Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

[951-Riverside]

Run time: 09:27 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64   Posted on YouTube: June 08, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 10, 2007 By DU Member: 951-Riverside Views on DU: 861

 

[Pirate Smile]

1. LOL - the 1992 video the RW was pushing. We saw it months ago and

it doesn't diminish Gore or what he said in 2002 before the Senate even voted on the IWR.

[still_one]

2. First of all, I believe he is critisizing bush I. Second, he does not call for invading Iraq

As far as his other points, so?

[AX10]

3. What Gore is saying is that Saddam is not a good person.

He also said that Reagan :puke: and Bush I :puke: were both wrong to give asssistance to Saddam. I agree with those points. However, at no time does Gore support the toppling of the Hussein regime. I also did not support the toppling of the regime either. Saddam was also opposed to OBL. Where Saddam just wanted power for himself, OBL wants to convert the world to Islam by means of violence against us. OBL was behind 9/11, NOT Saddam!

[greenman3610]

4. so Gore was calling them on supporting Saddam right up to the Kuwait invasion

That is not inconsistent with questioning the wisdom of
invading them in 2003, and letting OBL go.

[file83]

5. Essentially, the Rise of Saddam was Reagan and Bush41's fault.

I would have to agree with Gore.

What the Right Wingers fail to realize about this video is that when Gore discusses Saddams "ties to terrorism", he's talking about the 1980's. That was when Saddam was getting all kinds of support from Reagan/Bush and they weren't paying attention to the danger he was.

Then Kuwait happened and our country went to war.

Amazing how we always go to war when a Bush is in the White House, ain't it?

[Guaranteed]

6. Wow. In the context of the aftermath of the first Persian Gulf War, this almost makes sense.

No. I'm sorry, I meant it does make sense.

In 1991 we had the entire world with us, and Hussein had invaded a sovereign nation (with the permission of GHWB, of course). He had used chemical weapons against his neighbors and his own people (again, supplied by us), and now we had the opportunity to put a real stop to the chaos that was being created in the Middle East largely by him. We had encouraged those forces within his country to stand up against him. But then, instead of backing them up and finishing the job, we pulled back at a freaking latitude line.

Fast forward to 2003. Here we have just been brutally attacked by a group of terrorists not only unconnected to Saddam but in ideological opposition to his regime. In our counterattack against them, we have had only moderate success, being unable to find the leader of the group. Saddam has been around for eleven or twelve years since he last attacked anyone in any significant manner. We have much highly dubious evidence- mostly based on hearsay- that the guy MIGHT have chemical weapons, but no real reason to believe he would ever use them or be interested in giving them to people that would. And many of our allies aren't all that interested in another excursion into the country. NOW we invade- UNPROVOKED- and set up an occupation of the entire country, with no exit strategy, when we have so much to do in the world to protect ourselves against people having nothing to do with Saddam, and when our reputation isn't just a matter of pride but a matter of getting the help we need to get to those people.

Yeah. Totally the same thing.

You need to THINK, sir.