Why I wish Gore would just shut up and go away

[StandWatie]

I was just starting to feel like I had misjudged him in 2k. I had decided that maybe it really was Clinton making all the DLC corporatist sort of decisions. That speech he made was absolutely what needed to be said and was about the closest anyone has came yet to calling Bush a flat out liar and because of his high profile it brought the whole issue back out into the media cycle when it had almost faded into the sunset.

Here is the problem:

The classic challenges of war and peace, of course, extend beyond Israel's immediate neighborhood, to Iraq and Iran. In 1991, I broke with many in my own party and voted to use force to stop Saddam Hussein's aggression in the Middle East. I believe in bipartisanship, most of all when our national interests are at stake in foreign policy. Throughout my service in the House and Senate, as many of you know, I was frequently among the small group that tried to build bipartisan bridges to bring Democrats and Republicans together in support of policies that would promote what is in our nation's best interest.

Despite our swift victory and our efforts since, there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein still seeks to amass weapons of mass destruction. You know as well as I do that as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power there can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the people of the Middle East. We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone.

We have sought coalitions of opponents to challenge his power. I have met with the Iraqi opposition and I have invited them to meet with me again next month, when I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/Gore.html

I got smacked with that by some Bush fan and guess what theme they got to jump back on again: Gore is a liar.

This is the way it's going to get spun, you can bank on it. It won't be Bush is a liar, it will be Gore is a liar.

[kentuck]

1. But we know Gore is telling the truth...

But we think they are going to "spin" it so let's put our little tails between our legs and run like hell...

[StandWatie]

4. I'm not saying that at all

I'm just saying that he's the wrong man and his past hawkishness on Iraq makes him look like an opportunist. "Gore is a liar" is a meme that was already used to turn people off in 2k and this is just going to look like more of the same.

[gully]

9. To the ignorant perhaps it will look 'the same'.

To those that can read, I don't think so.

[StandWatie]

11. you aren't the audience

If you are that wrapped up in Al Gore that you can simultaneously believe that Gore was telling the truth when he was saying that and that W is a liar nothing ever, ever would have changed your mind anyway. I don't think that degree of doublethink has anything to do with your literacy level.

[gully]

12. It's a matter of understanding the 'circumstances'

and the point of Al's speech. If you don't understand that...I can't help you. I also can't worry about the 'ignorant' as the majority of them won't vote Dem anyhow...

[StandWatie]

14. so was Saddam making weapons or not?

:shrug:

[Judson39]

25. The silence is deafening ...

No Saddam was not making WMDs and the invasion should be condemned and not condoned.

[kentuck]

30. Just as Al Gore said.

right?

[gully]

29. So did Clinton Gore "invade" Iraq or not???

:shrug:

:boring:

[StandWatie]

32. who cares?

Clinton/Gore certainly bombed the piss out of Iraq for their nefarious weapons and supposed duplicity. Are suggesting that this nefarious activity was taking place right up until the moment Bush got selected or what?

[gully]

53. Here you go StandWaite...

http://pub32.ezboard.com/bgreenparty84942

I think you found the wrong discussion board.

You obviously don't understand the complexities of the situation then/now.

Clinton bombed for a day or two after Saddam kicked out inspectors and refused to allow them back into the country.

Bush took over the country after inspectors were allowed back in and said Saddam was 90/95% disarmed.

See the difference?

[HootieMcBoob]

65. just one pont

Saddam didn't actually kick the inspectors out. They were pulled out for their own safety after the Iraqi government accused them of spying and stopped cooperating with them and before operation desert fox began.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/unfinished/war/index3.html

UN Inspectors were kicked out of North Korea not too long ago though I believe.

[lynndew2]

69. Another speech that was thrown at me

"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 sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build 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. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
-President Bill Clinton in 1998

[Cheswick2.0]

37. yes 12 years ago

anything else you need explained?

[Cheswick2.0]

36. yeah, they were so turned off more of them voted for Gore

?

[sendero]

58. So let me get this straight....

.... his position on Gulf I makes any different position on any future conflict pre-defined.

You can't be serious.

[gully]

2. Read the text for the moveon speech before you assert that Gore lied....

You obviously haven't done that.
http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

[StandWatie]

5. same bullshit as W though

Sadddam gone=peace in the middle east

[Terwilliger]

16. I agree with you here

but thats what the Democrats get for going third-party on us!

[Cheswick2.0]

38. oh I get it

you're green

Green= republican .......when it comes to Clinton and Gore. You folks have an amazing ability to see only black a white.

[Devlzown]

3. Looks to me like they're both liars.

n/t

[gully]

6. Perhaps you all can find naderunderground.com and post there?

You were wrong about Al Gore...admit it.

[Ivory_Tower]

7. I must have missed something

Where in there does it say that Gore supported total war and unilateral invasion during his invasion? Does saying that your policy is to see Saddam gone mean that your policy is to invade Iraq against the wishes of the world? That quote seems to speak of nothing but coalitions and bipartisanship, not "you're with us or you're against us".

Counter-spin it -- clearly your bush-fan opponent was lying in trying to use this to smear Gore.

Or are you saying that you would have rather that Gore NOT made the effort to keep Shrub's lies in the forefront, when nobody else was doing it?

[StandWatie]

10. that would just mean he is weak

If he sincerely believed there could never be peace in the middle east without removing Saddam and ending his evil non-existant apparently Big, Bad, Weapons then he is just playa-hating if you know what I'm saying, he's not the only person in the world who can beat up on W.

[Ivory_Tower]

19. Not necessarily

First off, Gore didn't promote the same kind of fear-mongering regarding WMDs as Shrub, so he certainly doesn't fall into the category of those claiming we had to get Saddam before he gets us.

Second, there were other ways to keep Saddam contained to at least maintain an "uneasy peace" (for lack of a better term) while working to get him out of power, without resorting to a unilateral invasion. Does believing that the such a destabilizing move could result in a worse situation than the status quo (at the time) make you appear weak? I dunno. And if so, I don't how to answer that -- that would make most of us here "weak" as well. Personally, I don't believe that. I think that taking the long road to peace (whatever that road may have been) would have required more strength and courage -- and brains.

Third, I agree he's not the only one who can go after Shrub, but very few have (and VERY few who have his stature). Besides, ANYONE who goes after Shrub is going to have something dug up and thrown at them to make people say "I wish he would just shut up -- he's making us look bad". (For instance, remember all the KKK crap drudged up against Robert Byrd?)

You just have to be ready to defend the guys that are on your side.

[StandWatie]

21. ...

Sanctions killed about half a million Iraqi children, if there was no weapons program I don't give a damn whose side he was on, he isn't my friend.

[Ivory_Tower]

57. I should have made another point

Ad hominem attacks on the messenger do not invalidate the message. Your pro-bush opponent is implying that since "Gore is a liar" (the old meme) then the points in the speech are wrong. One does not imply the other.

Even if Gore is not your friend (I was opposed to the extremity of the sanctions as well), he's still presenting arguments that are on your side. When Bob Barr presents an argument against the Patriot Act, does that mean I should support the Patriot Act since I think Barr's a freak?

Argue the merits of the speech, not the character of Gore. He's not the issue, Shrub's lies are the issue.

[kentuck]

24. Nope. Only one way to get rid of Saddam...

invade his country and kill innocent people. <sarcasm>

Seems to be the argument? So if you say we need to get rid of Saddam, then you agree with George Bush and the way he did it. That's BS!

[Ivory_Tower]

26. Erm...we are agreeing, right?

Because what you posted is what I was trying to get at (in a much more concise form :) ).

[kentuck]

28. Yes, I agree with you....

To say that you think Saddam should not be in power does not mean you agree with the manner in which Bush invaded that nation. There are other ways to contain and to get rid of leaders we dislike. Al Gore told the absolute truth and it is flame bait to come on and criticize the only Democrat that is standing up to the Bush coup and telling the truth...the only one. Why don't we just chop off our noses to spite our faces?

[gully]

20. He had a problem with W's lies...

and actually credited Bush with removing Saddam so I fail to see your point really...

Perhaps you can examine the two speeches and find the statements that contradict one another? I have not been able to do that.

[JNelson6563]

8. Well then smack back

here you go:

In his statement of September 16, 1998, Wolfowitz ridiculed Clinton’s policies toward Iraq and said, “Administration officials continue to claim, as Assistant Secretary Martin Indyk did in testimony to the Senate last week, that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. This is wrong.”

Wolfowitz then articulated how, with patience and diplomacy, a critical mass could be reached by supporting dissidents in their eventual overthrow of the Ba’athist regime. “he key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam,” he said.

He detailed the patient commitment that such a policy would require however, such an action would deliver much stronger international support than American militarism. He said, “Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different American policy, one that can rid them of the danger that Saddam poses. And Saddam's supporters in the Security Council–in particular France and Russia–would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.”

http://www.republicons.org/view_article.asp?RP_ARTICLE_ID=717

After you present this fact that Wolfie claimed to think war with Iraq was bad idea, ask 'em why they think he changed his hawkish, little mind. After they feed you a line of crap, for instance, the threat increased or whatever, why not show them something like this?

According to the Baker report, Saddam Hussein became a swing oil producer by turning Iraq’s oil taps “on and off” whenever he felt that it was in his interest to do so. During these periods Saudi Arabia stepped up to the plate and provided replacement oil supplies to the market to keep California type “disruptions” and scarcity from occurring in America. Hussein, the report says, used his own “export program to manipulate oil markets.” The report’s implications are clear: the national energy security of the U.S. was now in the hands of an open adversary and the Saudis might not make up the difference in the future. The Baker report recommends: “The United States should conduct an immediate policy review of Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments…. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction.” Military intervention is listed as a viable prospect.

According to Neil Mackay in the Sunday Herald article, James Baker delivered the report to Dick Cheney in person in mid April 2001.

<snip>

A haunting familiarity exists between the Baker energy report and another policy paper that could negatively impact the Bush administration. The style of the two reports is similar, particularly in discussions on national security; their task force methodologies are essentially the same; they share the repeated use of a relatively rare term; they share similarly constructed phrases; they both name Iraq as an adversary and they both attack problems in the same manner. There is a possibility that one writer served on both task forces.

A little background is necessary: In June of 1997 a group of former republican administration officials launched The Project for the New American Century, a think tank offering research and analysis on a “revolution” in modern military methods and military objectives. Like the energy task force, the passionate neo-conservative authors endowed their Principles with hard-hitting force, calling for the necessity of “preserving and extending an international order friendly” to America’s “security, prosperity and principles.” The founders wrote: “The history of the 20th Century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge and to meet threats before they become dire.” In fact, on pages 51 and 67 of the institution’s intellectual centerpiece, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, the authors lament that the process of transforming the military would most likely be a long one, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” (How unfortunate for Americans, they got their needed event on September 11, 2001.)

The signers to the “principles” read like a who’s who of the Bush administration plus a chorus line of supporters: Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliott Abrams, plus world famous: William Bennett, Jeb Bush, and Dan Quayle, among others.

http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm

Go, read and learn. That way when an R throws some crap at you you won't have to tuck tail and run.

Give 'em hell.

Julie

[Egnever]

71. Excelent post!

and great links!

Thank you for that. I hope a lot of people read it.

[JNelson6563]

79. thanks Egnever

I hope lots of people read it too, especially StandWatie. Unfortunately, though responding to lots of other posts that came after this, I see no reply to mine. Even a post further down from me asking for comment yielded no response from ol' SW.

Let's see, throws out RW talking points, claims "someone argued this", I post stuff that could easily get any RW's panties in a knot and, well, apparently there really wasn't any interest in refuting anything, just getting that talking point posted.

Colour me shocked. Not. BTW, Egnever, love your Dean graphic! :hi:

Julie

[JNelson6563]

81. I'm kickin' this

cause I want SW to reply.

Julie

[MaverickX]

13. he's right though...

He was right to support the Gulf War and disarmament of Iraq. That's different than supporting a unilateral attack on Iraq when they allowed in inspectors.

[StandWatie]

15. do you really think there was anything over there?

Gulf War I was fine with me, as a matter of fact I wish the UN would react the same way every time to reemphazize the ineligiblity of land through conquest but I don't believe there was anything over there worth worrying about at all.

[MaverickX]

33. no....

I think they did have at least a chemical weapons program. But that doesn't excuse a unilateral war, when the UN had inspectors in there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Agreed

A good case could have been made for Gulf War 1 and even Howard Dean supported an invasion of Iraq if it was done under a U N flag and all other options had been exhausted.


Bobby Kennedy supported the Viet Nam War until he became convinced it was unwinnable and tearing our society apart...

People's opinion can change....

[Terwilliger]

18. I appreciate your reasoning, because you're partially right

but this is candidate Gore, and frankly, do you believe HE wrote that speech?

Gore should not run in 2004. He's said twice now that he won't be running, so I hope he's not foolish enough to break that. Other than that, I look forward to Al Gore in 08, 12, 16 and beyond

OnNoEdit: *SHEESH*! 2016!! I'll be 49!

[gully]

22. Of course he wrote his speech...??

Sheesh.

[Terwilliger]

46. Well, how about WHAT he could put in a speech?

Do you really think these things go by unconsidered?

[Cheswick2.0]

42. yes I believe he wrote his speech

He usually does

[Terwilliger]

55. His abilities notwithstanding, I was thinking more about the content

and what politics one has to employ under a DLC straight-jacket. As much as it makes sense that the pacification of Saddam Hussein would assist all efforts at peace in the region, this particular notion of "regime change" started as a policy that now relates very much to PNAC.

[John_H]

23. Two-percenter logic in action

You just found out that "corporatist" gore voted for the first Gulf War? Please. Some "republican" wacked you with a twelve year old piece of common knowledge. Please. Why don't you quit being a weasel and just say what you want to say: "I'm pissed about Gore voting for the first gulf war?"

Gore wanted to get rid of saddam like every other sensible person on earth. In the Move On speech he said Chimpy lied to get an invasion. You really have to want to bash gore to find a tenuous inconsistancy, let alone a lie. But of course that's exactly what you want to do.

President gore can stay. People who falsely and idiotically accuse people of lying should go away.

[StandWatie]

27. no, I'm well aware of his record

what I'm saying is Candidate Gore 2K was very concerned about bad ole Saddam and his stash of Instant Death and a lethal program of sanctions that killed more Iraqi's than Bush. He should just fade out because this is not his strong issue.

[gully]

31. Still waiting for your statements of contradiction...

to back up the Gore=Liar claim...

[StandWatie]

34. I didn't say that

what I said was that "Gore is a liar" is a meme from 2k.

Was Bush a liar about Saddam trying to obtain WMD? It's one or the either, you can think Gore was just given bad information but then you would have to excuse W the same way and not call him a liar. I'm sorry about your sacred cow but let the thing loose.

[gully]

43. Again, read the speech...

moveon.org

[gbwarming]

44. BS. Bush told us Iraq was an imminent threat. No time for inspections

Gore never made those claims and never supported unilateral war.

[TahitiNut]

67. "Was Bush a liar about Saddam trying to obtain WMD?"

Huh? Again we have this?

The Busholinis lied about the Niger-Iraq fraud. The Busholinis lied about the aluminum tubing. The Busholinis lied about the trailers. The Busholinis lied about the Iraq-alQueda nonexistent 'relationship.' The Busholinis lied about battle-ready WMDs.

They lied!

Nobody went to war for "trying"!! Do the words "clear and present danger" mean something? Do the words "imminent threat" mean something?

Hell, millions of teenaged boys are trying to get laid with teenaged girls. We haven't yet jailed those millions for rape! Do you get it yet? :puke:

[Cheswick2.0]

35. sorry not buying today

Gore should shut up and go away because you can't defend yourself against republican spin? Get a backbone

[OKNancy]

39. "Rifles for Watie" taking potshots at Gore

;-)


(I knew the author, Harold Keith. He's from Norman,OK..my hometown.)

[StandWatie]

41. eh, he is easy

That really isn't my intent, you watch the media cycle on this that's exactly where they are going to go with all this and it will play out exactly like I said it would.

I don't care about Gore one way or another, he was never my favorite politician but he isn't running for anything. I don't really have any axe to grind with him I'm just making a prediction on how it will play out and I didn't mean to inflame the "Draft Gore! Only Gore" crowd but I should have known they would come out of the woodwork, I swear to God there could be a video of Al Gore killing their family and they would be positive it was Karl Rove in a latex mask.

[Cheswick2.0]

47. as I knew Gore speaking up would bring out the control freaks

You are a weird little bunch. What is your problem? Name me anyone else who is speaking out like Gore.

[kentuck]

49. Why was it so easy ?

Because some Democrats never felt the need to defend his statements or non-statements? I'll admit that perhaps Gore could have done a better job answering their charges but he is only one man and he did not have unlimited access to the networks so I think it was impossible for him to answer every charge during the campaign. How would he have had time to talk about anything else? In my opinion, that is one of the purposes of the national Party to make sure that untru charges are answered. That is where the big failure was, in my opinion. Whether or not you agree with Al Gore is not important. Can you name one Democrat, yourself included, that has been more clear and truthful about the Bush record in Iraq than Al Gore?

Here are his 6 points: Note the comments about WMDs..

(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.

(2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again.

(3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones and ourselves against a grave threat.

(4) Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left. Therefore it seemed imperative during last Fall's election campaign to set aside less urgent issues like the economy and instead focus on the congressional resolution approving war against Iraq.

(5) Our GI's would be welcomed with open arms by cheering Iraqis who would help them quickly establish public safety, free markets and Representative Democracy, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US soldiers would get bogged down in a guerrilla war.

(6) Even though the rest of the world was mostly opposed to the war, they would quickly fall in line after we won and then contribute lots of money and soldiers to help out, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US taxpayers would get stuck with a huge bill.

[Cheswick2.0]

50. nevermind

.

[tjdee]

40. Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Period.

Apparently the 'Gore is a liar' meme didn't do as well as Bush wanted.

He can say whatever he likes, whenever he likes. Bush does, and he's a loser.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. I Wished I Liked One Of The Dems

as much as I dislike Bush.

[salin]

45. Thing is... he isn't a candidate

but he GETS COVERAGE.

Sure the diehard bushie is going to read it this way. BUT the diehard bushie isn't ever going to question his/her boy bush.

HOWEVER, more and more in the general public are getting a little antsy about the modus operandi of teambush, and the extremism in their positions.

WHOEVER is the democratic party candidate in the end - will benefit from Gore speaking loudly and often and planting the seeds of doubt in the minds of the fence sitters. Gore will get coverage. Newspapers will have to cover. The Dem. front runner will benefit.

Don't ever worry about what the diehard bushies believe - THEY are not going to decide the election. THEY are going to vote for their boy. Worry about getting news covereage to actually start raising the serious hard questions that they are supposed to be raising (for any administration). Without coverage, the average member of the public has no clue as to what is going on. No information.

That is why, imo, I hope Gore keeps in the public eye. He is in a position, as a non candidate, to force the stories. And that is long over due.

[Samantha]

51. Gore carefully differentiated his position on Gulf War I and the Iraq war

In an interview shortly before the invasion of Iraq, Gore spoke out against the United States attacking Iraq unilaterally. He said he was one of the few Democrats who voted yes to the first Gulf war. At that time, Saddam had invaded the borders of a sovereign nation. If we attacked Iraq pre-emptively, we would be doing what we attacked them for in the first Gulf war -- invading the borders of a sovereign nation. The difference between his justification for his support of the first Gulf war and his opposition to the war on Iraq should be perfectly clear.

That aside, Gore said at this time, we should be defending ourselves against the ones shooting at us. Starting a pre-emptive war against Iraq would detract from our ability to defend ourselves against the terrorists seeking to attack us. It would rob that war of the resources it needed for a necessary war in order to launch an unncessary war. When Clinton contemplated starting a war on Iraq, he did not have the same set of circumstances to weigh. And finally, it has been revealed recently that Clinton received a lot of persuasion to launch a war on Iraq from the same source Bush did: Dick Cheney.

It has also been reported that more illegal weapons have been destroyed in Iraq since the first Gulf War by the weapons inspectors than were destroyed during the actual war. To say Iraq had those weapons then does not necessarily prove it possessed the same weapons in 2003.

Your friend has totally distorted the perspective of Gore's positions on these two very different wars by taking words uttered in one context of time and comparing them to words voiced more than a decade later when the overall circumstances were completely different. Gore said what needed to be said, and he was one of the first, if not the first,Democratic leader to do so. In speaking out, he gave others the courage to find their voice and speak the truth to the American people. Whether Gore runs or not, I hope he remains on the political landscape as an anchor to keeping the American government functioning in the best interests of the American people.

[StandWatie]

56. this was 2000

He was still bitching about Hussein making weapons and since inspectors left in '98 they couldn't have been doing anything until they were re-admitted to walk around and look for the non-existant things until 2002 you can't travel very far on that.

[Samantha]

72. I read that speech carefully

At no time does Gore suggest striking Iraq preemtively and unilaterly.

Count the number of times he uses the word "peace."

His reference to war is prefaced by the words "when necessary."

I think you and your friend should re-read the speech. It in no way conflicts with anything else Gore has said on the subject. Additionally, the Clinton-Gore years placed an emphasis on negotiating for peace, as opposed to the "shock and awe" bombing executed by Bush.* There's simply no comparison between the two approaches, none whatsoever.

[mbee]

52. The answer should be SO WHAT Bush lies about everying.

We need to get mean and get a balanced media in place and then blast these evil ones out of the water. The time is now for us to get real and never back down! The pugs lie, lie, lie and get away with every bit of it. I saw Chuck Todd other other day on C-Span spewing about Dean's mis-statements. People should email and ask him about all Bush's lies to the American people! They're going to do the same thing to Dean as they did to Gore. We need to take them on now and say Bring it on! It doesn't matter if it's Gore, or Dean or whoever if we aren't going to take them on and call them on their pure hypocricy!

[w4rma]

54. StandWatie, the Republican Party will spin absolutely anything (n/t)

[sandnsea]

59. Anti-war people think they're SOOOOO smart

That's the problem and I know people are going to get pissed to hear it. They just can't factor in the little detail that they could have been wrong.

The information used by Bush was bits and pieces and manipulated to say things it didn't say; that's a fact. At the same time, it's not the only information that was available. Based on the intelligence alone, ALL of it over the last 10 years, there was a 50/50 chance Saddam was building weapons. Based on the intelligence and Saddam's past behavior, the chances increased probably to something like 70/30 that he was doing something with WMD. So when Al Gore and the rest of the world says they believed Saddam was seeking weapons of mass destruction, that's a reasonable statement. And Gore's statement was in 2000.

But when you jump from concern to invasion, you need a higher standard. And what you need most of all is absolute truth. We didn't get that. What we got was an Administration that had set up its own intelligence department, sent the Vice President to the CIA to 'help' analyze intelligence, used intelligence they knew to be wrong, pressured analysts and sidestepped analysts who disagreed, and processed the intelligence in a way that made old suspicions look like new facts. Nobody knew this was happening, NOBODY.

These lies are lies whether Saddam had weapons or didn't have weapons. Bush set out to intentionally misuse our most trusted agencies, he trumped up a war on false impressions and we need to hold him accountable not only for doing it, but also to answer why he did it.

And once again, believing something to be true, particularly when you've been lied to, doesn't mean you have to shut up when you discover the extent of the lies. If that's the standard anti-war people continue to put up for speaking out against Bush, there won't be enough people available to push to make the case against him.

"I knew" isn't good enough, because the truth is you didn't KNOW, nobody could possibly have known one way or the other. Not even Hans Blix would make a statement like that and he had alot more information available to him than anybody on this board.

[StandWatie]

60. there were some things that should have been red flags

When you start allowing your conventional forces to deteriorate to the conditions that Iraqi armor divisions did someone should have questioned Hussein's sanity if he was still persuing exotic non-conventional weapons systems.

[gully]

61. zzzzzzzzz

:boring: :hi:

[NicRic]

78. If talking about gore puts you asleep, others must have you in a coma !

.

[sandnsea]

62. red flags all around

Some don't want to see that there were red flags about what was really coming out of the Administration against Saddam. Others don't want to see that there were red flags coming out of Baghdad as well. I can't think of one Democrat who stood up and said Saddam was not a potential threat, not one. Yet so many people on this board seem to think they knew something about Saddam that no responsible official in the world knew or thought. It's actually kind of ludicrous.

My point is that if Democratic leaders don't speak out, nobody will. And yet too many Democrats are putting qualifiers on who can speak and who can't and on top of it we let Republicans put the qualifiers on it as well.

Democratic leaders speaking about the way to address the concerns regarding Saddam is quite a different thing than George Bush taking those concerns and intentionally manufacturing a case for an invasion. And the way he did it is so far beyond anything that has been done by any President that it screams for a thorough investigation.

The Democrats clearly stated Saddam was a potential threat, but we don't have a war to deal with every potential threat. So why did Bush insist we had to have a war to deal with Saddam and why was it so important that he had to lie to make it happen?

Al Gore doesn't have to shut up, he just needs Democrats to support him 100% and be prepared to respond to Republican rhetoric, not run and cower from it.

[StandWatie]

63. sure there were..

Rep Baldwin, Tammy (D-WI-2)
Rep Barrett, Thomas M. (D-WI-5)
Rep Bonior, David E. (D-MI-10)
Rep Boucher, Rick (D-VA-9)
Rep Brown, Sherrod (D-13-OH)
Rep Campbell, Tom (R-CA-15)
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. (D-CA-14)
Rep Jefferson, William J. (D-LA-2)
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn.(D-MI-15)
Rep Leach, James A.(R-IA-1)
Rep Lofgren, Zoe(D-MI-16)
Rep McDermott, Jim (D-WA-7)
Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. (D-GA-4)
Rep Peterson, Collin C. (D-MN-7)
Rep Rivers, Lynn N. (D-MI-13)
Rep Ryan, Paul (R-WI-1)
Rep Sanchez, Loretta -(D-CA-46)
Rep Sawyer, Tom(D-OH--14)
Rep Stabenow, Debbie(D-MI-8)
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete(D-CA-13)

http://www.musalman.com/islamnews/amc-iraqsanctions.html

[JNelson6563]

66. I was wondering

if you caught my post. If so I'd also be curious if you read any of what I posted and, again, if so, what you thought of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=153653&mesg_id=153736&page=

Julie

[gully]

68. The afore mentioned people were against sanctions...

not claiming Saddam was without WMD. They felt sanctions hurt the people of Iraq and not Saddam.

By the way I agree(d) with them.

[sandnsea]

73. What does this mean?

Please post where a Democrat said Saddam is not a threat or Saddam is no longer seeking weapons.

[election_2004]

64. I don't think he should "shut up and go away"...

Because Gore speaking out on issues during the next election cycle will hopefully help to excite the Democratic base and optimize election turnout.

I do believe, however, that the corporate media needs to knock it off with all this incessant speculation of "will Gore run in 2004?" when he has already stated TWICE that he won't. It only distracts from the candidates who actually are in the race...of course, that's probably what the media wants.

People need to come to terms with reality and accept that Gore just isn't the one who will excite Independents, Greens, and new voters.

[NicRic]

76. Yes ,Gore is the one to excite the voters !

After listenning to Gores speech I realized just how weak a feild of runners we have . None of them are showing the backbone that Gore is showing ,in my opinion ! I dont want to put down other Dems ,however its had to get my point accross without being a little negative towards them .It seems like they walk to the line of actually telling the truth on bush ,and then pullback out of fear of isolating themelves. Gore is not holding back ,he is telling it like it is,and if people want to be negative against Gore, a Dem who was victum of one of the crimes of the century , then why should I hold back ? The fact is only Gore will excite the Dem base ,and unite the differant factions of the party. This is something needed badly in case you have'nt noticed our party is spread all over like butter. Bush is salivating as the Dems eat their own.

[goforit]

70. Stand Whatie? I don't no what side of the fence you're on but..........

You sound like you need help!

[Jolene]

74. I'll tell you precisely why Gore should not shut up

There are voters out here who do not like the candidates running for office in '04. Yeah, yeah...I know...out of nine people, you'd think one of them could inspire something, wouldn't you?

Perhaps if one--just one--of those candidates inspired me to even bother to go to the polls, I might not need to hear Gore speak out. But they don't--and I do.

That's not Gore's fault, btw.

Those of us who feel cheated that Gore is not running, and are waiting to hear who he endorses, might offer the same sentiments: Perhaps the nine lack-luster candidates running for office right now should just shut up and go away?

[NicRic]

77. Kick !

.

[MrPrax]

75. Well he Did invent the MidgetMan Missile!!

Give the guy a break...and camped on most Clinton debacles
And he supports Israel's self-determination
Pretty centrist...and I won't hold that against the guy
If the Party didn't shack him up with Lieb...he would have won hands-down...
But that is Politics...

[Q]

80. This is one of the rudest theads about Gore I've seen in a long time...

...and the thread author should be ashamed to tell anyone to 'shut up'...especially in these times of disappearing rights and freedoms.

- I've seen a lot of second guessing about Gore's campaign and not working 'hard enough' to 'win' the 2000 election. These kinds of statements tell me that they haven't studied the facts surrouding the literal theft of democracy.

- It's as if you're telling the victim of rape to just 'shut up' and stop whining about about the pain because you're tired of hearing about it.

- Gore is wrongfully bearing the brunt of criticism for the 'loss' of the 2000 election...when it's the Democratic party itself that should take the blame for not being there when he (and thus our party) was in trouble.

- As our nation slowly spirals into fascism...it's good to know that Gore is still out there insisting that the truth be told about the DLC's favorite administration.