That's right, take a look at this clip, courtesy of Hot Air.
Here's a synopsis for you. The clip is from 1992. Al Gore has recently become Bill Clinton's running mate against Bush 41. Gore is speaking as a definite "blue hawk" here. In his speech, he basically states that Bush 41 lied by minimizing the threat Saddam posed to the world before the 1991 Gulf War. He also blames Bush for the lives lost in the Gulf War because Gore claims that Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan allowed Saddam to become a menace, a developer of WMD's, and that the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations failed to acknowledge Saddam's ties to terrorists.
Let me emphasize something...Gore stated in that speech that Saddam Hussein was developing WMD's, a regional menace, and had operational ties to terrorists.
Now, here he is, 15 years later, and has been stating that Bush 43 lied by overstating the threat Saddam posed to the world. Gore is one of many that say that Saddam had no ties to terrorists, was not pursuing WMD's, and was not a real threat to the region.
That, my friends, is the ULTIMATE flip-flop. Where's the mainstream media to report on this, now???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Of course, there is no big difference between Iraq in 1992 and 2002. Or between the situation where we were fighting Iraq with a degree of international approval and cooperation that dwarfs the "Coalition of the Willing." Not to mention that Gore is pointing out the degree to which the elder Bush helped to arm Iraq during AND after Iraq's war with Iran. Also, when opposing younger Bush's push for war in 2002 and 2003, Gore didn't base his argument on whether Iraq had or was seeking WMDs, but on the fact that the war was not garnering international support and a unilateral action would most likely damage our credibility around the world as well as increase the danger of further terrorist acts (not to mention that beating Sadam would be the easy part, the hard part being dealing with the ruins and internal conflict afterwards). He also objected to Bush pushing the vote just before midterm election to help pressure Congress into war. What he called for at the time was an open, honest debate. He called for Bush to show us the evidence of WMDs and the implied link between Iraq and 911. Surely you agree that if we, as a nation, had taken the time to look at the situation soberly we would be on better footing now.
Guess what, Gore was right.
Ok, Anonymous, let me point out where you are wrong on this.
- First of all, it is not the duty of the United States to get international approval when Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire from the Persian Gulf War.
- Secondly, if Gore was so hip to Saddam's terrorist connections, why did he act as if they were not there in 2002, and has ignored that fact since then, as well. There has been credible evidence to show that Saddam had connections to various terrorist networks, most liberals ignored those facts because the ties weren't directly to Al-Qaeda at the time...but even ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda have eventually been proven, too. Which means that ties between Iraq and 9/11 are evident.
- Finally, Gore has completely flip-flopped from being a "blue hawk" to this dovish, peacenik, enviro-alarmist stance where he refuses to acknowledge that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific reports that debunk his so-called "consensus" on global warming.
So guess what...Gore is wrong, and has been for a long time.
Go to http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html
I would paste it here, but it is long and would fill up too much space. You can also find a link there where you can listen to it as well as read it.
As for the science on global warming you can read the AMS information statement here.
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
They aren't affiliated with either political party.
Gore was right.
How does that prove "Gore was right?"
Especially one link to an evironmental study. There are plenty of politically-unaffiliated studies that have shown that global warming is not really human-created.
That's why I've been saying for years that the alarmists need to stop for a minute, and we need to have a discussion that encompasses all of the plausible theories on global warming. That includes solar system-wide warming on almost every planet.
As for that speech, Gore is wrong on many points. Especially where he states that Bush was attack what he deemed to be a potential future threat. It's been proven that Iraq had terrorist ties under Saddam Hussein.
The only part where I agree with Gore is that we ended up losing sight of eliminating Osama Bin Laden. Other than that, he's pretty much off-base, much like the rest of the Democratic party has on this whole issue.
Gore stated he felt "betrayed" by Bush 41's "hasty departure from the battlefield". However, at the time we had driven Iraq out of Kuwait, most Democrats were screaming that we shouldn't invade Iraq, because we were only there to drive out the invasion of Kuwait, and we shouldn't waste the lives of soldiers on an "unnecessary war" as many viewed a possible invasion of Iraq in 1991.
In that 1992 speech I referred to in the original post of this thread, was not Gore referring to Saddam as a future (and even present) threat?
As I said...flip-flop.
Post a Comment