Please help me debunk this video I got from a Wingnut bashing Al Gore

[populistdriven]

http://richwatch.net/gorespeech.htm

There are obviously tons of "errors" of omission here. I am just looking for a few of the obvious ones so I can shoot this down quickly.

It shows Gore bashing Bush for ignoring Saddam's ties to terrorists and then fast forwards to him talking about Bush's claims of a Saddam - Osama link.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. First of all, if FOX says it, it is lies. PERIOD.

[populistdriven]

2. Yea, but to a wingnut Faux is gospel so I gotta shoot holes in it.

[Ksec]

3. Why bother . You and I know its propaganda but

anything you say will be discredited because you are a lefty. ( those ties with saddam have all been disproven) They rely on other propagandists.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. check out the Media Matters response

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605240009

[Master Mahon]

5. How about

Perhaps Gore/Clinton got it wrong too BUT THEY didn't get us
involved in lengthy, expensive wars that have caused total
anarchy in afganistan and iraq.
The GOP is great at using DEMS prior speaches made years ago,
but the BIG difference is in their ACTIONS! DEMS used ration
and diplomacy and didn't act like half-cocked chickenhawks
plummeting countries into death and chaos.
Rhetoric is one thing, hubris and demonics are entirely something else.

Typical FOX crap I might add. Cherry pick a few statements and totally miss the entire point. (Actually they didn't miss it, they purposely
avoided it)

[populistdriven]

9. Exactly - opinions may be in error but ultimately judge people's actions!

[blm]

13. They do it to every Dem on every issue - and half the time it even works

on Democrats who should be immune by now to the corporate media and their distortion tactics.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. There is an audio somewhere of Dimson actually saying there is no

link between Saddam and 9/11.

Besides. I would not trust that the video has not been "retouched" if you know what I mean. How could you refute something that may not even be authentic?
I would not trust Repukes and their minions as far as I could throw them.

Above poster is right. It is not even worth the effort to disprove this video. Tell the person who sent it to you to prove it is accurate, by some authority OTHER THAN FOX!.

[blm]

7. It doesn't matter what Clinton, Gore or anyone said in the past, they were

operating off of OLD INTEL and any caution they had was warranted. However....

ALL of that old intel was INOPERABLE from the moment the IWR put the weapons inspectors back on the ground in Iraq and they were sending back CURRENT Intel gathered on the ground for two months.

Bush was the guy being given those reports every day and he chose to IGNORE CURRENT INTEL being reported from on the ground in Iraq. Irsq is BUSH'S WAR.

Freeps will have no answer to how Bush chose to ignore CURRENT, OPERABLE INTEL in favor of concerns that were 5 years old.

[populistdriven]

10. An excellent point!

[blm]

11. A crucial point that no media will DARE ADDRESS. Because it's IRREFUTABLE

and makes the war ENTIRELY Bush's while they have been busy blaming Clinton, Gore, the IWR and everything BUT the actual person who was in receipt of the daily reports from the weapons inspectors on the ground.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

8. for purposes of arguing with a freeper, and for these purposes only...

...the questions are...

Why was the President all of a sudden looking for ties between Saddam and terrorists? Because Al Gore thought it was a good idea? Is the President really following the advice of Al Gore now?


These questions have nothing to do with anything, of course. They bastardize the issue and infuse it with screwy logic. But they'll drive your freeper buddy friggin' barmy.

[blm]

12. heh - or - so Bush called Gore to the WH as a trusted view on Saddam?

.