Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7047|132 and Bush


His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Now some of Gore’s charges may even be true. The pre-9-11 world was very different from ours with respect to how we view countries that harbor terrorists. President Reagan had even decried Israel’s 1981 raid on the Osirak reactor. But this is Al “he played on our fearrrrs” Gore we’re talking about. This is the same man who, in February 2002, promoted a “final reckoning” with Iraq only to turn against that same reckoning on the eve of its launch. This is the same Al Gore who in 2004 intentionally conflated the abuses at Abu Ghraib with official US policy to confuse the issue and undermine the war. This is the same Al Gore who denounced US war policy in in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia last year. This is the same Al Gore, 1992 and 2007, only…totally different. He’s grown into his own bizarro doppelganger as political sands have shifted from Democrats positioning themselves as credible hawks to isolationist doves.

This is, in short, Al Gore: a craven opportunist who will say whatever he deems to be the most useful thing for the political moment, without regard to truth or principle or consequences, other than one — that the consequences include making Gore relevant. That’s the one principle that he obviously cares about a great deal.

Courtesy of HotAir
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7136|Tampa Bay Florida
Owned

If he wasnt such a lameass, maybe the dems wouldve won back in 2000.....
Dragonclaw
Member
+186|6751|Florida
Manbearpig!
D6717C
Anger is a gift
+174|7079|Sin City

https://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6862/image16dd1.jpg

https://img235.imageshack.us/img235/16/image15jd3.jpg
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6625
This is why I say that we are "damned if we do, damned if we dont" I am glad this was posted because it goes to show you that it doesnt matter about doing the right thing for the people, but making the other guy look bad. Political, political, political!!!!!! Now, this is what we were dealing with for years when it came to Iraq, Gore himself listed off many things that happened to us and were going on at that time that lead us into the choices we had to make but its funny....everybody was pushing for the end of Saddam in those years...but no one would stand up and say enough and then when we do stand up and say its enough...then we are the war mongers and then everyone switches positions to better themselves. Its amazing, all those years, all those incidences and its all forgotten because of what we are doing now. People have such a short memory. Great post Kmarion, now some people now might see what the leadership then and now had to deal with...even a pile like Gomer Gore.
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6936|Menlo Park, CA
Al Gore is a douche bag pure and simple. . . . always has been!
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7207

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Gore one of a few Dems who voted for Desert Storm?

Also...



http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2000/2 … _iraq.html

Jan. 12, 1991: Gore's 20-minute speech supporting Bush, out-Goebbeled Goebbels: "Had this President [Bush] and his predecessor [Reagan] not grossly misunderstood Saddam Hussein, we would have taken action against him sooner.... Saddam Hussein has more troops than Hitler did in the early years of World War II. He is not Hitler ... >>>> but he is using weapons of mass destruction. He is threatening to continue his march throughout the region.... He is seeking now to acquire ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons."<<<<<<<


Arrows added by me.


Jan. 30, 1991: Gore said, "We shall not have peace ... in the Middle East.... However, we can have a balance of power," which would require constant monitoring. Gore suggested means to bar Iraq "from access to nuclear materials and nuclear technology, [and] demand full international inspection on demand of any industrial, scientific, or military facility." >>>>>He suggested that the United States support "exiled Iraqis" who cannot come to power "unless we were to install them."<<<<

Arrows added by me.

September 1991: Gore criticized Bush for ending the war with Iraq without marching on Baghdad, and eliminating Saddam. Gore said >>>>>>>>>>that "stability" will only come when the policy is "successful in removing the regime of Saddam Hussein from power<<<<<<<<< ... and if his Baathist regime is dismantled as well." Gore added, "I want to propose how that might be done." He suggested blocking access to international support, building the resources of the opposition, and "cutting off access to any resources."

Arrows added by me.




Sounds to me like he wanted what Bush is doing now.

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-06-12 21:02:44)

iamangry
Member
+59|7091|The United States of America
You all are wrong.  This is NOT the same Gore from 1992 that's done all this crazy shit.  This is a Gore who's dealt with coming within 500 votes of President of the United States, and wanting to see the guy who beat him fail so much he's willing to say anything (turns out not much needed to be said, just a little time) to make that dream a reality.
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|7152
Pitiful....
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7047|132 and Bush

iamangry wrote:

You all are wrong.  This is NOT the same Gore from 1992 that's done all this crazy shit.  This is a Gore who's dealt with coming within 500 votes of President of the United States, and wanting to see the guy who beat him fail so much he's willing to say anything (turns out not much needed to be said, just a little time) to make that dream a reality.
The year is 1992. Sen. Al Gore had been picked up by Gov. Bill Clinton as his running mate for the White House. The pair of Southern Democrats were up against President George H. W. Bush, who had seen his 90+% approval rating after the Gulf War plummet thanks to a souring economy and a tax increase that Bush had told us –”read my lips”– would never get past his desk. Gore had been picked to offset Clinton’s obvious bimbo weaknesses and relative inexperience in foreign policy. Clinton’s most notable achievements in that field up to that point had been decrying the Vietnam war while on British soil, making a trip to the USSR in 1969 that he never quite explained, and deploying the Arkansas National Guard to help out in local crises.

Gore, by contrast, had served in Vietnam. He was a stable family man. He was regarded as a centrist Democrat, a foreign policy expert and a Blue Dog hawk on national security. And at that time, in that campaign, he delivered the speech to the Center for National Policy on September 29, 1992. The point of the speech was to dent Bush 41’s unrivalled foreign policy credentials by making him look weak in the face of threats. That was no small task, given that the Gulf War was just about 18 months in the past and the US was still enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq. Bush 41 had also ordered the 1989 invasion of Panama to deal with dictator Manuel Noreiga, a successful military operation that went off almost without a hitch.

The thesis of the Gore speech: Reagan-Bush had looked the other way and let Saddam Hussein become a terroristic menace and a WMD developer. They had ignored Saddam’s many operational ties to terrorists over the years so they could maintain relations with him and offset the threat from the mullahs in Iran. Reagan-Bush and then Bush 41 on his own had shown weakness in the face of the threat from Saddam’s Iraq, a weakness that was not offset even by the 1991 Gulf War victory. Gore’s speech was intended to make an issue of Republican weakness in the face of terrorism, and in the face of Saddam’s hard and verified connections to terrorism in particular.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Belx
Member
+4|7124|New York, New York
This was 15 years ago.

Simple rule of time: THINGS HAPPEN AS TIME GOES ON.

Jesus, I thought people were smarter than this.
iamangry
Member
+59|7091|The United States of America
Again, its amazing how much people can change in a decade.  You obviously have a better memory of that period (I was 4), and maybe you're right that he's a hypocrite.  I just don't believe that people should have to pick a view and stick to it for the rest of their natural career.  Politics isn't poker, you don't just get dealt a hand of political stances and then have to work with them unable to change any of the cards.  The guy changed his mind, so what?  I also changed my mind on the subject over those 10 years (first I had to learn who Saddam was) and I don't feel bad about it at all.  Besides, the guy is still nuts now, when he wasn't in 1992.  10 years is a long time for views to hold strong.  Is it ironic?  Yes.  Is it hypocritical?  Not so much.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7207

Belx wrote:

This was 15 years ago.

Simple rule of time: THINGS HAPPEN AS TIME GOES ON.

Jesus, I thought people were smarter than this.
You seem to miss the big picture.  He wanted what Bush did in Iraq in 2003.  Now that it went bad, he mocks it.  Smart people do not respect that.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7047|132 and Bush

iamangry wrote:

Again, its amazing how much people can change in a decade.  You obviously have a better memory of that period (I was 4), and maybe you're right that he's a hypocrite.  I just don't believe that people should have to pick a view and stick to it for the rest of their natural career.  Politics isn't poker, you don't just get dealt a hand of political stances and then have to work with them unable to change any of the cards.  The guy changed his mind, so what?  I also changed my mind on the subject over those 10 years (first I had to learn who Saddam was) and I don't feel bad about it at all.  Besides, the guy is still nuts now, when he wasn't in 1992.  10 years is a long time for views to hold strong.  Is it ironic?  Yes.  Is it hypocritical?  Not so much.
Either Saddam was a threat or not. That's not like changing your opinion on taxes. I have no problem with someone adjusting their views with current situations, in fact I advocate it. Gore recants his views because he lacks the moral fabric to stand by his words, not personal conviction. Irony happens by chance, hypocrisy is chosen. Al Gore picked his words. He my friend is a hypocrite. And that is an "Inconvenient Truth".

More 92 Gore
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6988|Texas - Bigger than France

iamangry wrote:

Again, its amazing how much people can change in a decade.  You obviously have a better memory of that period (I was 4), and maybe you're right that he's a hypocrite.  I just don't believe that people should have to pick a view and stick to it for the rest of their natural career.  Politics isn't poker, you don't just get dealt a hand of political stances and then have to work with them unable to change any of the cards.  The guy changed his mind, so what?  I also changed my mind on the subject over those 10 years (first I had to learn who Saddam was) and I don't feel bad about it at all.  Besides, the guy is still nuts now, when he wasn't in 1992.  10 years is a long time for views to hold strong.  Is it ironic?  Yes.  Is it hypocritical?  Not so much.
Actually he hasn't changed much at all.

In 1992 he said he invented the internet.

I voted for him once.  It's the only time the guy I voted for lost.
Superslim
BF2s Frat Brother
+211|7138|Calgary
Politicians are like knives with no handles, either way you use it,  you get cut
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7136|Tampa Bay Florida
I just want to make something clear here.  What a lot of people don't understand is that, while a good number of people who "changed their mind" about the war in Iraq are doing it just to earn political support, there is a big difference in authorizing the war, and running it.  There are so many things Bush could've done differently with the invasion, and, quite frankly, if he had listened to what the military was telling him, Iraq might've turned out differently than the hellhole it is today. 

So, just pointing out, don't attack politicians soley for changing their minds about the issue.  Right wingers often confuse left wingers who supported regime change in Iraq with the people who were against it from the start.  I thought the overthrow of Hussein was a good thing, however, the way it was done is what I was against.  And, day by day, more and more Republicans are starting to change sides, too. 

At the end of the day, Gore is an idiot.  But some of you are making him out to be more an idiot than he really is, in my view.

Last edited by Spearhead (2007-06-12 23:04:31)

BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7214
He is right. What country defeats another in a war then leaves a brutal dictator who started the war in power?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7047|132 and Bush

BN wrote:

He is right. What country defeats another in a war then leaves a brutal dictator who started the war in power?
The UN dictated the mission of the first Gulf War.

The Gulf War or the Persian Gulf War (16 January 1991–28 February 1991) was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of approximately 30 nations led and authorized by the United Nations (UN) in order to liberate Kuwait.

We just supplied a great Majority of the troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#C … nvolvement
Xbone Stormsurgezz
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7207

BN wrote:

He is right. What country defeats another in a war then leaves a brutal dictator who started the war in power?
Ask the UN.  Suggest you learn more about this.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard