Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are you not staying on topic. I repeat and let me make it easier for you to understand...if Gore would have been POTUS, we would not have invaded Iraq based on 9/11. Maybe we would have not ignored the warning signs as Bush did and 9/11 might not have even happened. Get it? Good!
This is something that the libs cannot accept. Therefore, they put their hands over their ears and close thier eyes, and rock back and forth shouting, "No, no, no"! "Liberalism does work"! "The facts don't make any difference!" "We just needed a better leader, then it would have worked"!
Sometimes it is hard to face that the political ideology which you have embraced for your entire lifetime is an abject failure.
Rule of thumb...anyone that uses dumb names for political parties, usually has very little of substance to add to a debate...never fails.
Whose thumb would that be? When I stop seeing teabaggers and repugs, I'll stop returning fire. And, Libturd refers to liberals, not Republicans or Democrats, but liberals (which is an ideology, not a party (rule of thumb)).
Why are you not staying on topic. I repeat and let me make it easier for you to understand...if Gore would have been POTUS, we would not have invaded Iraq based on 9/11. Maybe we would have not ignored the warning signs as Bush did and 9/11 might not have even happened. Get it? Good!
Your attempt at wit is an abject fail. GOT IT??? Good.
You have no idea what Gore would or would not have - it is all mindless (with emphasis on MINDLESS) speculation on YOUR part.
The warning signs, indeed the entire planning for the event, as was the WTC bombing (remember that one). was done when Gore the Bore was VP.
GOT IT - huh, do you???? Of course you don't, and probably never will!!!!!
Why are you not staying on topic. I repeat and let me make it easier for you to understand...if Gore would have been POTUS, we would not have invaded Iraq based on 9/11. Maybe we would have not ignored the warning signs as Bush did and 9/11 might not have even happened. Get it? Good!
oh please
gore was pushing Iraq when he was VP
Quote:
“[i]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people.”
- Al Gore , December 16, 1998.
--------------
"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table."
The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
ignore the warnings...what warning..alq is intent on attacking..we DONT KNOW where, when or how
Quote:
In August 2002 Richard A. Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser, discusses US strategy in dealing with islamic terrorists:
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies -- and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against, uh, the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
Richard A. Clarke
Former chief counter-terrorism adviser
August, 2002
Why are you not staying on topic. I repeat and let me make it easier for you to understand...if Gore would have been POTUS, we would not have invaded Iraq based on 9/11. Maybe we would have not ignored the warning signs as Bush did and 9/11 might not have even happened. Get it? Good!
Could've, would've, might have, maybe, might not have, maybe not.
Seems you have forgotten that they actually sat there and counted every stinking ballot and Bush won. The recount was observed by numerous partisan and bi-partisan entities, including RNC/DNC members, the media, Amnesty International and other groups.
Just to show you how stupid the Gorebot is, if he had insisted on a recount of every county in Florida, that would have happened, and he still would have lost, but instead he focused on a recount of 3 counties and had no possible way to justify counting just 3 counties and then demanding that the outcome of the election be based solely on that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
