A flashback to a skinnier Goracle

[EvilMonkey]

 

Enjoy.

Edited June 12, 2007 by Alpha Dog

[kapkomet]

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT!!! IT'S DIFFERENT!

 

Once a hypocritical d'bag, always a hypocritical d'bag.

[mr_genius]

OWNED!!! what a phony. Gore is truly one of the scummiest people in all politics, and thats saying a lot.

[Balta1701]

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT!!! IT'S DIFFERENT!

 

Once a hypocritical d'bag, always a hypocritical d'bag.

Yeah, because nothing at all could have changed between 1992 and 2003. Like, say, the dismantling of Saddam's entire WMD program by the UNSCOM team and the Operation Rommel bombings and its confirmation by UNMOVIC.

 

I really am starting to hate this type of stuff. You're never allowed to reanalyze things 10 years later based on new information, because otherwise we get "oh it's always different!" as a response.

 

Was Al right in 92 back when the speech was made, I believe? I haven't a clue. But to say that you can't have supported stronger containment measures against Saddam back in 92 and opposed the war 11 years later is just silly. Based on this, we should never have invaded Afghanistan, because in 1992, Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were not a threat to us.

 

Has anyone else considered at all that the complete refusal of one man to ever reevaluate his decisions based on new evidence is in fact one of the biggest reasons why the Middle East is falling apart these days?

Edited June 13, 2007 by Balta1701

[KipWellsFan]

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT!!! IT'S DIFFERENT!

 

Once a hypocritical d'bag, always a hypocritical d'bag.

 

Well didn't Clinton and him bomb the s*** out of Iraq?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Well didn't Clinton and him bomb the s*** out of Iraq?

Cruise missile attacks and bombings/patrols of the No Fly Zones.

 

And if we're going to go in the way back machine in this thread to make people look hypocritical, let's go back to the Republican majority's take on the US involvement in Serbia and how quickly many of them are changing their tune about warfare now that there is a politician with an R in front of his name to take the credit for being tough internationally.

 

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): "President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

 

Sean Hannity: "No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel good foreign policy."

 

Karen Hughes (speaking on behalf of George W. Bush): "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

 

 

Why did they demoralize our fighting forces in uniform?

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

 

Tony Snow: "You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

 

Joe Scarborough (R-FL): "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."

 

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): "I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe men when I say we're running out of cruise missiles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left for security reasons but we're almost out of cruise missiles."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."

 

Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK): "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag."

 

Sean Hannity: "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

 

 

Why didn't they support the President in a time of war?

Gov. George W. Bush: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

 

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN): "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

 

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): "The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "You can support the troops but not the President."

 

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce."

 

 

Why did they blame America first?

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode."

 

Michael Savage: "These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

 

Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL): "This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

 

Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-IN): "It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

 

Bob Djurdjevic: "By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

[mr_genius]

Cruise missile attacks and bombings/patrols of the No Fly Zones.

 

And if we're going to go in the way back machine in this thread to make people look hypocritical, let's go back to the Republican majority's take on the US involvement in Serbia and how quickly many of them are changing their tune about warfare now that there is a politician with an R in front of his name to take the credit for being tough internationally.

 

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): "President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

 

Sean Hannity: "No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel good foreign policy."

 

Karen Hughes (speaking on behalf of George W. Bush): "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

 

 

Why did they demoralize our fighting forces in uniform?

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

 

Tony Snow: "You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

 

Joe Scarborough (R-FL): "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."

 

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): "I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe men when I say we're running out of cruise missiles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left for security reasons but we're almost out of cruise missiles."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."

 

Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK): "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag."

 

Sean Hannity: "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

 

 

Why didn't they support the President in a time of war?

Gov. George W. Bush: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

 

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN): "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

 

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): "The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "You can support the troops but not the President."

 

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce."

 

 

Why did they blame America first?

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode."

 

Michael Savage: "These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

 

Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL): "This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

 

Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-IN): "It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

 

Bob Djurdjevic: "By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

 

The Serbia bombings should not have been done IMO. You thought they were OK? It just seems like the "outrage against war" is very selective. Depends more on if your party won or lost the election preceding a conflict . So really, are dems any better then the people you quoted in your post? is that the new dem platform "we're only as bad as the GOP, not worse"?

[EvilMonkey]

Cruise missile attacks and bombings/patrols of the No Fly Zones.

 

And if we're going to go in the way back machine in this thread to make people look hypocritical, let's go back to the Republican majority's take on the US involvement in Serbia and how quickly many of them are changing their tune about warfare now that there is a politician with an R in front of his name to take the credit for being tough internationally.

 

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): "President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

 

Sean Hannity: "No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel good foreign policy."

 

Karen Hughes (speaking on behalf of George W. Bush): "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

 

 

Why did they demoralize our fighting forces in uniform?

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

 

Tony Snow: "You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

 

Joe Scarborough (R-FL): "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."

 

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): "I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe men when I say we're running out of cruise missiles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left for security reasons but we're almost out of cruise missiles."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."

 

Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK): "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag."

 

Sean Hannity: "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

 

 

Why didn't they support the President in a time of war?

Gov. George W. Bush: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

 

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN): "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

 

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): "The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "You can support the troops but not the President."

 

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce."

 

 

Why did they blame America first?

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

 

Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode."

 

Michael Savage: "These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

 

Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL): "This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

 

Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-IN): "It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

 

Bob Djurdjevic: "By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

Your post sounds more like the "They did it too" argument. War: good if Dems start it, bad if not.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Your post sounds more like the "They did it too" argument. War: good if Dems start it, bad if not.

No, it is just showing that there are a whole lot of hypocritical douchebags and if we're going to pick one old statement from 15 years ago, then the least we can do is pick the other side and show their hypocrisy too. But I guess it's different.

[EvilMonkey]

No, it is just showing that there are a whole lot of hypocritical douchebags and if we're going to pick one old statement from 15 years ago, then the least we can do is pick the other side and show their hypocrisy too. But I guess it's different.

So what is the point of pointing that out? Does it somehow mitigate the fact that Goracle is a douchbag?

[Balta1701]

The Serbia bombings should not have been done IMO. You thought they were OK? It just seems like the "outrage against war" is very selective. Depends more on if your party won or lost the election preceding a conflict . So really, are dems any better then the people you quoted in your post? is that the new dem platform "we're only as bad as the GOP, not worse"?

I thought at the time it was very hard to defend the concept behind the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, especially the Kosovo campaign. I really have trouble with the concept of fighting a war for humanitarian reasons, because war is the ultimate act of inhumanity. It's really hard to find situations so bad that killing a lot of people will improve them. There are, obviously, exceptions. In hindsight, Rwanda would have been a possible place where such an action could have been useful, but only because of the sheer magnitude of the carnage there. It's a rough line to draw, and each situation needs to be evaluated independently, but I think I'm of the belief that the gains that happened in Yugoslavia probably could have been accomplished without all the killing there.

[Gregory Pratt]

I see LCR has been reading Al Franken.

[kapkomet]

Was the intelligence so different in 2000 when Clinton, a month before he left office, talked about Saddam as a "grave threat"? Oh yes, because the patron saint Bill Clinton (YOUR HERO) REALLY destroyed Saddam Hussein.

 

Gore is a hypocrite on almost every issue. Bush may be wrong, but he certainly doesn't waiver on this issue.

[Balta1701]

Gore is a hypocrite on almost every issue. Bush may be wrong, but he certainly doesn't waiver on this issue.

2 cars driving off a cliff.

 

Al Gore: "Hmm, at one point, I thought it was a good idea to continue driving in this direction. Based on the approaching cliff, I now think it would be an appropriate move to stop and turn around this vehicle."

 

George W. Bush: "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

[BigSqwert]

Bush may be wrong, but he certainly doesn't waiver on this issue.

So not wavering is more important than him being wrong? I rather have a leader that waivers and is ultimately right.

[kapkomet]

So not wavering is more important than him being wrong? I rather have a leader that waivers and is ultimately right.

I understand, I really do. But I think history (if the politicians would get their collective heads out of their asses and finish things the right way) would vindicate Bush on Iraq. Based on what we "knew", it was the right thing to do, WMD's or not. And Gore would never say he changes his mind on Hussein, he'd pull a Hillary. That's the problem with these (village) idiots.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

2 cars driving off a cliff.

 

Al Gore: "Hmm, at one point, I thought it was a good idea to continue driving in this direction. Based on the approaching cliff, I now think it would be an appropriate move to stop and turn around this vehicle."

 

George W. Bush: "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

 

The Serbia bombing was another unnecessary move by a belligerent state who has been flexing its international authority around for decades destabilizing governments that they didn't like and installing dictators that are just as bloodthirsty and authoritarian as the leftist regimes they used as boogeymen and their excuse to topple other regimes (see: Central and South America)

 

I just find it in the same hypocritical vein that the GOP whores against the war then for humanitarian reasons are now blatantly whoring for the war in Iraq now that there is a Republican to take the glory for being tough internationally. The same is said for the Dems who were for the humanitarian effort in Kosovo (and those wanting intervention in Darfur) but now choosing to be against this war.

 

The fact is that Kosovo, Darfur (assuming that we'd be part of a UN invasion/peacekeeping force) and Iraq never were and never have been threats to our national security and therefore we should not have used our military forces to invade any of those nations because it is not in the national interest of the United States to be the policeman of the world.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

2 cars driving off a cliff.

 

Al Gore: "Hmm, at one point, I thought it was a good idea to continue driving in this direction. Based on the approaching cliff, I now think it would be an appropriate move to stop and turn around this vehicle."

 

George W. Bush: "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

 

The Serbia bombing was another unnecessary move by a belligerent state who has been flexing its international authority around for decades destabilizing governments that they didn't like and installing dictators that are just as bloodthirsty and authoritarian as the leftist regimes they used as boogeymen and their excuse to topple other regimes (see: Central and South America)

 

I just find it in the same hypocritical vein that the GOP whores against the war then for humanitarian reasons are now blatantly whoring for the war in Iraq now that there is a Republican to take the glory for being tough internationally. The same is said for the Dems who were for the humanitarian effort in Kosovo (and those wanting intervention in Darfur) but now choosing to be against this war.

 

The fact is that Kosovo, Darfur (assuming that we'd be part of a UN invasion/peacekeeping force) and Iraq never were and never have been threats to our national security and therefore we should not have used our military forces to invade any of those nations because it is not in the national interest of the United States to be the policeman of the world.

[mr_genius]

not in the national interest of the United States to be the policeman of the world.

 

[Balta1701]

Unless there's oil there...

[mr_genius]

Unless there's oil there...

of course!

 

did we even get any oil out of the Iraq invasion? I thought that some Iraq oil was supposed to pay for some of this whole thing. I'm sure that got totally botched as well.

Edited June 15, 2007 by mr_genius

[KipWellsFan]

I understand, I really do. But I think history (if the politicians would get their collective heads out of their asses and finish things the right way) would vindicate Bush on Iraq. Based on what we "knew", it was the right thing to do, WMD's or not. And Gore would never say he changes his mind on Hussein, he'd pull a Hillary. That's the problem with these (village) idiots.

 

No it was always a dumb idea.

[Balta1701]

of course!

 

did we even get any oil out of the Iraq invasion? I thought that some Iraq oil was supposed to pay for some of this whole thing. I'm sure that got totally botched as well.

Iraq is producing significantly less oil per day than it was before the invasion, I believe, because all of the oil facilities and pipelines keep being blown up, and the hundreds of millions of dollars we dumped into trying to repair those systems were often totally wasted by the contractors.

 

The U.S. is still trying to convince the Iraqis to pass an oil revenue bill that would be very favorable to U.S. oil companies as I understand it (someone who has paid more attention will probably know more about that) and the U.S. has cited it as one of the benchmarks the Iraqis should accomplish ASAP, but that bill has been tied up in the Iraqi parliament for what seems like a year now.

[SoxFan1]

The Serbia bombing was complete and utter bulls***. There's my 2 cents.

[NorthSideSox72]

2 cars driving off a cliff.

 

Al Gore: "Hmm, at one point, I thought it was a good idea to continue driving in this direction. Based on the approaching cliff, I now think it would be an appropriate move to stop and turn around this vehicle."

 

George W. Bush: "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

Nicely done.

 

We've had a whole mess of lousy politicians the last few decades. But I'd rather see someone who is actually willing to adjust when they are obviously off course, than one who sticks to their guns just for that sake.

 

Amazingly, some people still confuse stubbornness with courage.