Both the Times and the AP have the story, Gore accusing bush of plotting the Iraq war in advance of 9/11: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2004/feb/08/020806539.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/09/p...600&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position= -- Gore Says America 'Betrayed' by Bush By AMBER McDOWELL ASSOCIATED PRESS NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Al Gore, who lost the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000, assailed the commander in chief Sunday, accusing him of betraying the nation by invading Iraq. "He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure, dangerous to our troops, that was preordained and planned before 9-11," Gore told Tennessee Democrats at a party event. The former vice president said that he, like millions of others, had put partisanship aside after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and wanted Bush to lead the nation. Instead, Gore shouted to the crowd, Bush "betrayed us." Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the electoral vote to Bush, likened the Republican's administration to that of former President Nixon. "Nixon was no more committed to principle than the man on the moon," Gore said. "He cared as little about what it means to be conservative as George Bush does about imposing ... budget deficits. "It has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with his efforts to get re-elected." Gore, who endorsed Howard Dean for the nomination, complimented the former Vermont governor on his decision to speak out against the war in Iraq, for bringing new people into the party and for raising money through the Internet. "I appreciate what he's done about giving the party it's voice back," he said of Dean. Although Gore campaigned in Iowa and other states for Dean, he did promote the Democrat's candidacy in his home state of Tennessee. No matter who wins on Tuesday in the primary, Gore called on Democrats to unite behind their nominee, saying "any of these candidates are better than George W. Bush."
'Plotting' is such a descriptive word, no? Brings to mind men in dark corners worrying about other men in even darker corners. I saw a bit of the speech. If Gore had seemed this human before the lat election, I might have voted for him.
Good for Gore. By the way, as VP Gore had access to all the intel that Bush had prior to making his plans for the invasion of Iraq, a couple of weeks after Bush took office. It is good to see someone in the know telling it like it is. Gore is doing the country a service unlike the ex Pres Clinton who is more concerned about his wife's political aspirations than telling the truth about Iraq IMHO.
if Bush were indeed guilty of what Gore alledges, wouldn't that qualify as treason? i think the democrats need to be very careful here- this whole issue could really blow up in their faces.
Maybe, but that's not really what I think of when I think of treason. I think of a citizen deliberately trying to bring down our country one way or another. I don't think wanting to go to war with a country, at least in this instance, is treason, even if what Gore accuses is true.
To clarify: If, as Gore alleges, Bush et al planned an invasion of Iraq pre-9-11...and, say, there are documents or transcripts which support this...you would conclude that he is guilty of treason? As you say, be very careful before you answer.
Maybe, but that's not really what I think of when I think of treason. I think of a citizen deliberately trying to bring down our country one way or another. If that is your definition I don't think Bush was treasonous. I think he just thought the war with Iraq was too good to pass up. He could best daddy. Make some buckaroos for his friends and contriubutors, both short run and the long run, win the elections in 2002 and Nov 2004 due to a patriotic frenzy. He saw the risks as minimum as he didn't expect Iraq to put up much of a fight and was pretty sure there were no wmd to hurt our troops (tens of thousands killed would have hurt Bush's career) Unfortunately he didn't really give a damn about the ordinary American soldiers and Iraqis killed-- only to the extent it might interfere with his goals. I sincerely think he believes in an old fashioned sense of imperialism in which we shoud as Christians conquer those ignorant AArabs and teach them how to live. In the long run it is only for their own good. He also believes it is good for the US to seize the oil or buy it from puppets we've installed, as has been the pattern of such imperialists as the British, who initally set up boundaries to put as much oil as possible in the hands of a couple of corrupt families in Kuwait and Saudia Arabia.
Basso is wanted in a more substantial thread on an interview that the actual president gave in reality. Not to be an ahole Basso, but you keep posting these articles and columns from websites and "journalists" who have a clear agenda and then argue through them relentlessly but when the President actually gets on television and gives a hard edged interview, you have only a couple of sarcastic remarks in reply. While I appreciate your tenacity in trying to represent the other side and keep this thing balanced, completely ignoring an actual interview with the guy after relentless defending him with these "columns" from these biased web sites will soon get you ignored.
From Gore's speech: "And the reason I'm recalling those feelings now is because those are the feelings that were betrayed by this president! He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America, he took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!" Gore closed with his father's line from 1970: "And so I say to you in closing my friends, in the year of 2004, the truth shall rise again!" i don't know, i think he's awfully close to the line.
Oh PG, I wish you hadn't done that. Now this is going to turn this thread into a lib/con media bias bashing fest in order to save face.
Yeah. I quoted such noted liberal media reps as pat Buchanan and Peggy noonan who said the interview was a disaster for Bush. Are you going to answer my question, BTW?
I agree that Democrats should be careful how they handle what Bush knew and when he knew it. (damn! that brings back memories... ) Gore isn't running for President and he's backed a candidate who won't get the nomination. I really don't see why he can't say something like this. As a matter of fact, what he's accusing Bush of is exactly why this commission Bush is creating is such a PR move and little else. And why a truly independant investigation with a report tendered a least a couple of months before the election is what the American people deserve. There is enough ambiquity about the run up to the Iraqi war that we should get nothing less. I think the Democratic candidates should be careful, however, in the sense that you don't want to give the RNC a soundbite to use to "muddy the waters". Bush supporters and those who are on the fence might rally together over a "Bush is a traitor!" issue. I think we're better served to keep it on the "Bush got us into an unnecessary war and may have lied to the America people to do it. Let's find out if he lied and before the election. President Bush, if you have nothing to hide, then why not get this cleared up right away?". Short of getting more facts, that would be the tactic I would use. Of course, I'm not running.
Here's the agenda from one of the meetings in which Paul O'Neill claims the invasion was discussed. Note the date. BTW, I've never heard any response from the 'fry Paul O'Neill" crowd either about the fact that the allegations that he disclosed "secret" documents (apparently "unclassified" must mean secret now) have seemingly flamed out faster than Howard Dean. What was up with that?
