Democrats gush over George Bush drawing parallels between 1/6 and 9/11

[Jezcoe]

@conan

Rewriting history are we?

Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment - - right now - - is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

Moreover, he is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and for that matter any other nation in the region, regardless of subsequent developments or circumstances. The timing of this sudden burst of urgency to take up this cause as America’s new top priority, displacing the war against Osama Bin Laden, was explained by the White House Chief of Staff in his now well known statement that “from an advertising point of view, you don’t launch a new product line until after labor day.”

Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.

We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible. By contrast, the war against terror manifestly requires broad and continuous international cooperation. Our ability to secure this kind of cooperation can be severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq. If the Administration has reason to believe otherwise, it ought to share those reasons with the Congress - - since it is asking Congress to endorse action that might well impair a more urgent task: continuing to disrupt and destroy the international terror network.

I was one of the few Democrats in the U.S. Senate who supported the war resolution in 1991. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield, even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds of the North and the Shiites of the South - - groups we had encouraged to rise up against Saddam. It is worth noting, however, that the conditions in 1991 when that resolution was debated in Congress were very different from the conditions this year as Congress prepares to debate a new resolution. Then, Saddam had sent his armies across an international border to invade Kuwait and annex its territory. This year, 11 years later, there is no such invasion; instead we are prepared to cross an international border to change the government of Iraq. However justified our proposed action may be, this change in role nevertheless has consequences for world opinion and can affect the war against terrorism if we proceed unilaterally.

He supported removing Saddam from Iraq he just wouldn’t have done it the way Bush is doing it. A classic lib speaking that only they can wage war.

You can read full transcript here.

Transcript of Al Gore's Speech "Iraq and the War On Terrorism"

As for my views…I was against Iraq war…I was also against pulling out. Iraq was conquered nation.

I don’t see how anyone can read that and say that Gore was all in for a war in Iraq.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@margaretms2

@enki

I’m old enough to remember the days on this hoard when Bush was the greatest president ever, and chosen by God, and those who didn’t support him were communist terrorist-sympathizers.

Those who opposed the Iraq war were Neville Chamberlains at best. At worst, we were the vilest sorts of traitors and quislings who wanted to see the US destroyed.

Ah, good times.

These days, we are Marxists and Fascists (oddly) who want to see the U.S. destroyed.

Same song, different tempo.

[conan]

Of course you wouldn’t, Gore was saying Iraq was necessary but Bush isn’t doing it right.

[Jezcoe]

Heck… no US invasion of Iraq… none of the stuff that pissed off a bunch of young Arabs like Abu Graib that was used to radicalize a new generation.

Positive feedback loop.

[Jezcoe]

@conan

Of course you wouldn’t, Gore was saying Iraq was necessary but Bush isn’t doing it right.

You posted part of a speech where he is recognizing that Hussein was a problem… but no where in that speech he was saying that there should be a invasion.

Certainly he was correct when he said this.

Last week President Bush added a troubling new element to this debate by proposing a broad new strategic doctrine that goes far beyond issues related to Iraq and would effect the basic relationship between the United States and the rest of the world community. Article 51 of the United Nations charter recognizes the right of any nation to defend itself, including the right in some circumstances to take pre-emptive actions in order to deal with imminent threats. President Bush now asserts that we will take pre-emptive action even if we take the threat we perceive is not imminent. If other nations assert the same right then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear - - any nation that perceives circumstances that could eventually lead to an imminent threat would be justified under this approach in taking military action against another nation. An unspoken part of this new doctrine appears to be that we claim this right for ourselves - - and only for ourselves. It is, in that sense, part of a broader strategy to replace ideas like deterrence and containment with what some in the administration “dominance.”

[conan]

Yes as I said…Gore was all for war in Iraq just not the way Bush did it.

What part about my statement is incorrect?

[Jezcoe]

@conan

Yes as I said…Gore was all for war in Iraq just not the way Bush did it.

What part about my statement is incorrect?

That the reasoning for going to war was one based on preemption. Gore was arguing against that. And remember… this was all based on the bad info that Rumsfeild, Cheney and Wolfowitz were hawking. If those three were not in a position of power I find it unlikely that the hidden WMD argument against Iraq would be used in the first place.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@conan

Of course you wouldn’t, Gore was saying Iraq was necessary but Bush isn’t doing it right.

Sure, but Gore was also relying on the bogus intelligence and domestic psi ops mission fomented by Cheney.

Absent that, it is not at all unreasonable that Gore would have come to a different conclusion.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Smyrna

@Supreme_War_Pig

I did, and still do believe that Bush is a good man. But he was also a neophyte, and didn’t have the wherewithal that early in his term to resist.

He’s an idiot and was only in office due to his last name…as are too many politicians.

Well, that’s not true. Name recognition certainly helped, but Bush went through the primaries same as everyone else.

You wanna blame somebody for Bush, that man’s name is Karl Rove.

[Liberty323]

@biggestal99

@margaretms2

Hey, if you want to claim that Democrats are cowardly, or craven, or [insert derogatory word], that’s fine. But there’s no ■■■■■■■ way the base would have supported a full-scale invasion and nation-building effort under Al Gore in 2003.

That’s was strictly a neo con war.

I remember the neocons here out in force the day iraq voted with those stupid purple fingers memes.

Allan

I’m pretty sure the New York Times and Washington Post ended up going along with it. Also, wasn’t it mostly liberal news sources that were clutching their pearls because Trump didn’t want to go to war with Libya?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Liberty323

@biggestal99

@margaretms2

Hey, if you want to claim that Democrats are cowardly, or craven, or [insert derogatory word], that’s fine. But there’s no ■■■■■■■ way the base would have supported a full-scale invasion and nation-building effort under Al Gore in 2003.

That’s was strictly a neo con war.

I remember the neocons here out in force the day iraq voted with those stupid purple fingers memes.

Allan

I’m pretty sure the New York Times and Washington Post ended up going along with it. Also, wasn’t it mostly liberal news sources that were clutching their pearls because Trump didn’t want to go to war with Libya?

They did, based on the same disinformation that snookered the rest of the country. It ended up being a huge scandal for the NYT.

In the meantime, The Project For The New American Century (a neo con organization), advocated for regime change in Iraq, culminating in an open letter to Clinton in 1998 specifically advocating this position.

Many of the signatories of that letter went on to fill top positions in the Bush administration.

The point: the Bush administration was primed for war in Iraq, whether Bush actual knew it or not. They just needed the reason, and 9/11 was it. Never mind the fact that intelligence had to be massaged, manipulated, and made up

[conan]

@Supreme_War_Pig

In the meantime, The Project For The New American Century (a neo con organization), advocated for regime change in Iraq, culminating in an open letter to Clinton in 1998 specifically advocating this position.

Which Al Gore supported and was part of.

[Jezcoe]

@conan

@Supreme_War_Pig

In the meantime, The Project For The New American Century (a neo con organization), advocated for regime change in Iraq, culminating in an open letter to Clinton in 1998 specifically advocating this position.

Which Al Gore supported and was part of.

I could be wrong… but it was Leiberman who supported that stuff… not Gore.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

Nope and nope.

[enki]

@Jezcoe

@conan

@Supreme_War_Pig

In the meantime, The Project For The New American Century (a neo con organization), advocated for regime change in Iraq, culminating in an open letter to Clinton in 1998 specifically advocating this position.

Which Al Gore supported and was part of.

I could be wrong… but it was Leiberman who supported that stuff… not Gore.

Gore chose Leiberman as his VP… that’s how it’s turned into Gore supporting it.

[Jezcoe]

@enki

@Jezcoe

@conan

@Supreme_War_Pig

In the meantime, The Project For The New American Century (a neo con organization), advocated for regime change in Iraq, culminating in an open letter to Clinton in 1998 specifically advocating this position.

Which Al Gore supported and was part of.

I could be wrong… but it was Leiberman who supported that stuff… not Gore.

Gore chose Leiberman as his VP… that’s how it’s turned into Gore supporting it.

I guess you could make that connection… but it would be pretty tenuous.

[conan]

@Jezcoe

I could be wrong… but it was Leiberman who supported that stuff… not Gore.

@Supreme_War_Pig

Nope and nope.

quote from my posted article.

@conan

I was one of the few Democrats in the U.S. Senate who supported the war resolution in 1991. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield, even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds of the North and the Shiites of the South - - groups we had encouraged to rise up against Saddam.

Case closed.

[Guilds]

@Supreme_War_Pig

Gore and Kerry would have also gone into Afghanistan for sure. In fact, coming from the previous administration, maybe Gore would have taken the threats from Al Qaeda more seriously.

But there is no reason to believe that they would have attacked Iraq.

So… are we re assuming the 9-11 attacks would have happen under a Gore Administration?

[TheRedComet]

Most likely.

The intelligence apparatus failed from the top to the bottom.

They were still functioning under a Cold War mindset against a dead Soviet Union. Their tactics worked then. Those same strategies weren’t applicable in a war against nebulous organizations scattered around an entire part of the world.

9/11 changed everything. Although frankly there were warning signs and previous attacks that should have got asses in gear. Kenya, the USS Cole, the LAX plot, Trade Center 93, OKC 95. There were some forward thinking guys in the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the various military intelligence services who called the system out, that it needed reform. Their opinions got flushed because it went against the accepted status quo.

[TheRedComet]

They were terrorist recruits. Jihadists. If not there, they’d have went to Afghanistan. If there is one thing

The US was going to have to kill them in one place of another.