sail to a landslide victory. Bush outraised and outspent Gore 2 to 1. The media coverage was insane - - Gore was savaged by the media and to this day, when the press even bothers to cover his actions they use it as an excuse to savage him further. At the end of the day, Gore had fought so hard that he won more votes than any other Democratic Presidential candidate in history - - and the second highest number of votes of any Presidential candidate ever.

And if tens of thousands of people had not been thrown off the Florida voter roles - - or if all of the votes which were cast in Florida had actually been counted - - Gore would be in the White House today, running for reelection (possibly even against Smirk). And Gore's 2000 campaign would be studied as a model for how to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. (As it is, the GOP did spend millions analysing Gore's Get Out The Vote operation, and that's one of the reasons they skunked us in 2002.)

When folks say Gore should have fought harder, they often mean that Gore should have pointed out Bush's record and the blatant problems (lies) in Bush's proposed plans. Gore did all that. The problem was that the media did not report it - - and when they did, they did not provide context. So (for example) when Gore would give an interview about Bush's appalling educational record in Texas, giving facts and figures, quoting experts to back up his facts, and dragging the media to schools that were falling down around the ears of students, the media would report something like: "Vice President Al Gore accused his opponent of having a bad education record. Governor Bush responded by saying that he improved education in Texas. Coming up - - what you can do to avoid shark attacks!"

This is where the GOP's smear campaign that Gore was a "serial exagerator" was brilliant (in an evil way). Folks who knew nothing about Gore (or Bush) were less likely to beleive anything negative Gore said about Bush, because they had heard over and over that Gore played fast and loose with the truth when it suited him. And the more negative Gore got, the more he looked like a liar: (for example) when Gore pointed out that Bush wanted to end abortion rights, the media were all parroting Team Bush's lie that Bush was not going to challenge Roe v. Wade at all. Result for many voters: Gore looked like he was lying about Bush's position. If Gore had started a real smear campaign (like accusing Bush of sacrificing kittens to Satan), there is no way the media would have not trumpeted that as proof positive that Gore was a big fat liar, just like they said he was.

This is the reason the GOP have been hammering home the "Angry Democrats" meme this election cycle - - the meme runs: Democrats are attacking Bush groundlessly because they are consumed with an irrational hatred of Bush. If you are influenced by this meme, any criticism that the Dem nominee levels against Bush will be suspect (at least). Maybe the meme won't work this time. But there's a good chance it will.

The GOP's smear campaigns make sense when you know that informed voters never decide elections. A party's base voters never decide elections (unless you're running in a gerrymandered district). The folks who decide them have no real interest in politics, do not have the faintest idea what the issues are (or even who is running!) and decide who to vote on based on first impressions gotten from watching the campaign coverage on TV. Or worse - - it comes from 30 second campaign commercials.

I know a number of people have posted variations on "Gore should have fought dirty". Setting aside the logistical problems of how Gore could have possibly smeared Bush in the press when the media was openly working for Bush, I can't think of a worse thing that he could have done. If folks remember what it was like in 2000, one of the biggest slams against Gore (and the rest of the Dems) is that there was no difference between "Gush and Bore". So if Gore had gone dirty, a lot of people who voted for Gore because they knew him to be a man of principle probably wouldn't have voted for Gore. And folks who finally decided that there was enough difference between Bush and Gore to make Gore "the lesser of two evils" would have voted for Nader or even Bush or not at all. And it wouldn't have taken too many folks voting a different way to have made Gore loose a few of the states he won narrowly. Florida would have been a moot point if Gore had lost Oregon and Wisconsin.

I'm sure that Gore does revisit every decision he made in the campaign, but I know he doesn't think smearing Bush would have been the answer. He just participated in a conference at New School University on the politics of fear. Gore gave a very eloquent key note address, talking about the far right's cooption of the Republican party, and how they have used "dispictable" and "sleezy" smear tactics against their opponents. He praised his father for being brave enough to stand by his convictions, even though it cost him the election (his last). Later, in a Q & A session, Gore was asked how folks could defeat the politics of fear, and Gore sited the South African Truth and Reconciliation commission as one possible model.

Anyway, it was a really great speech; the transcript is here:

http://www.algoredemocrats.com/news/gnn/EpZykApEkynCqGzlJZ.shtml

[teach1st]

14. Great post.. N/T

[Chomskyite]

18. Question

Will the speech he made in Tennessee be put on that site as a sound recording pretty soon?

[AlGore-08.com]

58. There's an audio excerpt on the site now

From the TN Democratic party website:

http://www.tndp.org/audio/Gore2.8.04.wav

We haven't been able to locate a transcript of the speech yet, but if we find one, we'll post it as well.

[chelaque liberal]

21. You are so (depressingly) right

What is the answer? How can we take back our country?

DU is great but we are preaching to the choir.

[Dudley_DUright]

43. Great post and great speech

I wish I could have been there in person. I am sure Gore wrote it himself and I am also sure that Bush would have no intelligible responses for the questions Gore raises. We definitely took the wrong fork in the road and ended up lost in the woods. The only thing that keeps my spirits up is that as Gore states:

"...the verdict of history will not be a kind one."

[AlGore-08.com]

56. Yes, Gore wrote it himself

Bob Kerrey introduced Gore, and mentioned that he saw Gore finish the speech on his laptop and burn it onto a CD, which made Kerrey wonder if Bush could begin to do either of those things.

On edit: Oops, sorry, Bob Kerrey introducted Gore's New School University speech on the 5th in NYC.

[SharonAnn]

65. Sorry, Randy Buttons, head of TN Democratic party introduced

Gore.

I was there, it was great, Gore had the crowd screaming!

He was sooooo angry!

[AlGore-08.com]

71. Yeah, sorry I caught my mistake on edit

I was thinking of Gore's Feb. 5th speech in NYC. I probably should have deleted the post instead of editting it, but coulda shoulda woulda...

[SammyWinstonJack]

73. Thank you for this post

:-)

[Chomskyite]

76. I want to hear this speech, man

Transcripts are good, but in that excerpt he sounds like a man on fire with the kind of righteous indignation that is the only appropriate response now. We need to HEAR that speech, not just read it.

Do your best to try to find a recording of that speech and have it put on the site. I think you'd be doing the world--not just President Gore--a service.

[Zhade]

77. There's a link to it above.

NT!

[Chomskyite]

78. I found the real audio link to the complete speech

Thanks, man. Here it is for the group:

http://www.dialnsa.edu/special_events/gore_1.ram

I wrote to Buzzflash to see if he would link it from his page, too.

[Rocinante]

10. Saw that

on the local(Nashville)news tonight. He was ripping Chimp a new one. They also had clips of Clark and Edwards. Said Sharpton was a no show and showed some disappointed folks at a church.

[Snappy]

17. Let's hope the Dems can figure it out.

This time the Dems cannot afford to allow the Neo Fascists to set the agenda and be in the defensive mode. The plan must be the ofensive and unrelenting. The Dems should ingore any setups and stay with their own agenda and not fall into the trap of playing catch up. It does seem that Kerry will win the nomination. I hope he choses Edwards as VP. Kerry can be the attack and Edwards can maintain his nice guy pose. He was trial lawyer so it should be obvious that he is no wuss.

This election must be won. There is too much to lose if the Neo Fascists stay in power.

[He loved Big Brother]

19. Gore Says America 'Betrayed' by Bush"

Ooooh if only our current Democratic presidential nominees would say so...especially KERRY.

[Fla_Dem]

26. hhmmmmm.....

"e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

[ender]

27. please provide a reputable source.

thanks.

[Fla_Dem]

29. pleased to

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

[tom_paine]

32. Wow, a citation that is completely devoid of any of the quotes you mention

I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED I Am!

What are the odds that someone would come in here with cut-out quotes from a Party-Loyal Bushevik Sub-Media blastfax, then "corroborate" the comments with a link to a speech that DOES NOT HAVE A SINGLE QUOTE IN IT THEY REFERENCED!.

Now (hypothetically speaking...I accuse no one of anything) what are the odds.

What...are...the...odds?

I think EVERYONE should read the book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them".

EVERYONE.

Just what are the odds?

[Fla_Dem]

35. Allow me to point it out

DANGERS OF ABANDONING IRAQ

Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

[tom_paine]

47. Ah, if there was only an alternative to the Bushevik-controlled intelligen

ce services.

Ok, that quote was in there (I don't understand why my "find" function overlooked it).

HOWEVER:

Gore, like Clinton before him, was going off corrupted data, like the Congressfolk who voted for the war after hearing a passel of Bushevik lies and misinfo.

Foolsih them, being unable to comprehend what a petty Tyrant and Liar now occupies the Imperial Throne of Amerika. They believed it.

Same as Gore believed it.

But the same liars deceived them both.

As there is no Honest Intelligence Agency to counterpoint the Bushevik-Dominated and Owned Intelligence Agencies, there was no way for Clinton, Gore nor anyone else to see that they were being lied to.

============================================

Sorry about the quotes thing. My mistake (I still don;t get why my find function failed to get this).

[Mari333]

49. Bring The Troops Home Now

send George and all his buddies over...they wanted this shit, not the kids who signed up in the reserves and guard
If *bU$h would get on his fucking hands and knees and BEG the UN to take over, they just might but this administration SCREWED THE POOCH
and destroyed International relations, and OUR kids are sitting ducks'
You have to have a kid or loved one over there before you can make EZ comments about sending MORE of our kids over there to this bloodbath/occupation.

[louis-t]

69. Now we see how easy it is to...

mischaracterize by taking one or two select lines from a speech and framing them.

[Q]

28. But Bush's* 'final solution' was to INVADE and OCCUPY Iraq...

...and that's something that no Democrat has ever proposed.

[Fla_Dem]

30. Oh, I totally agree

I am just pointing out that Mr. Gore seems to flip-flop around on his ideals a bit too much to be making statments like that.

[Fla_Dem]

Here is another bit from the same speech by Mr. Gore

"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. "

[tom_paine]

33. Wow, another quote which is nowhere in tghe etxt of the speech provided

JUST WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

A right-Wing blast-mail improperly quoted and cited, turnign out to be complete and utter fabrications.

JUST WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

No matter how you spin it, the naked truth is that not a single quote has yet to be verified.

You should probably check these things before you cite sources that corrborate nothing you say.

And I wonder, musingly, just what subgroup of people seems to have a problem with truthfullness and false verifications of lies to be laundered?

Just wondering...

[Fla_Dem]

38. Do you know how to use the "find" feature

bring up the link I posted, click on "edit" then choose "find". type in the first few words of what I said was in the speech.

[tom_paine]

46. already done it twice over

not a sign.

You sure you pasted the link you thought you did?

[Beetwasher]

34. Yeah, so what?

Gore did not unilaterally invade a country based on lies about stockpiles of WMD's.

Seems to me that Gore is saying if your survival is at stake, which it wasn't, then we could invade to protect ourselves. How was our survival at stake from Iraq?

Also, what's the source of this quote? Got a link or a source? For all I know you just made that up.

[Fla_Dem]

36. link is given above..

but here it is again...

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html


My point is that Mr. Gore seemed all go for the invasion of Iraq in 2002. considering his previous position, he must have seen some intel showing what Iraq did or did not have.

What we need is someone that has been against any kind of action in Iraq to stand up and start giving the current regime holy hell. It would carry a lot more weight with the public than someone with the appearance of flip-flopping around.

[Beetwasher]

39. Maybe it seems that way to you, but not to me

You must not be very good at reading comprehension.

What we need is someone who is going to hold the admin. accountable for presenting cooked intelligence to the congress and to the public.

The intel never stated that Iraq was an imminent threat but the admin. sure painted it that way, or do you deny that?

Gore isn't running for anything and would not have been privy to any intel, but what he says is strongly in favor of an international coalition, UN involvement and diplomatic efforts and invasion only as a last resort or if our safety is immediately threatened. He was NOT all go for the invasion.

You like to cherry pick quotes out of context. I wonder why...Reminds me of some other people...

[Fla_Dem]

41. If you like, I'll post the whole damn speech

But then that would violate the rules here wouldn't it.

If as you say, cooked intel was being provided to congress, why didn't anyone from Clinton's intel department stand up and say so. Surely someone would have stood up and said "Whoa, wait a mintute here, all the intel we had said he didn't have WMD".

I'm thinking maybe the intel was faulty from the start. Not so much from a bush regime point of view, but from some other source that wanted to destabilize the middle east. Just think, a few countries get together and start providing faulty intel to the US knowing that with the 9/11 attacks, the US is ready to attack anything that moves.....

[Beetwasher]

42. I Read The Whole Damn Speech

And you are not representing it accurately or appropriately. You are twisting what Gore said to make it seem like he supported the unilateral invasion of Iraq. He didn't and your portrayal is dishonest, at the very least.

The intel from Clinton's admin is over four years old. If that's the intel they used then they are fucking idiots. Alot could change in four years. Additionally, you and I and hardly anyone knows what the intel really said. According to Tenet, it did NOT paint Iraq as an imminent threat though. The admin. DID paint Iraq as imminent threat. DO YOU DENY THAT?

You're point about faulty intel is bullshit and your tinfoil hat theory is noted. The intel was, I'm sure, totally filled with caveats about Iraq's supposed WMD's. Caveats that never saw the light of day and turned into CERTAINTY'S about Iraq's WMD's. The admin painted a picture that they were certain that Iraq had these weapons. The intel was NEVER that certain. The admin. lied, cooked the intel into being an imminent threat and took the nation to war for their own purposes. Gore never supported that no matter how much you twist his words and quote them out of context. Deal with it. Your boys are full of shit and pulled a fast one on you and the whole country. They are liars and scumbags and it's about time you faced reality.

[Fla_Dem]

44. Honestly

What has the US gained by taking over Iraq ? Why do you feel Bush the 2nd invaded ?? Why go through all the trouble "cooking the books" ?

[Beetwasher]

45. Hahahahahahahaha!

Oh boy. I don't know if you're really that hopelessly naive or incredibly disingenous.

The US has gained nothing, as a matter of fact the US and all of us little people lose big time because of this bullshit war. The question is what have Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, Bechtel and all of the Chimps bigtime donors and the neocons gained.

Have you ever heard of PNAC?

Bush was a failed oil man you know...

Good lord, you're joking right?

How sad and pathetic.

[Fla_Dem]

48. You seem to have all the answers

so tell me, exactly what have they gained ?

bush was a failed oil man, a failed president also, but since the US gets less than 5% of it's oil from Iraq, the oil companies are not exactly going to be getting rich. If oil was the reason, we should have taken over Venezuela.

Halliburton and Bechtel did get some rather sizeable contracts, however, how much actual net profit from them are they making ?

[Beetwasher]

51. Oy Vey

First of all, I don't have all the answers.

Second of all, the US may have only gotten 5% of it's oil from Iraq (source?), but Iraq does have the second largest reserves, so it would seem there is MUCH more to be had.

As far as Halliburton and Bechtel's net profit from Iraq, I don't have the actual figures, however, I wouldn't trust whatever figures they supply anyway. I have seen stories where they claim they aren't making much profit. They do seem to overcharge alot though. However, the real profit for these companies from these little publically financed adventures is not what shows up on their official books, but in the money that dissappears and is laundered, charged as expenses and then deposited in the Cayman islands. It's an old scam that's usually employed by mob connected contractors on public construction jobs. This is after all the Enron admin.

Fianlly, again, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF PNAC?

[Fla_Dem]

53. Yes I've heard of PNAC.

It like everything, has it's good and bad points. But as with most things contributable to republicans, the bad far outweigh the good.

[Beetwasher]

54. You've been given lot's of information

Do you still think Bush and company had nothing to gain from the invasion?

The US as a country had nothing to gain. Bush and his cronies had LOT'S to gain. Get it?

[Fla_Dem]

57. Actually, I've been given a lot of speculation,

but honestly, as much as I despise the current regime, I still can not believe that the whole Iraq deal was just some ploy to fill the cronies' bank accounts.

[tom_paine]

60. And I can't believe Watergate was to ensure Republican Presidents for

deacdes to come.

I can't believe Tuskeegee doctors would have purposefully infected African-Americans with syphillis, then lied and told them they were being treated.

I can't believe that Reagan (or the Busheviks who controlled "his" administration)would have treasonously circumvented the Constitution to funnel money to "insurgents" who were little more than drug-dealing nun rapists.

Maybe those things didn't happen, either.

Denial is the most powerful of human forces isn't it?

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."
--J. Edgar Hoover

Just so, Mr. Hoover. Or perhaps he was a crazed conspiracy theorist, as well.

[Beetwasher]

61. They Why Was it Done?

You keep asking what's been gained? Indeed...YOU answer that question. Why did we go to war? What was gained? Who gained? Who benefitted?

How pathetically naive of you...As if wars were never fought for political and economic reasons before and as if there has never been such a thing as a "war profiteer" before. I guess that term just sprang up out of nowhere...

[Fla_Dem]

63. Maybe I am naive.

So shoot me then.

I just don't think the regime would have gone through the trouble of hijacking intelligence information for the sole purpose of starting a war with the result to fatten the bank accounts of a few people.

There is more at work here, this whole deal goes a lot deeper than most want to realize. I gave an explination earlier but was told to "keep wearing my tin hat", well my reasoning is just as likely as any "wallet fattening" scenarios I've seen.

[Beetwasher]

64. Shoot You?

That would be very Republican of me.

You're entitled to your opinion, however, it's just plain silly.

Your reasoning most certainly is NOT just as likely as war profiteering. Other countries don't have the means to Doctor this country's intelligence. They might try to fool us into thinking weapons exist, but believe me, that's taken into account by intel. Other countries weren't writing Bush's speeches where he talked about mushroom clouds and being certain that stockpiles of weapons actually existed. They didn't make Powell go in front of the UN and present a vial and pictures of things that were completely bogus. The fact is our intelligence WAS NOT FLAWED OR WRONG.

The intelligence that was presented had caveats (do you know what those are?) about all it's claims. THOSE CAVEATS WERE IGNORED BY THE ADMIN. The admin. presented a scenario of a DIRE IMMINENT THREAT to our security. They were NOT fooled, they did this on purpose knowing full well the claims were NOT backed up by the intel. There's a lot of evidence that suggests this and backs this up. For instance, Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate the Yellow cake claims. He said they were false and yet this ended up in the Chimps Speech AFTER IT WAS DEBUNKED. That's NOT an accident and they knew damn well the claims were bogus but they used it anyway. Same thing with the aluminum tubes. Same thing with the Al Quaeda ties and the implied connection to 9/11. Do a little digging and you'll find lot's more. I would do it for you if I thought you really believed the admin. was fooled, but honestly, I don't think you really believe that and I don't think you're really as naive as you pretend to be.

[Fla_Dem]

66. Perhaps I don't give the regime enough credit

for actually having the mental capabilities to come up with such a plan.


IMHO, I think the US and the UK got played like a violin. Think about this for a minute. A country that has a lot to gain from a western attack upon a arab country. A country like Iran. Since ZERO WMD have been found in Iraq, that would mean that any intelligence showing that Iraq had WMD must have been false.

Iran, along with a few Arab countries, could plant intel around about Iraq having WMD. Combine that with a US president that would just love to jump into Iraq for any reason, and they could get rid of quite a bit of trouble in one action.

They get rid of Hussein.
They build more anti-American feelings in the middle east.
Knowing the information would be shown to be false, they embarass the western world.
They know that in 2-3 years the western world will forget about Iraq, leaving it free to take over.

They have so much to gain, and it has cost them absolutely nothing....

[Beetwasher]

67. Possibly One of the Most Ridiculous Things I've Ever Heard

You are ignoring my entire post and throwing a completely unsupportable theory out there.

There is EVIDENCE for what I'm saying in EVERYTHING THE ADMIN. SAID BEFORE THE WAR. They didn't get the 45 minutes to launch a nuclear weapon claim from intel planted by Iran. They didn't get the Yellow Cake allegations, which were proved phony by Joe Wilson from intel planted by Iran. Iran doesn't run our intel agencies or write the Chimps speeches in which he repeatedly HYPED THE THREAT.

If Iran was going around planting bogus info about Iraq's weapons to get the US to invade Iraq to rid them of the problem of Saddam, then the evidence would have been questionable and reported as such by our intel agencies. Our intel agencies are NOT that stupid and they don't depend on one source, but multiple sources and verification. They would have reported that infor with CAVEATS. Again, do you know what a CAVEAT is? None of the info that the admin. was feeding the public had any caveats. They were CERTAIN Iraq had weapons and told the public those weapons could be launched at a moments notice or put on aerial drones and were a direct and immediate dire threat that had to be taken out NOW. There was no such language in the intel briefings according to George Tenet.

There is no evidence for your ridiculous theory except stuff your fevered imagination.

[MrsMatt]

82. Actually, I believe Fla_Dem makes

an interesting case.

The point is that we don't REALLY know all the players in this, and it may many years before we can identify which agendas were being served.

[tom_paine]

52. Oil. Stolen loot from Iraq. The opportunity to defraud BILLIONS!

(see "halliburton")

The opportunity to feelce not only the Iraqis, but the Amerikan Taxpayers to funnel monies, a kickback-sized chunk of which is going to Bushevik Bank Accounts in the Cayman Islands.

Oh, other things they have gained:

carte Blanche to ignore the Constittuion and Bill of Rights
Carte bLANCHE TO FURTHER ERODE CHECKS AND BALANCES ON iMPERIAL pOWER
An even more bootlicking, supine, sycophantic, cowed, and Pravda-like Media than we even had before 9-11

(and that's sasying quite a lot)

Which reminds me of a recent "South Park" episode on John Smith, where the 18th Century people who kept doubting him kept being asked, "But WHY would he make something up like that?"

"Oh, then he must be telling the truth."

If a person cannot see how the Busheviks have benefitted on any number of levels from the trumped-up Iraq Invasion, then truly a person should go out and find the first Confidence Man and give him all their money.

After all, what reason would a Confidence Man have to tell a fib and get a person to believe him?!?

:crazy: :silly: :silly: :crazy:

[AlGore-08.com]

55. You cherry picking your quotes and drawing the wrong conclusion

I will now school you - - because I hold the Tipper Gore Chair of Al Gore Studies at Vanderbilt University and they don't hand that out for your attendence record.

Here is your quote, which you claim proves Gore supported Bush's (then) proposed preemptive invasion of Iraq:

"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. "

What Gore was discussing in this speech was the (then) proposed doctrine of preemption, not whether we should ever go to war with Iraq. In the speech Gore explained that nations certainly have a right to defend themselves (the quote you posted), but that was different from having the right to preemptively attack possible enemies. The point of Gore's speech was that the doctrine of preemption was unnecessary and dangerous and Congress should not approve it.

Here is a link to the speech transcript on my own site:
http://www.algoredemocrats.com/news/gnn/EpFklEVVZFrTfONOYJ.shtml

Here is what Gore specifically said about whether it was necessary to preemptively invade Iraq, from a little bit later in the speech:

The doctrine of preemption is based on the idea that in the era of proliferating WMD, and against the background of a sophisticated terrorist threat, the United States cannot wait for proof of a fully established mortal threat, but should rather act at any point to cut that short.

The problem with preemption is that in the first instance it is not needed in order to give the United States the means to act in its own defense against terrorism in general or Iraq in particular. But that is a relatively minor issue compared to the longer-term consequences that can be foreseen for this doctrine. To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq if the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

If it wasn't so serious, it would be pretty funny that folks are now trying to paint this Gore as supporting the war in Iraq, when this speech was universally reported as showing Gore's opposition to the war.

But the cardinal rule of GOP spin points has always been: that was then, baby. This is now!

[truthspeaker]

40. all those statements are a far cry from...

all those statements are a far cry from Bush: "Our only option is to go to war Right Now" (paraphrase)

Saddam did have to be dealt with, in some manner, eventually. He did not have to be dealth with on March 20, 2003 by a unilateral pre-emptive military invasion and poorly-planned occupation.

[louis-t]

68. The 'letter to President Clinton' sounds mysteriously similar

to the one sent by PNAC members in '98. I will check and get back to you. Hmmmm, indeed.

edit: nope, not the same letter, but still not verified.

[Undemcided]

31. More red meat

I don't think this will go down well with a lot of people though.

[sal]

37. the CNN news reader mocked him

Compared him to Dean's post election speech. I've met crack whores with more scuples than this little puke.

It is getting hard and harder for the media puke lap-dancers to prop up *

[Mari333]

50. email CNN and give them hell

[e-mail]
They are biased assholes, the reporters there.
Bush is a Traitor and Gore is 100% right.

[damnyankee2601]

59. Got one thing wrong.

Bush is not like Nixon. Nixon had the nation's best interest at heart, and the honor to step down when he disgraced himself.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

70. Nixon only stepped down when the House began impeachment hearings.

"best interest at heart"???
Nixon?

[Chomskyite]

75. "had the nation's best interest at heart"

Is that why he rigged the Paris peace talks in the fall of 68 and protracted the war to the degree that over 20,000 more American soldiers died?

Is that why he had his thugs beat up protesters? Had his FBI spy on dissenters? Had his thugs break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist?

Get out of MY sight!

[reprobate]

62. Here my email to CNN. Where's everyone else's.

CNN was the only viable worldwide and fair reporter of news. But that was long ago, before the Turner buy out.

It is now clearly apparent that your management is trying to push the Bush administration once again. Your reporter compared Al Gore' speech to the "scream" speach of Howard Dean. That is not the professional way of doing things. The way a journalist would do this is to just REPORT THE NEWS. Leave the opinions to the columnists, unless you clearly label it 'opinion'.

But even more important, and far more wrong, was your constant and many instances of sarcastic reporting of the Dean speech, clearly intended to eat into the Dean campaign. Have you no honor left at all? Or does KKKarl Rove pull all your strings. Do you ask "how high" when he says "jump"?

In my opinion your attack on Dean borders on treason. To intentionally attack a political candidate with the goal of making his campaign untenable is the action of a political organization, not a news gathering business. If there are any journalists left in your newsroom they surely must be embarrassed for their profession. You certainly must not fear reprisals in the future.

You must be aware that CNN, like any other business, will not last forever. When George W. Bush, failure in business, public office, and military, along with his neo-conservative masters is replaced this year there will be a huge backlash and it would not be surprising to see the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. So will end your political prosthelitizing.

[vanityfair]

72. Correction...

Damn the media.

Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the electoral vote to Bush...

This should read "Gore, who won the presidency in 2000 but was swindled out of it by Bush,...."

[JohnnyFianna1]

74. Hmm..

Nixon did some pretty moderate things: He negotiated relations with China, in 1972 he started a plan to slowly pull the troops out of Vietnam(the plan wouldn't commence into 1974 though), he cut military spending because he saw that there was no evidence that a war would occur between the US and SU (hmmm... a Republican that pay s attention to intel report), he was for progressive taxation (never implemented though), he believed in the separation of Church and State (as every president before Reagan did), he helped to freeze the price of gold and implemented wage controls, a precursor to the high minimum wage. He was a good person who became corrupted after running against impossible odds again and again (60 against Kennedy, after the death of MC McCarthyism Nixon took a large personal blow) and continuously losing. He was continuously underestimated in his own party (kinda like Al gore and Howard Dean) and when he finally snapped. Having never encountered a presidential political Victory before he snapped. He purposefully hired dumb people to cabinet positions (with the exception of Kissinger) so he could manipulate them. He led a good four year presidency. But after destroying McGovern, he mentally collapsed, this led to Watergate and various errors that would characterize his later four years.

[Zhade]

79. Damn right, Al. Damn right.

That's MY president talking!

[Zhade]

80. Downloaded the clip (link below).

Listened to it twice - it sends shivers through me. The good kind.

THAT'S the kind of truth we need. We're seeing it from Kucinich, seeing it from Dean, even seeing it from the other candidates, and let me tell you, it's about damn time.

It looks like Al has truly grown as a person since 2000. I mean, he was no slouch then, but DAMN, listen to him now. The anger and hurt, deep hurt, in his voice when he says "betrayed" the first time - wow.

This is speaking truth to power. Al has really, really impressed me tonight. Listening to his words felt like witnessing history.

[saltpoint]

81. Gore was stiff but qualified for the job --

-- and Dubya was a clueless ninny. I wish more Americans had voted blue than red, but maybe this November we can grab back Ohio, West Virginia, and Missouri.

That will cook Dubya and give us some more moderate Supreme Court nominees.

Gore has been blistering Bush this winter, and rightly so. Go, Al. Go, Democrats.