Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I don’t understand your point. I don’t see anything in any of your quotes from Gore that would suggest that we should have invaded Iraq, or even any evidence that he ever thought for a moment that Saddam was a sufficient threat to warrant an invasion. You seem to be suggesting that he’s changed his mind, when in fact it all seems to be a pretty consistent policy all the way through.

You are finding discrepancies where there are none, perhaps because you are unable to distinguish the difference between minor threats and major threats (which is probably, in turn, why you and so many other Americans were so easily convinced into thinking that the Iraq invasion was a good idea).

-Cf

What’s worse—Gore changing his story because it’s an election season, or Gore recognizing the threat of Saddam and preferring, as Christopher suggests his position is, to do nothing about it?

In those quotes from last year,Gore doesn’t even say that maybe Saddam has them, he say he KNOWS Saddam has them and has no compunction about using them. Now he accuses Bush of “lying”—but why, if Bush just believes the same thing Gore did?

The question isn’t whether or not Gore thinks we should have invaded—he doesn’t, clearly—but Gore isn’t framing his disagreement solely along the lines of what should or should not have been done. He’s saying that the very reasons for doing ANYTHING are false, which is a huge inconsistency with his previous statements.

We lucked out big-time—this man was almost president of the United States. Instead of just being the irrelevant sideshow that his is today, he would have been a total disaster for the entire country. Thank god the Florida Supreme Court was prevented from appointing him president!

Timothy, the missing link in your argument is the fact that all of us acquired our information from the Administration which on its face appeared to support and justify invasion of Iraq. Like the general population which by vast majority trusted the administration’s reasons for invading Iraq and now is realizing they were duped, Gore has upon reflection of the information the administration provided before invasion and the facts that are now evident, simple called a spade a spade. Bush duped the American people, he duped the Congress, he duped the international community and must now be held accountable for the misinformation provided as a basis for going to war.

He said there were WMD that threatened America, there weren’t, he implied through a constant barrage of associating Saddam Hussein with Al-Queda in the same sentence and paragraphs, that Saddam was somehow involved directly with the 9/11 attacks, a statement we now have absolutely no evidence of and which Bush himself has admitted recently there is no evidence of. Having been exposed on that misinformation, Bush proposed the reason for invasion was part of the bigger war on eliminating terrorism. Facts now show, as the State Dep.’t has just reported, the invasion of Iraq coincides with a vast increase of terrorist related deaths than prior to the invasion. Now Bush is asking us to believe that the war was justified on the basis of bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. Yet, signs of anarchy and almost complete instability are evident on a daily basis in the news coming out of Iraq.

We Americans are paying a horrible price for invading Iraq, moving toward 900 military deaths, many thousands of wounded and ill military troops, and 100s of billions of dollars, not to mention the disunity the war has created in the American populace, and the huge loss of respect and trust in the international community which now force the administration against the wall in dealing with N. Korea offering bribes for their cooperation instead of marking them for military action as part of the axis of evil.

Gore was duped and his speech reflects what about half the people of our nation feel about the Bush administration in regard to the Iraq war. I personally think Gore’s speech was accurate in reflecting the thinking and feelings of half or more of the people in this country - of course November will tell.

David,
Thanks for your comments.

You are correct that most American’s got their information from the president and his administration. Information such as:

“What if Saddam Hussein “fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.”

“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” “Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”

“Just consider the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam’s son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.”

“Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability—notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

“Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They’ve harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.”

“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
That was President Clinton in 1998 when he wanted to bomb Iraq. There are so many times in the past 10 years where leaders reasoned why it was important to act in Iraq. I could list a hundred more quotes but it wouldn’t matter. Most of those critical of the current administration are doing so not out of anger about Iraq, but out of discontent with with last election. Selectively singling out only President Bush quotes for scrutiny is intellectually dishonest. Partisanship and anger over the fact that George W. Bush is president is what seems to drive the left to no end.

In regards to the Iraq war, there are a few things one must consider. First of all, the brutal Hussein regime was not some innocent party that we decided had to be overthrown. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. As I pointed out here:

Saddam agreed to a cease fire which he never adhered to (thus making it void),

Saddam kept U.N. weapon inspectors from doing their jobs properly for years,

Saddam kicked out the U.N. inspectors in 1998,

Saddam tried to have President George H.W. Bush assassinated,

Saddam has chemical weapons he does not account for,

Saddam has biological weapons he does not account for,

Saddam has admitted that “at one time” was interested in nuclear weapons,

Saddam has used biological and chemical weapons against the people of Iraq,

Saddam’s regime used terror and “human shredders” against the people of Iraq,

Saddam’s regime were brutal rapists and killers,

According to Human Rights Watch over 290,000 Iraqi citizens are missing,

Mass graves are being found with these missing citizens,

Saddam pays $25,000 to any person who becomes a homicide bomber (terrorist),

Saddam has promised the destruction of the West.

Secondly, Saddam Hussein could have avoided the war by adhering to any of the resolutions passed by the United Nations. We have learned how masterful the regime was at hiding materials and information that they did not want us to find. Reports of late have shown that Hussein may have passed weapons off to Syria or other countries in the months leading up to the war. This information would be classified and something that the adminstration would not likely be running around telling everyone about.

Also making headlines last week was Russian President Putin stating that:

Iraq was planning some kind of attack against the United States. The Kremlin leader, who was speaking in the Kazakh capital, said Russian intelligence services had many times received information that Saddam’s special forces were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States “and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets.”

Thirdly, President Bush never linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The president did mention a link to Al-Qaeda which has of late been seen to have been true. Even the Clinton Adminstration twice referenced the links.

Fourth, as President Bush stated in his 1993 State of the Union address:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

And lastly, in regards to our loss of respect following 9/11. To this I defer to columnist Charles Krauthammer who wrote:

“It is pure fiction that this pro-American sentiment was either squandered after Sept. 11 or lost under the Bush Administration. It never existed. Envy for America, resentment of our power, hatred of our success has been a staple for decades, but most particularly since victory in the cold war left us the only superpower.

Bill Clinton was the most accommodating, sensitive, multilateralist President one can imagine, and yet we know that al-Qaeda began the planning for Sept. 11 precisely during his presidency. Clinton made humility his vocation, apologizing variously for African slavery, for internment of Japanese Americans, for not saving Rwanda. He even decided that Britain should return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. A lot of good that did us. Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War on America in 1996—at the height of the Clinton Administration’s hyperapologetic, good-citizen internationalism.

The world apparently likes the U.S. when it is on its knees. From that the Democrats deduce a foreign policy - remain on our knees, humble and supplicant, and enjoy the applause and “support” of the world.

This is not just degrading. It is a fool’s bargain—3,000 dead for a day’s worth of nice words and a few empty U.N. resolutions. The Democrats would forfeit American freedom of action and initiative in order to get back - what? Another nice French editorial? To be retracted as soon as the U.S. stops playing victim?

Sympathy is fine. But if we “squander” it when we go to war to avenge our dead and prevent the next crop of dead, then to hell with sympathy. The fact is that the world hates us for our wealth, our success, our power. They hate us into incoherence.

President Bush had many reasons for taking Saddam Hussein out of power. Arguing over semantics doesn’t make the case any less valid.

Also, I’m surprised to learn that David believes that we all acquire all of our information from the administration. This has got to be a huge disappointment to the New York Times.

Timothy, this is the same old hawk diatribe we have been hearing for too long now. The issue never was whether Hussein posed a threat, the issue for Americans was whether that threat was sufficient to warrant a go it alone invasion by the U.S. I empathize that your minority opinion (evidenced by the polls) is losing ground, but, the before invading Iraq, I and many others said that the threat was not imminent, and that invasion should be an international effort with international concensus. We had the obligation to provide credible evidence that would demonstrate to our allies that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Failing to do that, our allies would deem our invasion as preemptive and in violation of a doctrine which kept the U.S. from becoming or being viewed as an aggressor in the world for its own purposes.

My argument was to contain Hussein, if containment could not be made effective, then the international community had to be informed with irrefutable evidence of the need for a mult-lateral invasion to secure a multi-national threat by Hussein. We did not take that route and our President is now grovelling for international support to save his presidency and America’s reputation in the eyes of the world. It is disgusting to see this happen.

Had we spent the resources we have in Iraq on homeland security, we would be a far safer nation than we are today. And we are not safe at all today thanks to Bush’s misppropriation of priorities and resources.

Also, using data years old does not support the case for invading when we did. We had not fresh and accurate intel to support invasion. My perspective, and those close to me know, that before invading, I made the argument that Saddam did NOT have WMD. The reason I made that assertion was psychological. Saddam was shrewd, and a survivor. He was NOT stupid. With the international community prying into this potential as a regional threat, he would have been a fool to leave evidence of such a threat lying around for the community to find and use to justify his overthrow. It just did not make sense that he would keep the basis for his downfall around to prove to the world that he constituted a threat to the international community.

Surivival and preservation of his regime were Saddam’s guiding principles and he would not violate those principles by giving the world just and reasonable cause to depose him. Turned out I was right and apparently the President with all his intel resources never considered such rational argument.

David,
I happen to agree with Gore in regards to his statement to Larry King:

Gore: No, it was not, because if you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world.” -CNN’s “Larry King Live,” December 16, 1998

Clinton did not even seek the approval of the United Nations before all of his military strikes, yet President Bush should have waited until every country was on board with us. We cannot wait for others to see what we do. If there is a threat that needs to be dealt with, who benefits from delay and indecision. The terrorist does.

By closing down regimes that help support and breed terrorism, we are safer. Cutting off the money, training and bodies involved is vital and does make the world safer. While no plan will ever make us instantly safe, we must think big picture and therefore realize that every little step brings us closer to the end of this war.

Containment lasts for only so long. We had Bin Laden “contained” to the Middle East, that did not work out too well.

Timothy, I have seen lists like this again and again, but it changes nothing: The Bush administration invaded pre-emptively.

That changes everything. Clinton’s 1998 attack was justified by the breaking of the terms of the cease fire by Iraq. The Gulf War was started as a response to Saddam’s aggression. These Administrations did not have to worry about us being entirely right about the threat Iraq posed, because obviously Iraq had brought it on themselves. This is different. This war was started on the notion that America was under direct threat from an armed terrorist collaborator. That is, somebody who had stockpiles of undeclared WMDs, and somebody who was actively conspiring with terrorists, directing them, and/or supplying them with the weapons of our nightmares.

A pre-emptive war is by its nature a gamble, and a good gambler hedges his bets. Bush was not a good gambler. He bluffed the American people into believing his hand was stronger than it was. The European community didn’t buy, and certainly the rest of the Middle east didn’t buy it either. Result? We hold a weaker hand. Bush should have had a better picture of what went on in Iraq. Otherwise, he should have either based his invasion on stronger information, or else put the invasion on the back burner, because as president, especially in this day and age, he cannot afford to ignore the evidence out there. He cannot afford to ignore a real threat for a threat he simply believes exists, or will exist.

It is a measure of the obliviousness of this administration that it’s top foreign policy priorities have changed little from before 9/11, with perhaps a mild increase in the effective counterterrorism functionality of our intelligence community and homeland defense. We’re still working on missile defense, Rogue nations, unilateral diplomacy and the like, only now it’s dressed up in the guise of Counterterrorism. For all Bush calls this a new threat, he has stubbornly opposed the kind of reorganization of American Foreign policy that would optimize our opposition to the terrorist threats. That is most unfortunate.

> I’m surprised to learn that David believes
> that we all acquire all of our information
> from the administration. This has got to be
> a huge disappointment to the New York Times.

Where do you think the New York Times gets most of it’s information from?

-Cf

Good question. Nobody knows where the New York Times gets its information, actually. It’s usually so wrong, that it’s anybody’s guess.

One theory I’ve heard is that Jayson Blair, Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd all get together to smoke peyote and read Michael Moore’s ouija board—then the New York Times prints whatever the spirits tell them as that day’s “news.” It’s as good a theory as any..

It was a rhetorical question, and the answer is: from the Administration.

-Cf

Timothy welcome to Watchblog, I like your style.
Al is obviously tweaked, he seems to be claiming that we need less government. Are we sure this is the real Al Gore? Maybe aliens have replaced him?

…the most serious threat to democracy is usually the accumulation of too much power in the hands of an executive, whether he be a king or a president. Our ingrained American distrust of concentrated power has very little to do with the character or persona of the individual who wields that power; it is the power itself that must be constrained, checked, dispersed and carefully balanced in order to ensure the survival of freedom.

Funny how liberals don’t seem to mind concentrated government power in the service of liberal policies like universal healthcare, confiscatory tax rates, over regulation of business, the eventual complete takeover of every area of life, etc.

In addition, our founders taught us that public fear is the most dangerous enemy of democracy, because under the right circumstances, it can trigger the temptation of those who govern themselves to surrender that power to someone who promises strength and offers safety, security and freedom from fear.

Like the fear we are supposed to feel when some liken leaders to Hitler and Nazi’s? Like the fear one is supposed to feel when they are told Republicans want to starve children and Seniors, make people homeless? Surely he cannot be referring to that kind of fearmongering.

Like the fear we should feel after the following quote?

All that is necessary, according to our president, is that he, the president, label any citizen an unlawful enemy combatant and that will be sufficient to justify taking away that citizen’s liberty without due process, even for the rest of his life if the president so chooses. There’s no appeal.

…feel that we, here, now, are facing a clear and present danger with the potential to threaten the future…

…democracy itself is in grave danger if we allow any president to use his role as commander in chief to rupture the careful balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government… -Al Gore unhinged

Good question. Nobody knows where the Bush Administration gets its information, actually. It’s usually so wrong, that it’s anybody’s guess.

One theory I’ve heard is that Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleeza Rice all get together to smoke peyote and read George Bush’s ouija board—then the Bush Administration broadcasts whatever the spirits tell them as that day’s “reason for going to war.” It’s as good a theory as any..

I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery—so thanks (I think).

Lord, what a diatribe. What is your point? That because they said it was true two years ago, it must still be true? That because Gore suffered the same delusion as many others, he is obligated to continue living by it — even when the administration has recanted its argument?

The facts are that no WMD were found and that no coooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda has been established. The fact is also that, whatever Clinton believed, he did not launch a pre-emptive invasion based on evidence cooked up in a special office in the pentagon created to bypass the uncooperative folks in the CIA.

The logic that requires one to adhere to stupid positions of the past provides only one escape hatch: a revison of motives. That’s what we get with Iraq. Now we invaded Iraq because we are such humanitarians, not because our security was actually at risk. Meanwhile we NEGOTIATE with North Korea and Iran where the nuclear threat is real. Perhaps if Saddam really DID have nukes, we would have negotiated with him instead of invading his country and killing more civilians than he killed in the last 10 years.

David said earlier that “the missing link in your argument is the fact that all of us acquired our information from the Administration…”

What he left out of that statement is that much of what the current Administration used in its logic is precisely what the previous Administration used for its logic. Timothy did a nice job of showing that.

It really has to just irk the left that a Republican has come along, taken their own logic and facts, and put them to use. The difference—-the size and scope of the military attack. Bill Clinton stopped after an aggressive 4 day bombing campaign. His campaign slowed Saddam down, but did not stop him. Desert Fox attacked the symptoms but did not eliminate the problem.

Now, the “left” is left to wallow in their own deceit….to try to run from the very statements they themselves made. They try to show the nuance in their thought process, which is often just a silly case of trying to fight against that which they recently defended.

Will it ever stop? From the writing Ive seen in this blog, i’d have to say NO.

Um, no, Joe. We didn’t launch a preemptive invasion, so we’re not wallowing in deceit. The left opposed invading before the weapons inspections were completed. Remember? I especially loved how, after no WMD were found in the first month or two, Rummy told us to be patient —that Iraq was a big country and these things took time. I believe that was exactly the arugment Hans Blix made for postponing invasion.

And read some history.

pee stories pissing women map panty pee pee wee crayton pee hole piss fun gay pissing pee on me pissing pictures free pissing movies piss drinkers pee standing pee pictures free pissing movies pee porn girls peeing pee wee’s big adventure pee pics desperate to pee piss fun girl peeing teen pee peeing women pee wee’s playhouse pee hole pissing movies free pissing pics pee pee pee videos girls pissing pissing teens panty pissing watersports piss christ piss fun pee pee patches girls pissing pee videos pee wee herman desperate to pee pee pics pissing women pee wee girls pee standing up peeing girls pee pee patches piss sex girls pee standing up pissing girls pissing panties boys pissing pee movies pissing movies peeing pics panty pissing pissing videos girls peeing map women pissing