1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gore rips Bush on Iraq ... not what you think.

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by old_tony, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    Bottom line?

    You... tony... needlessly have a shitload of innocent blood on your hands.
     
  2. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member


    The guy's opening comments were about Iraq's ties to terrorists. I am far from ignorant to the topic. I just find this whole thing to be quite a bit of horseshit. And you, sir, are swimming in it with happy glee.

    In 1992, Bob asks Jim if he can help him move. Jim says, "I can't my leg is broken."
    In 2002, Joe asks Jim if he can help him move. Jim says, "Sure. I'll be there early."
    In the world of old_(and possibly senile)_tony, Jim is a hypocrite! How dare Jim not help his friend Bob move but then help Joe move.
     
  3. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    So let me take a guess here, then. You apparently believe that Gore talking tough in 1992 caused Saddam to kick all the terrorists out of Iraq and it was a haven and paradise for everyone when we invaded in 2003? Please send me some of what you're smoking. You can even send it postage due.
     
  4. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    You guys are wearing blinders if you listen to the whole thing and are not strick by the inconsistency of it, even with changed circumstances. He didn't just read a policy position, he gave details & opinions that should not have changed based on anything other than the opinion of the Bush he wanted to bash.

    Now, as some of you might remember, I don't consider hypocricy to be the deadly sin you all do. And I'm certainly not surprised to be reminded that the current version of Gore is opportunistic and likely dishonest. I was most struck by the memory of the al Gore I was a huge fan of - I was thrilled when he was selected by Clinton as VP. I had almost forgotton that he was once a serious, responsible public servant. Oh well.
     
  5. Those opinions should not have changed -- except that, prior to the latest clusterfuck, the government of the United States put out a farrago of fabricated evidence from a number of dubious sources, ignored most of the warnings from people who actually knew what they were talking about, spit on Hans Blix and el-Baradei, employed the national security apparatus to retaliate against people who publicly questioned their policies, up to and including recklessly revealing a covert operative's identity, and launched an unnecessary war of choice against a country that was no more a threat to this country than Finland was.
    Oh, and in case you didn't notice, in 1992 and in 1993, neither administration stuck 150K soldiers in the middle of a civil war, alienated the entire rest of the world, inflame the Middle East, fulfilled the wet dreams of every terrorist from Osama bin Laden west, and embarked on a permanent military occupation with an embassy the size of Vatican City.
    I checked today's paper. It's not 1992 any more. Although if I were a drug-addled sex tourist I might not have caught on yet. Rush's accusing anyone of "hypocrisy" -- and having old 60 Percent Closet Case chime in -- is a never-ending source of hilarity.
    Might point out on the thread title that it's GHW Bush.
     
  6. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Well, Fenian, you can't have it both ways, although that's the only way your argument could stand up intellectually. It's also why it doesn't.

    One moment you call it a civil war. Another moment you insist that all the people we're fighting are terrorists that poured in from other countries after the invasion because you insist that Iraq was terrorist-free before we went in.

    And it's the problem that no one in the lamestream media ever asks of the left. If it's a civil war, then it would be fought between Iraqis. But it's not being fought between just Iraqis -- as we already know from the left telling us that it's being fought between Iraqies, the US and the tons of terrorists who weren't there but have now poured into Iraq.

    Because, as the left has repeatedly told us, there weren't terrorists in Iraq before we invaded.

    You call Iraq "a country that that was no more a threat to this country than Finland," showing you either didn't watch the clip or also have reached the conclusion that Al Gore is a lying idiot. If it's finally the latter, welcome to the party.

    As for the thread title, it's the first time I've seen you catch on to anything. Congrats for that small victory.
     
  7. Boomer7

    Boomer7 Active Member

    Tony, give it up. You're embarrassing yourself. The invasion created a massive vacuum into which terrorists flooded. Everyone but you seems to understand this. Islamists tried the same thing in Kosovo, flooding into there from all ends of the Muslim world, but they couldn't foster the same kind of chaos that Al Qaeda in Iraq did. Your suggestion that Iraq couldn't possibly go from "not many terrorists" to "shitload of terrorists" (the quote marks are not intended to quote you, so don't get pissy) overnight -- or in 10 years' time -- is simply flawed. If we had rated Middle East nations that posed a terrorist threat to the US in February 2003, Iraq probably
    wouldn't have rated in the top 10 (certainly top five), and several nations on the list ahead of Iraq are ones we consider allies in the war on terror. Sorry you can't accept reality.
     
  8. Once again, I tire of arguing with the voices in the head of Idiot Boy No. 2, but I do feel obligated to point out that I didn't make a single one of the arguments that he attributes to me. But he knows what he knows and all of his favorite talk-radio stars tell him he's right. I just wish I got the feeling that he'd once read a book without pictures.
     
  9. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    So you're arguing with yourself now? How sad.

    It's been the mantra of the left for three years now that there were no terrorists in Iraq and no ties to terror with Iraq. Don't start to claim ignorance to your ignorance now when it's pretty much all you've been about.
     
  10. D-Backs Hack

    D-Backs Hack Guest

    Dude says it as well as I could -- except, of course, that not only was there no accountability from the U.S. in the 1980s for the use of chemical weapons, many of said weapons were provided by the U.S.:

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11111.html

     
  11. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Well, then somebody from your side forgot to tell Al Gore that there weren't any terrorists in Iraq. Or, more accurately -- and is always the case with liberals -- was he lying then in 1992 or was he lying in 1998 or is he lying now? When it comes to Gore, the safe answer is almost always "yes, but he only lies when his lips move."
     
  12. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Nice, and incredibly flawed. Tell me how bush 1 was repeatedly cooperating and reaching out to Saddam in 1992. By not invading? And considering how strong Gore's words were in 1992, why did Saddam have pretty much a free skate for the eight years Clinton and Gore were in office -- with the exception, of course, when the Clinton/Monica testimony stuff and the impeachment were going on?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page