Well it's more of an "irony" that Bush and his criminal cohorts mismanaged the war to the point of near total failure.

I guess when it came time to put the words into action the democrats "Looked the otherway".

Wow. Just wow.

The very definition of irony.

This is one of the reasons I fled the democratic party years ago. I am sure chris matthews and the liberal media will be all over this. Not. God bless you President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.

Forget the 'love bomb' just send videos of Gore giving speeches to the enemies, I lasted 1 minute 40 seconds before I fell asleep.

As Steve Irwin would say - "Crikey"

Jeremiah

I hope, if Algore takes another run at the White House, that this gets made into a GOP campaign commercial.

He played upon my fears........

I agree with Al Gore 100%, Saddam is a gathering threat and must be removed from power. Oh wait..........

Hmm, the lefties dont seem to have a comment on this one. They usually jump on anything.

jb.....

You read my mind. I was just thinking that the libbies sure are quiet on this one.

Jeremiah - Bwahaha!
:)

Retired Spook - Good idea!

That was FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. I think it's permissible for people to alter their positions over a decade and a half.

But if it's not, remember that when both parties switch positions, both parties are hypocrites, not just the one you're opposed to.

Leave it to a LiberalMind to try and refocus the blame back on Bush at any cost.

Unlike the whinyass democrats, Bush is doing the hard things. He is challenging our resolve and in the end we will become a stonger nation, that is what makes a great President.

Lordy..it's easy to see why he flunked out..have you ever heard a more droning snooze fest delivery..him on a pulpit..people fleeing in droves...
He reminds me of the snotty little kid on the playground running to tell teacher ....
creep....
I hope to heaven that the RNC has someone who is going to put together some blockbuster campaign ads., lord knows,we have all the ammunition..just USE IT!!!!

What can they say. This clearly illuminates their whole party's hypocrisy. You can go back and find many such speeches by most of the libs that today act like they just don't have an idea where Bush got the idea Iraq was a problem. Like most libs... history challenged ,disingenuous and proud of it.

It seems the video inadvertantly cuts out before the part where Gore suggests that Hussein should be removed from power by an invasion to be followed by an occupation and nation building campaign. /sarcasm off

Suggesting the US stop funding and supplying military intelligence to a murderous tyrrant is not the same as suggesting that the tyrrant be removed by US force. Absolutely zero irony has been demonstrated by this video. The disingenuousness continues at B4B...

OT:

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil." Initial Draft - Defense Policy Guidance - 1992 - Paul Wolfowitz

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Rebuilding America's Defenses - 2000 - PNAC

Number of times that any of these goals were publicly espoused by top administration officials (at least as far as I've seen) in run-up to Iraq War II: 0.

On the other hand, how about the following for irony?

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..." Colin Powell, Feb. 2001

"The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful." Colin Powell, May 2001

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Condoleeza Rice, July 2001

Suggesting the US stop funding and supplying military intelligence to a murderous tyrrant is not the same as suggesting that the tyrrant be removed by US force.

Considering Patriotisms revision of history I submit the following:

Regime change in Iraq became a stated goal of United States foreign policy when Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act") was signed into law by U.S. President Bill Clinton. The act directed that:

"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."

Moreover:

Regime change is a euphemism for the forcible overthrow of a government (or regime) considered illegitimate by a foreign authority, and its replacement with a new government[1].

Regime cahnge policies call for more than sanctions and crossing fingers. Just saying.

Wow, reaching back to 1992 -- getting desperate, are we? Why not admit Bush I failed to take out Saddam and pacify Iraq when we actually had a chance?

Or are you saying Gore's position a decade before 9/11 justifies Bush's catastrophe? Excuse me, didn't "everything change" after 9/11? So why drag things from ten years ago into the light? Maybe because Repubs have nothing good to crow about now?

This seems to be a pretty bleak picture of your hero, Ronald Reagan. Then again, not really very much to actually support from that man...

Need I bring up Romney's abortion stance when he ran for governor of Mass.? Oh the Irony...

Why not start explaining how Saddam went from the threat Gore described to the secular, terrorist-hating, benevolent dictator he was purported to be by the lefties after 2002?

Also, explain how the policy of regime change in Iraq signed by President Clinton became an after thought?

Oh the Irony... Rana

Oh this is rich. For a lefty to throw out the irony card on this, of all threads is just ignorantly laughable.

Do you not remember the "He's playing upon our fears!" scream from Gore? Yet in this video, that's exactly what Gore is doing, inciting fear.

Oh the irony is right.

Also, for you to equate a moral issue, ie: abortion, with a national security issue is again: ignorantly laughable.

Oh okay I get it, so conservatives and Republicans are allowed to change their minds on issues, but liberals aren't. Makes perfect sense.

Another useless post on B4B designed solely for neocons to come on here and giddily type "See! Al Gore's a hypocrite! See!".

Aren't you the same crowd that's always arguing that "Oh, but allies always change over time and opinions do too" when referring to the fact that we sold Iraq it's weapons?

So you might as well just have put up a picture of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands, because it has the same effect, and both are BS. Al Gore changed his mind---people are allowed to change their minds right? Or is that hypocrisy to change your mind? Especially when this is six years before Clinton pinpoint bombed and destroyed 95% of Iraq's weapons.

Useless post. As usual.

Useless post. As usual. - colin

Don't be so hard on yourself colin.

Leo is simply pointing out the hypocrisy on the left that the left likes to make light of on the right EVERY CHANCE THEY GET.

Turn about is fair play and not so fun I gather considering your post.

Is the guy in this clip the man who Al Gore ate?

B.E.L.

Now that's funny. Getting older can be a bitch, I can attest to that.

Check this one out for more of the same - insanity

http://img.youtube.com/vi/ePb6H-j51xE/2.jpg

Has anyone here seen quotes from Cheney, Rumsfeld et al from this same time period?

They all described a situation where, if Saddam were toppled, chaos would ensue as power hungry warlords in the region would use it as an opportunity to gain control.

What the Gore video should remind us is that all too often ideology comes before rational decision making. It happens equally within both parties.

Ironic? More like scary.

Colin..Billy Jeff destroyed 95% of his weapons..by bombing an aspirin factory...ee gods, where did you come from???

Everything he is saying is true.

We all know the Reagan and Bush supported Saddam in the 1980's. We all know Rummy sold WMD to Saddam knowing he was using it against the Kurds.

We also know Saddam destroyed all his WWM in 1993. There was no reason to invade.

Read "The Occupation nof Iraq". That book confirms what Gore is saying.

Wow Xango...you really don't know sh*t about history, do you?

Clinton bombed the aspirin factory in AFRICA in response to the Al-Qaeda bombing of one of our African embassies.

Clinton destroyed 95% of Iraq's weapons during the two bombing campaigns in 1998.

Open up a f'n history book---congrats on being an idiot who knows nothing about history.

Annie,
colon keeps repeating that "95%" number even though Clinton's own State Department stated that the effectiveness of the bombing campaign in Iraq was "questionable". Clinton himself said the bombing would "send a message" of the US's "seriousness" in enforcing the UN resolutions. Weapons inspector Hans Blix stated that he knew the target areas "very well" and no reason to believe that “significant stockpiles” of weapons were there. The UN Security Council discussed a warning to Clinton that "ineffectual saber-rattling" was counterproductive.

But, colon seems to know something that no-one else on the planet is aware of.

Citing Iraqi recalcitrance, US President Clinton ordered the 1998 Operation: Desert Fox bombing that made no impact on Iraq's weapons programs, but only succeeded in doing some superficial structural damage, while killing scores of innocent civilians and ensuring that the Iraqi Government would reject any further demands to admit inspectors. One high-level inspector has even claimed that the Clinton Administration pressured the new UNSCOM director Richard Butler into ordering a confrontation with the Iraqi government in order to open the way for the Desert Fox bombing. After the bombing, the US government admitted to receiving intelligence from American weapons inspectors in violation of the Security Council inspections mandate.

Assessment of Desert Fox; “Yet what did DESERT FOX truly accomplish? If the strikes were “effective,” what was the “effect” of the operation? It “degraded” and “diminished” Iraq’s WMD programs and its ability to threaten its neighbors. These “effects” were easy to produce and one could say they were accomplished after one night’s worth of attacks. A cynic might note that the destruction of a single facility had “degraded” a target set and thus, failure was impossible given this rather elastic goal.

The US and UK did not target stockpiles during the 1998 operation and neither at the time nor since has anything come to light to suggest that such stockpiles were hit, if they even existed. At the same time, the ISG determined that Iraq did not retain SCUD-type missiles beyond 1991, though other missiles were both used by the Iraqis and captured by the coalition during OIF [Operation Iraqi freedom]. The fate of Iraqi WMD and related materials left accounted for in December 1998 remains unknown to this day. Iraq remained a threat to its neighbors and the interests of the United States and its allies—one need only to recall Clinton’s assertion that Saddam’s very presence in power, and not his WMD alone, constituted that threat.

In the aftermath of DESERT FOX, Iraq adopted an even more belligerent tone than before. Saddam also declared “victory” in a taped address aired over al-Jazeera television. On January 3, 1999, Iraqi media reported that the Iraqi dictator had offered a bounty of $14,000 to any unit that shot down a coalition airplane, plus another $2,800 reward for the capture of an allied pilot. Iraqi air defenses actively targeted US and British aircraft that continued to patrol the no-fly zones over the country. Iraqi aircraft made brief forays into the zones as well. The number of Iraqi “provocations” in the no-fly zones rose over the next several years.

Diplomatically, DESERT FOX splintered once and for all the 1991 Gulf War coalition. France announced that it would no longer take part in enforcement of the no-fly zones. Paris, together with Moscow and Beijing, called for a comprehensive review of sanctions. The governments of Saudi Arabia and Turkey grew visibly nervous as the crisis escalated and refused to allow combat sorties from bases on their soil. The Saudi action in particular sidelined a large number of American warplanes throughout the operation. The dismay and outrage displayed by the Russians and Chinese over DESERT FOX would linger for years. While most of Washington’s traditional allies had stayed on board during DESERT FOX, the diplomatic outcome amongst the major powers—the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—foreshadowed the splits that would arise in the run-up to Operation IRAQI FREEDOM in 2003.”

Get your history lessons from someone other than (sc)Air America and Ranty Rhodes.

Hey Rathaven, since Clinton apparently DIDN'T destroy most of his weapons (Despite CIA papers saying exactly that) then why hasn't a single WMD been found? You'd think since his weapons weren't even affected by Clinton, we might find one, or even a sign of one. Yet none. Nice try at the usual bullshit logic though.

Faced with overwhelming evidence of fabricated statistics, colon lashes out irrationally.

CIA papers? The same CIA that said finding the WMD was a "slam dunk"? Tell ya' what, little man, point me to these CIA papers; I haven't had a good laugh all day. Except the laugh I get at your expense.

Face it, son; in a battle of wits you've only half a chance.