This clip comes from Rush Limbaugh. I was listening to his show today when he discussed this clip. It is from Al Gore on the campaign trail when he and Clinton were running for their first term. If you have read this blog, you can probably guess my feelings towards Mr. Gore. Even if you don’t agree with me, or Rush for that matter, you should listen to the Mr. Gore in his own words.
As Rush said, this leads us with some very “inconvenient” conclusions. Was Mr. Gore being less than honest with the American Public? Did he change his mind when the next Bush came along and did what he and Clinton didn’t do? Should we remember this clip when we watch “An Inconvenient Truth”?
Megga Dittos to Rush for getting this out.
7 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.
I didn't hear Gore say anything about a coalition. I also heard him refer to WMD's and nuclear weapons at least once. If he was right then, he wasn't with the younger Bush. Or was he right with the younger Bush, but wrong with the elder? And why didn't he or Clinton do anything?
Andy, things change over time. Maybe Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons before 1992. In the following ten years Iraq was dealing with the aftermath of the Gulf war and international sanctions. Since the situation in Iraq changed over those ten years, isn't it natural that Gore's approach to, and commenta about Iraq would change also?
I mean how much respect would you have for a politician if no matter how much things changed, that politician just kept saying the same thing over and over. Oh wait, never mind. :)
Familyman, thanks for a logical argument. It seems those are starting to get in short supply.
It is reasonable to believe that things could have changed in Iraq. If a situation changes, it may call for a different approach.
However, there is evidence that the situation hadn’t changed in Iraq from Gore’s speech to our invasion. Saddam was still actively pursuing nuclear weapons and components. Saddam was attempting to woe terrorist organizations. Whether he had ties to Al-Queda or not, he wanted ties. Gore wanted tougher action in Iraq when he was running for office. The vast majority of Democrats wanted action in Iraq before we went in. I wanted to post this video because to me it illustrates that Gore isn’t always honest with the public. He has admitted that he has dramatized aspects of the global warming debate for effect in his movie.
I missed this place.
"Saddam was still actively pursuing nuclear weapons and components."
I thought this had been pretty much discreditted. They weren't getting material from Niger as was originally stated by the administration. And as for components - what were they getting? I think it been pretty widely accepted that the tubes they were supposedly getting for nuclear weapons were actually intended for use in conventional rockets.
Gore is making a case that America shouldn't have been arming Saddam in the 1980s.
Gore also said (paraphrasing) the same thing that many leaders (Reps and Dems) said leading up to the invasion (circa 2002)--"Saddam probably has wmds." I doubt he's denied saying any of these things and I even think he's admitted that he was wrong like many others.
I think the key point for Gore, however, is that he still opposed the invasion. He opposed it (and the Clinton administration didn't invade) because, among other things, he didn't believe Iraq was an immediate threat and thought other options were available.
I'm not sure he's being dishonest at all. He thought that Saddam was a dangerous man in 1992 and still in 2002, but he also knew that invasion wasn't the best idea. Of course, Dick Cheney agreed once, saying around the end of the first war that further invasion into Iraq wasn't worth the risk of American lives and could get America involved in a quagmire.
Family,
I have seen a in a few places that the intelligence suggests that Saddam was attempting to obtain, or already had, nuclear materials. In a quick google search I turned up this article from the National Review from 2003. I believe it was the CIA that interpreted Wilson's testimony to add weight to the argument that Saddam was trying to purchase nuclear material.
Gore thought Saddam was going after nuclear weapons in 1992. There was no evidence between 1992 and 2003 that Saddam had changed his mind. Much like Iran, a nuclear Iraq was an option we could not accept. Gore may have changed his mind since 1992, but I would be curious as to why.
Post a Comment