1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Gore Lied, People Died!

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by USMC the Almighty, Jun 14, 2007.

  1. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gore condemns President Bush for "blatant disregard for brutal terrorism, a dangerous blindness to the murderous ambitions of a despot."

    http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html

    That war mongering, hate mongering politician who preyed on our fears that just wanted to invade a perfectly innocent, sovereign country that was just minding its own business!!!!

    ...If nothing else, just watch the last 35 seconds.
     
  2. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,944
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Which goes to show that the mess we're in in Iraq is not solely the fault of the Bush administration, nor of the Repbulicans.

    I think most of us knew that.

    Wasn't Gore talking about Bush I at that point? Bush I was right, Gore was wrong, Bush II is wrong, and the Congressional Repbulicans and Democrats who voted for the war were wrong. The question is, where do we go from here?
     
  3. Justinian

    Justinian New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    What's left of Long Island
    hmmm

    "Where do We go from here?" That's definitely the question everybody is asking and wants to know the answer of. Personally, I think America in the long run is in a lot of trouble. More trouble than most people think or are willing to admit. Cracks are already beginning to undoubtebly show in America's core strength which is mostly due to internal social rot and prominent radicalism. One of the problems America has is its public diversity in thinking which is leading to political indecisiveness. A country that is so divided will not unite to fight an understood cause effectively which is what we've seen in this new War on Terror. Americans don't want to fight anymore. The core values that gave America its fighting spirit are being slowly eradicated and the people are suffering from it. Family structure is decaying, church attendance is at an all-time low, the kids are taught to discard everything their parents have taught them and America has become severly secularized and liberalized. There has never been such a diverse population that was voluntarily willing to fight because it goes directly against the nation's core strength and helps destroy it. What will America do? ....Nothing. America will chug along until it eventually becomes so divided and crushed by massive government that another nation will eventually pass us by and America is sucked dry of its money that will move away to the next world power. I'm pretty sure that's how it's going to go and it's a damn shame because I believe it's far too early for that if America would have made better past decisions. My two cents.
     
  4. that was 15 years ago sparky?

    what does Gores 15 yr old speech have to do with TODAYS war?
     
  5. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's significant for a couple of reasons.

    (1) To show how this isn't "George Bush's War" as many on the left are fond of calling it.

    (2) President Bush didn't "lie" about anything. EVERYONE thought that Saddam was a despot who needed to be removed, was supporting terrorism, and was developing nukes (he'd already displayed his willingness to use WMDs in the Iran-Iraq War).

    (3) Serve as a reminder of the dishonesty and hypocrisy of all of the self-serving liberals who are on record saying that we needed to go into Iraq before 2003 and they are all now saying that Bush misled the public into this war.
     
  6. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    Of course Bush lied.


    When the case was made for war rumours leaked that there were links to Sadaam and 9/11. A majority of Americans firmly believed it by the time we invaded and it was a major factor in gaining the public's support for the war.

    It was not until 6 months after the war that the Administration announced there was no link and never had been.

    Golly gee.
     
  7. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    Exactly.
     
  8. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all -- I still don't agree that there was no link. Secondly, there is a difference between being wrong and lying. All the intelligence said that there was a link and that Saddam had nukes, so he acted on it. If it had been proved wrong, then he was wrong. That doesn't mean he lied.
     
  9. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,944
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    It has been proven wrong, and, so he was wrong. It doesn't mean that he lied. A lot of other people were also wrong, including some of the presidential hopefuls who are trying to distance themselves from the war as much as possible. They didn't lie, either, but they would if their positions at the time of the invasion could somehow be hidden.
     
  10. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    You may not agree, but all credible evidence, and experts, and the President himself declared that there is no link and never was.

    There are lies of commission, and lies of ommission. Knowing the truth, and refusing to correct an powerful and erronious misunderstanding that helped shape public support for a war is ethically wrong and it's every bit as much of a lie as a lie of commission.

    See...what I don't get is this: everytime Bush is wrong - it's bad intellegence, or he was "misled". He takes no responsibility. He knew there was no link - he was careful to never actually say anything to confirm or contradict the rumor until well after the invasion when he finally came clean.

    Don't you find that reprehensible?
     
  11. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Please provide some evidence that George Bush knew that the intelligence on connections between Saddam and Bin Laden and the presence of WMDs in Iraq was false prior to the 2003 invasion.

    He certainly does take responsibility for it, by trying to make the best of a bad situation. Iraq is a mess today and it's a mess because we went in and ousted Saddam, who aside from being a despicable despot (try saying that five times fast) was the only person seemingly capable of keeping a lid on the internal violence. So, with American troops sitting on a boiling Iraq, what was Bush supposed to do? Just wave and say, "Oops, sorry, we had bad intel. Have fun killing each other now," or try to do something about it?

    Put yourself in his shoes. You had intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. When he fails to co-operate with inspectors you decide to invade his country to find them and get him out of power. Once there, you discover that the intelligence reports were faulty and there are no WMDs and no strong links to al-Qaeda.

    What would you do? Leave, and let the Iraqis slaughter each other? Or stay and try to help build Iraq into a decent place to live?
     
  12. TVoffBrainOn

    TVoffBrainOn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks. - Bush 2003 after the invasion
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml

    Is it not true that the administration waged a war of propaganda to convince the public that there was a major link between 9/11 and Iraq?

    The intelligence you speak of is cooked. plain and simple. Whether it was Douglas Feith at State or Cheney himself. The plain truth is that there was intelligence that said their were links, and there was intelligence that said he had nukes. It's the rest of the truth that gets left out. There was just as much if not 10x as much intelligence to the contrary. and in the Bush administration it's the intelligence that fits the goal that is used.

    The air campaign began a year before congress approved the war. The war plan itself was literally sent to clinton in 98.

    The intelligence was cherry picked to justify a philosophy, a policy, and agenda. That's the truth.

    The public version of the NIE and the formerly classified version of the NIE are drastically different with literally all dissent from the intelligence community removed from the public version that was used to generate public support for war.

    I think Bush and the administration were careful not to "lie" they chose to represent an opinion as fact. and opinion that was not a majority amongst the intelligence community.
     
  13. Exactly Nice post
     
  14. TVoffBrainOn

    TVoffBrainOn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    the differences between the public NIE and the formerly classified NIE are proof that the intelligence community was far from unanimous and in many instances unanimously against the acersions made public. I quote, "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."

    The above is from the now declassified NIE, the public version before the war had statements like this and dozens of others omitted. The CIA released the public version, titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," in October 2002, when the Bush administration was making its case for war. The White House declassified and released portions of the NIE's key findings in July 2003. It is largely ignored in the dabte about the case for war.

    The public version contained the alarming warning that Iraq was capable of quickly developing biological warfare agents that could be delivered by "bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland."

    No such warning that Iraq's biological weapons could be delivered to United States appeared in the classified version.

    Also missing from the public report were judgments that Iraq would attempt "clandestine attacks" on the United States only if an American invasion threatened the survival of Saddam's regime or "possibly for revenge."

    Intelligence is touted all the time as the excuse for this war. I wish all the intelligence was debated.



    No. He chose the Intelligence that fit his administration's neocon dreams. He didn't find out that the intelligence was faulty. He found out that he CHOSE the wrong intelligence.

    The Bush administration played roullete with the USA. They bet on black, the intelligence landed on red.
     
  15. TVoffBrainOn

    TVoffBrainOn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    15 years ago? seriously?

    Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

    "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.

    "And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."


    Dick Cheney is a flip flopper :rolleyes:
     
Loading...

Share This Page