English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

and was developing a nuclear weapon?

2007-06-23 09:03:47 · 10 answers · asked by Rex 1 in Politics & Government Politics

LIBERALS EXPOSED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

2007-06-23 09:05:30 · update #1

10 answers

sir dont confuse the smear campaigns of the neolib fascist with facts
they cannot handle truth
and may foam about the mouth when confronted with facts

2007-06-23 09:15:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think Gore's just repeating what everybody else has been saying: Iraq is a 'demon evil empire...' - not nearly as civilized and compassionate as we Americans who only want to kill Muslims and suspected 'terrorists'. After all, we've always been a blood-thirsty nation, ready and able to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers for whatever social, political or economic issues might be in our ' best national interests'. Yes, those stinking bastards were developing a nuclear weapon...HOW DARE THEY DO THAT??
America should be the ONLY country entrusted with such weapons of mass destruction. After all, we're not hotheads like those ragheads in the Middle East. We'd never elect a President insane enough to unconstitutionally, illegally, unjustifiably and immorally attack another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States!!
So Gore agrees with Bush: Iraq always assisted and promoted 'terrorists'. What's your point? That Bush is better because he admitted it first? Or that Bush is better because he suffered enough insanity to unconstitutionally, illegally, unjustifiably and immorally attack Iraq? I don't understand which indecency you're trying to preserve. -RKO- 06/23/07

2007-06-23 09:13:49 · answer #2 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0 0

All the Democrats from Clinton to Kerry to Gore for years were saying that Iraq was a danger both in its dealing with terrorists and its move to WMDs.

2007-06-23 09:09:01 · answer #3 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1 0

i like Al Jazeera English and Arabic the two. The English version is fairly sanitized for individuals in spite of the undeniable fact that it supplies information comments which cable channels dont do. i'm getting al jazeera via PBS feeds on Comcast by way of fact I dont have satellite tv for pc. Arab media extra effective than American company media. extra education. Washington positioned up isn't a liberal newspaper from now on. Hamas and Hezbollah at the instant are not from now on terrorist than Israeli forces who flow around the globe assassinating their leaders.

2016-10-18 11:45:56 · answer #4 · answered by smyers 4 · 0 0

Its true because Iraq did support terrorists, just shows how much of a hypocrit gore became.

2007-06-23 09:13:11 · answer #5 · answered by cinabon 2 · 1 0

The video is meaningless. It was 15 years ago and is irrelevant to what happened afterward. No one ever denied that Saddam had a nuclear program in the 80's.

2007-06-23 09:08:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Don't know how they feel. They may feel like Reagan also assisted and promoted terrorists. Care to see Rumsfeld with Saddam photo-op? How about Reagan and Rumsfeld running guns to Iran AND funding the Contras?

When the Reagan administration gave nerve gas to Saddam Hussein, was it in the name of national security?

2007-06-23 09:08:25 · answer #7 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 3 1

Is there a part where Al Gore said I will lie out my azz to get backing for a war where thousands of Americans can be butchered?

2007-06-23 09:07:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Now why would he think that? Those peaceful muslims?

2007-06-23 09:06:42 · answer #9 · answered by Steven 6 · 1 0

that was 1992 sweety

2007-06-23 09:06:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers