1992- Al Gore speaking of Iraqi Terrorism

[Calabrio]

September 29, 1992
Here's a great old video of Al Gore attacking President George H.W. Bush for ignoring Saddam Hussein and Iraq's links to terrorism and human rights violations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

 

[Joeychgo]

Which means what to me? Its 15 years ago, things are different today.

 

[Calabrio]

Which means what to me? Its 15 years ago, things are different today.

It means that Al Gore, and those who support him, who continue to repeat the big lie about "Bush lied" are dishonest, opportunistic, liars.

You're Powell article also reinforces this.

So, next time you hear Al Gore or anyone on the left speaking about how Iraq was a needless war, a harmless sovereign state that was no threat to anyone, remember what Gore was on record having said earlier. Just add it to the long list of Democrats who supported strong action against Saddam during the Clinton era and when the polling data directed them to support it during the Bush's first term.

As for things being different TODAY..... No crap.
Hussein is dead. At the moment, Iraq isn't able to function as a state sponsor of terror either. And every month, about 5,000 terrorist, who otherwise might be obtaining student visas or traveling to Mexico to gain access the U.S., are vaporized by the U.S. military.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

It means that Al Gore, and those who support him, who continue to repeat the big lie about "Bush lied" are dishonest, opportunistic, liars.

You're Powell article also reinforces this.

So, next time you hear Al Gore or anyone on the left speaking about how Iraq was a needless war, a harmless sovereign state that was no threat to anyone, remember what Gore was on record having said earlier. Just add it to the long list of Democrats who supported strong action against Saddam during the Clinton era and when the polling data directed them to support it during the Bush's first term.

As for things being different TODAY..... No crap.
Hussein is dead. At the moment, Iraq isn't able to function as a state sponsor of terror either. And every month, about 5,000 terrorist, who otherwise might be obtaining student visas or traveling to Mexico to gain access the U.S., are vaporized by the U.S. military.

When will you get it out of your thick skull your misconceptions about how the "left" feel?

No one on the "left" claims BuSh "lied" about Saddam being a threat. No one on the "left" claimed Iraq was totally "harmless". GWB LIED about how BIG of a threat he actually WAS ("mushroom clouds", remember??). Compared to all the other threats present in the spring of 2003 (Al Quida, Taliban in Afghanistan, etc), Saddam was small potatoes and was NOT the immediate and great threat that GW, Cheney and Rumsfeld needed us Americans to believe in order to "sell us" on invading Iraq. Congress and the American people gave BuSh all the rope he needed but instead WE and the Iraqi citizens are the ones left twisting in the breeze.

WRT your '92 video, that was BEFORE all the sanctions emasculated Saddam. BFD.

 

[fossten]

When will you get it out of your thick skull your misconceptions about how the "left" feel?

No one on the "left" claims BuSh "lied" about Saddam being a threat. No one on the "left" claimed Iraq was totally "harmless". GWB LIED about how BIG of a threat he actually WAS ("mushroom clouds", remember??). Compared to all the other threats present in the spring of 2003 (Al Quida, Taliban in Afghanistan, etc), Saddam was small potatoes and was NOT the immediate and great threat that GW, Cheney and Rumsfeld needed us Americans to believe in order to "sell us" on invading Iraq. Congress and the American people gave BuSh all the rope he needed but instead WE and the Iraqi citizens are the ones left twisting in the breeze.

WRT your '92 video, that was BEFORE all the sanctions emasculated Saddam. BFD.

Even a moron sees 20/20 with hindsight.

Evidently some blunt instruments still need a diamond drill taken to them, no matter how many times it's been done before, so...

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

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

"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 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

 

[Garbone]

Sorry, JohnnyBz00LS, You are simply wrong.

 

[Garbone]

Well done...fossten !!!

 

[shagdrum]

Even a moron sees 20/20 with hindsight.

Evidently some blunt instruments still need a diamond drill taken to them, no matter how many times it's been done before, so...

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

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

"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 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Calabrio]

When will you get it out of your thick skull your misconceptions about how the "left" feel?

No one on the "left" claims BuSh "lied" about Saddam being a threat. No one on the "left" claimed Iraq was totally "harmless". GWB LIED about how BIG of a threat he actually WAS ("mushroom clouds", remember??).

And I again, take issue with your language. To say he "lied" states that he knowingly deceived the public.

And when you say he lied, you fail to recognize the reality that if Bush lied, then Powell lied. And the intelligence community "lied." And then the Democrat leadership lied about it. And Clinton "lied" about it when he was President.

Was Clinton's policy of regime change based on Bush's lie as well?

Furthermore, when anyone says that Hussein had links to international terror, we now have Al Gore on video agreeing with it when it was in his political interest to do so.

So, was Gore lying now or lying then?

Compared to all the other threats present in the spring of 2003 (Al Quida, Taliban in Afghanistan, etc), Saddam was small potatoes and was NOT the immediate and great threat that GW, Cheney and Rumsfeld needed us Americans to believe in order to "sell us" on invading Iraq.

You're engaged in a "big lie" by continue the false perception that the war, and evidence to support it, was complete manufactured by and originated with those three people. This is simply untrue.

The degree to which the intelligence data available was accurate is subject of debate. But to imply that there was a "Lie" involved is, infact, a lie itself.
Congress and the American people gave BuSh all the rope he needed but instead WE and the Iraqi citizens are the ones left twisting in the breeze.

And I'm not going to engage in the discussion behind the foreign policy associated with the Iraq War. It was absolutely sound

WRT your '92 video, that was BEFORE all the sanctions emasculated Saddam. BFD.

Yeah, oil for food never took place. And the French, Germans, and Russians were actively working within the UN to have those sanctions lifted.

And mind you, they never said he HAD a nuke- they said he was trying to develop one. The only issue is how far along he really was. There's no doubt that the program existed, it's just that it was suspended, ready to be reactivated.

Would you rather wait until after they have that nuke before taking decisive action? Do we wait until that mushroom or do we strike while a military victory is still attainable at an acceptable cost? Personally, I'd prefer to never have a war with an equal power. There's no honor in a "fair war."

The failings with the Iraq War weren't the decision to move forward, but the flawed strategy applied for the occupation.

 

[Marcus]

I don't know if Bush deliberately "lied" about Iraq. I'll admit it's too easy to make that accusation, since he obviously has the highest profile when it comes to speeches and whatnot, and all responsibility is supposed to rest upon him. But intentional or not, many of the things he stated were indeed lies, not just faulty intelligence.

The true, incontrovertible LIAR was Ahmed Chalibi, the former head of the Iraqi National Congress, a group started and funded by the CIA after the first Gulf War.

Chalibi was the single most important source for our "intelligence" concerning Iraq. He was the man who gave us the infamous "Curveball" character, who supplied our government with outrageous claims, such as the "mobile weapons labs" that Powell spoke about at the UN. Curveball claimed to be a former Iraqi scientist who worked on WMD. And it turned out he was not only completely full of sh!t, he was also a total loon.

Yet, even though many in our intelligence agencies knew he was a loon and completely unreliable, others ate up his fabrications without question. Guess whose reports made it to the White House and congress? And guess whose warnings and reservations were downplayed or outright ignored? And it is now clear that warnings were coming in from near and far.

The selective filtering of intelligence in this way makes it difficult to pin the label "liar" on any specific people (other than Chalibi), which was exactly the intention. Once the hand-picked intelligence is run up the chain of command to be delivered to the president and congress, it's nearly impossible to know who's responsible for it.

So while Chalibi was ultimately the biggest liar when it came to pre-war Iraq intelligence, responsibility also lies with the people who made him out to be a reliable source and eagerly accepted everything he told them at face value, while pushing aside those who questioned his claims.

There is every reason to believe that there was a concerted effort from some quarters to intentionally overstate Chalibi's credibility and hush the naysayers. Cheney's involvement is unquestioned in my mind, and I lay plenty of the blame squarely on his shoulders, even more than Bush's. Way more.

As for Bush, he may or may not have known that many of the statements he made about Iraq were lies, but they were lies nonetheless. And as Truman said, "The buck stops here".


Congress can only act on what intelligence it is given. The statements made by Democrats that Fossten has posted were based on that mixture of lies and faulty intelligence, so it is not all that surprising that they would make them. What the quotes leave out of course is the context. Almost every one of those statements leave out the parts where the congressperson expresses his or her wishes that military action should be considered an absolute last resort after all other options were exhausted, and only after assembling a broad multi-national coalition (what we had/have does not qualify). Those statements were most likely made as much to send a strong message to Saddam as for the benefit of anyone else. Does that mean they didn't believe what they were saying? No. But I expect they honestly believed that the threat of military action would convince Saddam to submit, and war could be avoided. Also bear in mind that the statements taken from 2002 were made before the weapons inspectors were allowed back into the country and given unprecedented access, yet found nothing of import.

But we now know without a shadow of a doubt that war was in fact the ONLY consideration to the Bush team. Remember, it was Bush who kicked out the weapons inspectors in 2003, not Saddam. Why the rush, when we had inspectors there? Could it be because their lack of finding anything was undermining the administration's reasons for invasion? Sounds pretty plausible to me.

As for Saddam, he made two huge mistakes. First, he intentionally kept the question of his weapons capabilities ambiguous. This wasn't so much a defiance of the United States as it was about not showing has cards to the Iranians. Both countries were in their own little Cold War with each other, and to show himself as weak would invite a possible resumption of hostilities. So he was caught between a rock and a hard place: Submit to the US and show his weakness to Iran, or defy us and chance a US invasion. Which brings me to his second huge mistake, which I'm sure you can figure out.

BTW Calabrio, the fact that some of the nations in the security council wanted to lift sanctions is a moot point. Whether they did or didn't, the United States has veto power, which would have prevented that.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Thank you Tommy :Beer

 

[Calabrio]

To often our weakened intelligence community is ignored in a partisan rush to blame Bush. The reliance on Chalabi is due in whole to our inadequate human intelligence capabilities and the flawed decision to shift our focus on electronic methods of gathering intelligence in the 90s. The intelligence failures associated with Iraq can not be over looked. You make some very valid points in your post, Tommy.

But what is not addressed, and what I take issue with, is the fact many of these so-called "lies" were embraced by the Clinton administration prior to Bush even being elected.

You take issue with the quotes provided by Fossten, saying that they were influenced by the deception perpetuated by the Bush White House. Of course, you fail to note that in just that list, some of the quotes date back to 1998 and the Clinton Administration.

And you are also incorrect in your representation of information that is available to Congress. They are not dependent upon the White House to provide them information.

BTW Calabrio, the fact that some of the nations in the security council wanted to lift sanctions is a moot point. Whether they did or didn't, the United States has veto power, which would have prevented that.

That veto power didn't prevent the $10 BILLION of revenue Hussein managed to earn through corrupt UN programs like Oil For Food.

 

[fossten]

Tommy,

The biggest flaw in the left's credibility is the way you people EXCUSE the Democrats for "lying" to get us into war in Iraq by saying that they aren't to blame because they relied on faulty intelligence. Out of the other side of your mouths come the "Bush lied" statements. If that isn't doubletalk and double standards, I don't know what is.

If the Democrats are to be EXCUSED for relying on faulty intelligence, how do you justify still claiming that Bush lied, considering the FACT that he was relying on the same intel that they were? Your bias is showing along with your ass.

If you really want to shed the aura of ignorance that so easily besets you, take a moment and accuse the DEMOCRATS of lying to get us into war as well as Bush. At least then you'll be intellectually honest.

But I'll tell you something that I guarantee you haven't thought of: The Democrats, with the exception of Lieberman, have all gone back on their former statements and recanted their positions. Because Bush hasn't done that, but rather only admitted that the intel was faulty, he has been bashed by the left. It's very easy (and cowardly) to use hindsight to repeatedly accuse someone of making a mistake. The hard road is to stick by your guns and show some leadership, especially since we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

It isn't leadership to take potshots at the leader of the free world. It's cheap and quisling-like. But hey, maybe that's why the Democratically-controlled Congress has a LOWER APPROVAL RATING THAN BUSH HIMSELF.

 

[MAC1]

Tommy,

The biggest flaw in the left's credibility is the way you people EXCUSE the Democrats for "lying" to get us into war in Iraq by saying that they aren't to blame because they relied on faulty intelligence. Out of the other side of your mouths come the "Bush lied" statements. If that isn't doubletalk and double standards, I don't know what is.

If the Democrats are to be EXCUSED for relying on faulty intelligence, how do you justify still claiming that Bush lied, considering the FACT that he was relying on the same intel that they were? Your bias is showing along with your ass.

If you really want to shed the aura of ignorance that so easily besets you, take a moment and accuse the DEMOCRATS of lying to get us into war as well as Bush. At least then you'll be intellectually honest.

But I'll tell you something that I guarantee you haven't thought of: The Democrats, with the exception of Lieberman, have all gone back on their former statements and recanted their positions. Because Bush hasn't done that, but rather only admitted that the intel was faulty, he has been bashed by the left. It's very easy (and cowardly) to use hindsight to repeatedly accuse someone of making a mistake. The hard road is to stick by your guns and show some leadership, especially since we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

It isn't leadership to take potshots at the leader of the free world. It's cheap and quisling-like. But hey, maybe that's why the Democratically-controlled Congress has a LOWER APPROVAL RATING THAN BUSH HIMSELF.

Well, democrat lies and inability to admit to the truth continues to this day as they continue to refuse to admit that President Bush's tax cuts have been a huge boost for our economy. Moreover, remember the democrats claimed that once they were elected in 2006 that they would clean up Washington, D.C. and a new era would begin. In the first 100 days they would press forward with wide-sweeping legislation to help the middle class, etc. Now that we know that was all a lie, I wonder if those of the liberal persuasion would be willing to admit that it's apparent that democrats had no intention a making good on their promises. Instead, the first thing I heard after democrats were elected was a desire to impeach the President.

Here's a question for Tommy: Do you agree that President Bush's tax cuts have been a tremendous boost for the economy? If not, why is the economy doing so well? After all, you quoted Truman's "The buck stops here" statment. So apparently you believe a president should be given credit were credit is due?