Al Gore Criticizing Bush 41 on Iraq in 1992

[HamiltonHabs32]

Run time: 09:28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVUO7voM-ns   Posted on YouTube: June 13, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 14, 2007 By DU Member: HamiltonHabs32 Views on DU: 1169

 
from youtube - "Then VP hopeful Gore trashing Bush 41 on his handling of Iraq and terrorism. This is coming from the same man who now denies any link between saddam, iraq and terrorism"

[IndyOp]

1. Hussein was the CIA's boy and G.H.W. Bush supported him

even after he "used gas on his own people" - until he stopped obeying his masters.

If Bush has responded to what Gore is mentioning here then the Gulf War would never have been necessary.

Iraq/Hussein prior to the Gulf War was a dramatically different nation than after the Gulf War, a decade of killing sanctions, and weapon's inspections and destruction.

Pre-Gulf War terrorist activity in Iraq was plausible. This does not mean that the terrorist activity was related to Al Qaeda, to 9/11, or to post-Gulf War Iraq.

The Freepers that posted this at YouTube think that this damns Gore?

:eyes:

[Straight Shooter]

2. Gore needs someone like you on his campaign team, IndyOp.

Didn't take you any time to chew up and spit out their anti-Gore rhetoric.

:thumbsup:

[RestoreGore]

5. What campaign team?

His real campaign for the planet or the imaginary one everyone thinks he is running?

[Straight Shooter]

7. Whatever campaign Gore wants. n/t

[RestoreGore]

9. I think that is pretty clear

[stlsaxman]

3. Amazing how the freepers take Gores words slamming Bush 41 and fifteen years later say-

"See? See?? There WAS a tie between Saddam and terrorists!" No- Gore was stating that Bush 41 was supporting a terrorist- Saddam was THE main terrorist (aside from Qaddafi who is now our buddy and let's not forget the Irish Republican Army... but they're okay 'cause Ireland don't have oil).

am i wrong about that?

[nytemare]

6. This is what Ron Paul was discussing in the debate as "blowback"

The Freeps will fail to see that. Under Reagan, we supported Hussein and Bin Laden without looking for future ramifications, and without taking the advice of the intelligence community.

Now, we are providing weapons to the Sunni militia in Iraq.

The policy of giving training and equipment to assholes who will use them against us has become status quo.

[Tom Joad]

4. Gore's support for that war was shameful and despicable.

[Dollface]

8. The Youtube comment indicates that the author wasn't listening...

GHWB and his predecessors did aid and abet Saddam. Then Saddam invaded Kuwait(our little oil rich Gilligan)and had to be slapped down.
Years later, GWB and his oil buddies wanted the oil in Iraq for themselves and counted on the difficult history of the region being too complicated for anyone to consider if anything they said made sense.
Al Gore is explaining how GHWB and his predecessors contributed to the situation. His explanation of Iraq's power, weapons and ambition (they did invade another country after all) 15 years ago does not in any way support GWB and cronies Al Qa eda connection fantasy. 15 years of sanctions and inspections took their toll and would eventually have done to Saddam what they did to Qaddafi (sp.)
For the record, I supported GHWB in assisting Kuwait after they had been invaded. Remember Poland and Hitler?

For US involvement in Iraq I refer you to:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_iraq_80s
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_iraq_80s&startpos=100