Gore on World Terrorism & Saddam

al-gore.jpg  What a good week for videos.  This HERE at breitbart.tv is another must see where Al Gore is berating George HW Bush for failing to recognize the threat Saddam poses for the world with his support of terrorism, use of weapons of mass destruction and constant pursuit of nuclear weapons.  In this September, 1992 speech Gore condemns President Bush for “blatant disregard for brutal terrorism, a dangerous blindness to the murderous ambitions of a despot.”  This is another MUST SEE; however, some of your rabid Bush haters and Gore lovers might find this a bit tough to swallow.

Let me say that this does not prove anything about the current Bush administration whether he was right or wrong to enter Iraq.  It does go to show that the current (and constant) complaints from the left are merely political posturing to extricate any complicity on their part.  On the other hand it may well prove that even the young administration of George W. Bush had ample reason to believe that it was necessary to deal with Saddam given the then current realities of the United States being the target or Terrorism on a global basis. 

This is just another example of the hypocrisy and disingenuous criticism from the left as they continue to call George W. Bush a liar concerning Iraq and Saddam.  Need I remind you of Public Law 105-338 titled the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998″ supported by the Clinton/Gore administration in 1998 as well a multitude of other Democrats.  Again, be sure to link back and post your comments or I suppose complaints concerning how this is not relevant.  (I guess some may need a face saving path out)


10 Responses to “Gore on World Terrorism & Saddam”

  1. 1 mommyzabs June 12, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    Good research dad. The political posturing drives me nuts.

  2. 2 MDBL June 12, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Agree fully MZ… & a lot of it takes place on blogs (not this one of course).

    In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.

    After World War II the U.S. emerged as the #1 world power, and moved to assume what some believed was our responsibility to control Middle East oil in competition with the Soviets. This role prompted us to use our CIA, along with the help of the British, to oust democratically elected Mohammed Mosadeh from power in Iran and install the Shah as a U.S. puppet.

    We not only supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, we also supported Osama bin Laden in the 1980s (aggravating the situation in the Middle East and causing unintended consequences). With CIA assistance we helped develop the educational program to radicalize Islamic youth in many Arab nations, especially in Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviets. We even provided a nuclear reactor to Iran in 1967 (which today leads us to threaten another war). All of this has come back to haunt us. Meddling in the affairs of others has consequences.

    Finally, after years of plotting and maneuvering, the neo-conservative plan to invade Iraq came before the U.S. House in October 2002 to be rubber-stamped. Though the plan was hatched years before, and the official policy of the United States government was to remove Saddam Hussein ever since 1998, various events delayed the vote until this time. By October the vote was deemed urgent, so as to embarrass anyone who opposed it. This would make them politically vulnerable in the November election. The ploy worked. The resolution passed easily, and it served the interests of proponents of war in the November election.


    Worth a read…

  3. 3 plodon June 12, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    Pesky cameras. How very inconvenient

  4. 4 Neil June 12, 2007 at 7:26 pm

    Wow, what a classic!

  5. 5 writerchick June 12, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    You know Steve, I remember this. I remember all the chastising that the first Bush got a lot of heat for minimizing the threat of terrorism. So, oh yes, this is political posturing. I think that is the thing that is so irritating about the left to me. Their ideas I can take or leave, but the endless, about-face(s) that they do and the amnesia they all seem to suffer never ceases to amaze me.

    WC, in view of your comments here you might want to check out some of the quotes of Gore I included in my response to Matt below and also follow the links to Gore’s speeches in 2002 and 2004. Quite alarming. Obviously he takes as many partisan swings at Bush as he can, but he clearly is supporting military action agains Saddam and following that a continued presence in 2002 and then in 2004 seems to forget all about that……..steve

  6. 6 matt June 13, 2007 at 9:27 am

    a workmate i know told me that the tough stance clinton/gore took with iraq on the “diplomatic” front was the reason that bush did not need to excercise the follow through on the public law you cite. i think this is creative manipulation of circumstances.

    another person i know said that the clinton/gore stance was “rigidly flexible” in their treatment of saddam and because no wmd’s were there in the early 2000’s, their way worked. to me this is garbage because the wmd did not have to be on iraqi soil to be “in their possession” for deployment


  7. 7 matt June 13, 2007 at 9:59 am

    just so there is little confusion, the context of my above conversation was bush 41 did not do anything productive to prevent the need for clinton/gore’s law because he did not go to bagdhad or oust saddam. therefor, the second bush tried to avenge his daddy’s mistake and acted unnecessarily because he failed to account for the fact that the diplomatic resolution furnised by the clinton/gore white house had worked to disarm the nuclear program in iraq.

    my colleagues are crazy and i should have told them that clinton/gore can get off the martyr’s cross with respect to this issue because we can use the wood.

    Matt, (use the wood……….good one) I’ll respond here rather than on your first post. I think those that take the viewpoint that what Clinton/Gore accomplished in “defanging” Saddam and thus eliminate the need for Bush to deal with Saddam is a total re-write. All the way through the Clinton/Gore administration Saddam was still fighting the U.S.A. in a “hot war” with trying to shoot down our planes enforcing the “no fly zone” on a daily basis. Further those that say that Clinton/Gore adequately dealt with him hence neutralizing the necessity of Public Law 105-338 titled the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998″ would get their first argument from Gore. In this speech from September 2002 by none other than Albert himself he is still arguing for the need of to “take out” Saddam and regime change. Link Here:


    His biggest concerns at that time were for Bush to build the proper coalition, to let the Afghanistan initiative evolve further first, but his most vociferously expressed concern was his fear that Bush (who he criticized in this speech for being against “nation building”) would not stick around in Iraq after we defeated him. He wanted Congress to include in legislation approving the war in Iraq the requirement for Bush to stay and Build the Nation. (this is the area where we have been having the most problem, not the “major ground operations.” Here is but one reference to Gore’s emphasis in this matter:

    What this tells me is the Congress should require, as part of any resolution that it considers, some explicit guarantees on whether we’re proposing to simply abandon the Iraqi people in the aftermath of a military victory there or whether or not we’re going to demand as a nation that this doctrine of “wash your hands and walk away” be changed so that we can engage in some nation building again, and build the kind of peace for the future that our people have a right expect.</em>

    If we go in there and dismantle them – and they deserve to be dismantled – but then we wash our hands of it and walk away and leave it in a situation of chaos, and say, “That’s for y’all to decide how to put things back together now,” that hurts us.

    This alone is a bit odd in face of his “Bush Betrayed Us” speech in Feb, 2004 where it seems he would like America to forget his previous pronouncements on this matter, especially the one about taking out Saddam and staying for the Nation Building phase. Link to this speech:


  8. 8 the Grit June 15, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    Hi Steve,

    I just wrote a post pointing out that Gore and the rest of the Alarmists are, by definition, terrorists. Small world.

    the Grit

  9. 9 Boise Flood Restoration December 31, 2015 at 6:22 am

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts about Meridian Flood Repair.


  1. 1 green coffee supplements Trackback on July 23, 2014 at 2:37 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

June 2007
« May   Jul »

Blog Stats

  • 7,383 hits

%d bloggers like this: