The "Goracle" on Bush's Failure to Confront Saddam Hussein's Terrorism

Al Gore going on and on about Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorism, use of weapons of mass destruction, pursuit of nuclear weapons and threat to the United States and our allies, and attacking Bush (sr) for looking the other way and not confronting him.

I guess he completely changed his mind and came to the exact opposite conclusion, concluding that Hussein had no ties to terrorism, had no interest in WMD, and was no threat, since obviously his positions couldn’t be based upon political partisanship when something as important as national security is at stake.

Interesting. Thanks for the link, but two points:

  1. For most of that video Gore is talking about Iraq’s actions pre-1990 (gasing, nuclear procurement, etc) and the Bush/Reagan policies that enabled it by blocking sanctions and securing funding to extend the Iraq/Iran war.

  2. Gore was asking how can we trust Bush to support those sanctions post the Gulf War given that in the past Bush hasn’t done so.

In this, at least that I heard, Gore isn’t calling for a military action, but rather, that in order for the sanctions to work, the US must work with the world to support economic sanctions rather than undermine them like they have in the past. In other words, it’s closer to, “We should have let the weapon inspectors do their job and then decide.” than, “We should preemptively strike (militarily).” I’m not sure what’s so inconsistent about that position then and the later anti-war position.

Maybe without more context, I’m misinterpreting what he’s saying. But again, thanks for the link.

Nah, you’re pretty much on the mark. The people spreading this around are counting on the fact that the viewers won’t know what the hell was going in in 1992 and have any idea how that differed from the situation 10 YEARS later with an entirely different context.

And it seems to have worked.

On Desslock.

The point is that considering so many people have ignorantly claimed that Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism, no history of legitimizing terrorism as a tactic, and that stuff was “all made up” by the current Administration after 9/11 for malevolent purposes, the video is pretty ironic.

Dude, Saddam had no ties to 9/11. And if pressed, your great leader Shrub will admit to such.

Bit of a difference between claiming he did naughty things in the 80’s vs claiming he was doing naughty things with Al Qaeda and developing nukes in 2002. I suspect a lot of the denials you see are aimed at the latter, not the former.

Dude, Saddam had no ties to Hitler, Godzilla, or the Bubonic Plague of 1200 AD. And if pressed, your great Democrats will admit to such.

Um, what does that have to do with anything? The Bush Administration has never said Saddam caused 9/11 - as you said, they’ve expressly said the contrary. Love how you characterize that as an “admission”, when the only people who have ever suggested otherwise are critics of the Administration, who were trying to muddy the waters. And it seemed to have worked [dramatic pause] On Brian Rucker. [drum beat] And you.

Anyway, just though it was an interesting video because a lot of people have derided Hussein’s terrorism ties as fictional, and here’s one of the most outspoken critics of the war reiterating some of the history of those ties (as well as the WMD history of that regime) and criticizing a Republican adminstration for not doing enough to stop it.

That’s all, now carry on making stuff up and arguing against it instead of what’s actually said and done by people.

The people posting comments in that video thread are down-right stupid.

When did Gore say that Iraq wasn’t a sponsor terrorism? AKA flip-flop on this issue? He may have said that Iraq was not sponsoring or working with Al-Quedia terrorists, which was true, but that doesn’t say anything about Sadam’s own flavor of terrorism.

When did Gore say Iraq wasn’t trying to get WMD?

All the crap those people in the your-tube comments are bitching about are completely wrong.

This is just a video of Gore condemn past policies that lead to the first gulf war. Considering it is 1992, there is nothing special about this video clip. Had it been 1989, then it would be very meaningful.

From the BBC, September 2003:

Etc., etc. Sure, they never came right out and said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. They just implied it heavily for many, many years.

They didn’t outright say it because they were too smart to get caught in an outright lie. They implied the hell out of it though.

In other news, 1992 is still not 2002.

Exactly, thank you.

You might want to read the rest of it.

Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks.

If you’d like, I can slam you with a blitzkrieg of youtube videos in which they clearly, obviously, blatantly suggest the contrary, over and over and over again. Of course, unless you spent the three years following Hijack Day in a cave with your fingers in your ears singing Ave Maria at the top of your lungs, you were already aware of that.

If you have any semblence of decency left at all, your left hand kept involuntarily slapping your own face while you typed that passage with your right.

It was a different world after 9/11.

That’s a consistent mantra of critics, but they’re actually the only ones who have made any suggestion that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Jesus, this has been rehashed hundreds of times, but some people seem utterly incapable of distinguishing between: (a) Iraq caused 9/11, which was never suggested by anyone other than critics of the Bush administration - the actual adminstration actually expressly said the opposite; and (b) After 9/11, we can no longer afford to not deal with regime like Iraq that believes in and has ties to terrorism, is hostile to us, has a history of developing and using WMD and not accounting for its programs, etc. - which obviously the Bush Administration used as its justification for going to war in Iraq.

The administration’s argument, (b), is certainly controversial and debatable enough without this exaggerating it - whenever anyone does so, it’s just obvious they’re a partisan hack or not interested in serious debate, since to reach that conclusion you have to actually ignore what was expressly stated.

Did you even read the link? What you’re saying is provably incorrect. Seriously, Desslock, you’re like the NMA of politics.

i found an old vid too

Cheney seems so… reasonable, articulate… human there.

Did you? The BBC (a real bastion of balanced reporting) states that it’s some revelation, or admission, that Bush said Iraq didn’t cause 9/11 – in the same sentence as the BBC admits, well, actually, he’s NEVER said that it did. It’s absurd.

So the BBC instead suggested that Bush has repeatedly “associated the two” – well, of course the two are "associated’ – if not for 9/11, the U.S. obviously would never have invaded Iraq, and the adminstration constantly justified the Iraq War by stating that we couldn’t sit back and wait for another 9/11.