Skip to comments.Flashback to 1992: Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism
Posted on 06/08/2007 6:07:35 AM PDT by faq
This is a new video on YouTube in which Al Gore blasts George H.W. Bush for ignoring Iraq's extensive ties to terrorism.
I know that the idea of watching an Al Gore speech from 1992 sounds incredibly boring. But, I think you will find this one very entertaining.
I doubt very much that Al Gore has any plans to run for President in 2008. But, the Goracle knows all and sees all according to the nutroots. Send this video to your history deprived "truther" younger cousin or post it on liberal internet forums.
Ping for further gloating...
Bump for later. He played on our fears.
Makes you wonder if Al Gore Junior actually believes ANY of the things he says in public.
Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
Bill Clinton on ODF: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ...
I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton two years before 9/11 announcing Operation Desert Fox -- if Iraq did not have, or was not developing WMD, then what was Clinton attacking? Oh, that's right, "baby formula" and "aspirin" factories.)
Democrat Leaders under Bill Clinton: In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act. That Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.
Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983." Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Democrat leaders after 9/11: After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11. In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."
Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Jay Rockefeller: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. We have always underestimated the progress Saddam has been able to make in the development of WMD."
Joe Biden: "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability." Evan Bayh: "I support the President. The lesson we learned since 9/11 is that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly with WMD."
Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."
LOL - gloat, gloat, gloat.
Such a condescending bore!
Man, he’s a boring speaker.
He is soooo painful to watch?
he is really painful. You can only watch for a few minutes then you need to get up and choke a cat to get his voice out of your head!
In other years, Saddam wanted nothing to do with terrorism. (He is secular, after all.)
This was Saddam's official policy and everyone knows that.
BUMP! This is a hell of a find!
This clip is good, too bad there isn’t the one with the same subject matter (Gore talking about Saddam and Iraq) on the Good Morning America....but now he’s too worried about the ice bergs melting
Why the qualifier, in public?
The Democrats are unsurpassed for political cynicism. Now their mantra is, “It’s all Bush’s fault!”
Wow.... heh heh heh...
LOL! Looks like he invented that to.
I almost fell asleep watching him drone along. Great find!
HE BETRAYED US!
He does sound like a patronizing "Mr Rogers" speaking to a group of "very slow" third grader...(the lefts rank and file?)
Why do they disallow comments at youtube?
Is that a Brick being held by a Block-head? Jeez, he had that "Are you confused, or is it just me?" look fifteen years ago.
I adopted a stupid yard cat. Kinda cute but... she tries to beat the garage door when we’re closing it. The other day it came down on her tail. What a noise she made!
Even THAT couldn’t get Gore’s voice out of your head.
“Why do they disallow comments at youtube?”
That was an option taken by the poster who didn’t want to read a bunch of “well, yeah, but Bush is a Nazi” type comments. Also, you get an email every time a comment is posted on your video and that can be distracting and annoying. Plus, this way you have to actually watch the video instead of reading what other people think. And I think that disallowing comments probably greatly annoys the moonbats anyway which is always a bonus.
Thanks for that video! I added it into my YouTube favorites. Here’s another of Gore doing the same in a debate!
He has sure ate a lot of burgers since the early 90’s
HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.