. . .ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism--the first President Bush, that is.

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

Somebody PLEASE embed this.

(Just for all you assholes!)

6/13/2007 8:57:45 AM

So what, Gore's an idiot too. At this point he just looks like he is bitching just to be bitching.

6/13/2007 9:01:17 AM

^ Well, if nothing else, the video shows that (1) Al Gore is a fucking hypocrite and (2) that President Bush didn't need to manipulate the intelligence concerning Iraq, as many have alleged.

PS: Concerning "idiots," Hillary and Kerry and many others must be, too--after all, they voted to invade Iraq based on concerns about terrorism ties and WMD.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 9:16 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 9:06:48 AM

Talk about apples to oranges and yet another hookbot red herring.

6/13/2007 9:14:49 AM

^exactly, a bright, bright red herring.

nobody with half a brain has even joked that saddam had no ties to TERRORISM, or that he was TRYING to acquire WMDs. We all know those things are true.

The problem lies in saying that Saddam had direct ties to Osama and had a role in 9/11, which he did not, and saying that he HAD WMDs, which he did not.

I think an infant can see the difference.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 9:17 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 9:16:48 AM

^^ and ^ You're an infant, you're a retard, you're salisburyboy--blah, blah, blah.

Quote :

"Well, if nothing else, the video shows that (1) Al Gore is a fucking hypocrite and (2) that President Bush didn't need to manipulate the intelligence concerning Iraq, as many have alleged. PS: Concerning 'idiots,' Hillary and Kerry and many others must be, too--after all, they voted to invade Iraq based on concerns about terrorism ties and WMD."

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 9:20 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 9:20:03 AM

NSD 26 seems to be a smoking gun codemning the first Bush

Quote :

"http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20020926.shtml The prevailing US attitude toward Iraq during those years was articulated in President George H.W. Bush's upbeat National Security Directive 26 of October 2, 1989 on "U.S. Policy Toward the Persian Gulf": "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The United States Government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and to increase our influence with Iraq." "At the same time, the Iraqi leadership must understand that any illegal use of chemical and/or biological weapons will lead to economic and political sanctions, for which we would seek the broadest possible support from our allies and friends," the previous President Bush wrote."

The last statement is a joke because we well knew Saddam to be committing acts of terror against his own people, but we didn't care.





^ Did you watch the entire video? And if so, what malfunction in your brain piece is occurring that you think there is rampant hypocrisy going on with the Vice Presidential Al Gore in regards to terrorism?

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 9:22 AM. Reason : infant? Better than a dirty old man hitting on college girl on a web site. pussy]

6/13/2007 9:20:53 AM

^ Fuck you, motherfucker.

PS: "in regards to" (sic)--wrong, dumbass.

6/13/2007 9:26:08 AM

There are obviously no differences between a leader enjoying our military, diplomatic, and economic aid and support with full sovereignty over his territory, and the same leader under sanctions with limited sovereignty over the northern and southern part of his country.

While one can argue the pragmatism of arming a common enemy of Iran, it is simplistic and intellectually immature to present criticisms and differing approaches to the two different scenarios as hypocrisy.

6/13/2007 9:44:42 AM

Quote :

"So what, Gore's an idiot too. At this point he just looks like he is bitching just to be bitching."

too true




but, the reason they blame the pres. is in our govt. some things go up (culpability for one)

responsibility for ones own actions, however, gets conveniently ignored

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 9:52 AM. Reason : ,]

6/13/2007 9:51:49 AM

Quote :

"The prevailing US attitude toward Iraq during those years was articulated in President George H.W. Bush's upbeat National Security Directive 26 of October 2, 1989 on "U.S. Policy Toward the Persian Gulf"

Because nothing changed in the 13 years between 89 and 02. If it hasn't achieved any results for 13 years, we should just stay the course indefinitely I suppose.

And I don't think anyone disputes that Al Gore (and probably just about every politician) is a hypocrite.

6/13/2007 10:12:41 AM

if only the middle east didn't have oil, then we would stay just as uninvolved as we are in in africa, south america and (recently) south east asia....

6/13/2007 10:17:38 AM

Well, at least "simplistic and intellectually immature" sound better than "infant" or "retard."

6/13/2007 10:38:37 AM

the problem isn't that we invaded iraq, or how we invaded, or what our decision to invade was predicated on. the problem is american arrogance concerning changing a part of the world that DOES NOT want to change and will NEVER change. this country has this idea that everyone on earth wants to, or even CAN live just like us. it simply is not true. in fact, if we had simply said we're going to take out saddam hussein because he was an asshole, and not cared what the world thought, we'd be in a much better position right now

individuals over there can change, but the culture never will. and hell, even the ones that do leave there and move to democratic countries such as ours, they don't change. they just do the same thing in a different country.

6/13/2007 11:13:24 AM

^ Very good point.

6/13/2007 11:15:31 AM

^^ Not really. The problem is that we invaded on insufficient pretext with piss poor post-combat planning. It exacerbated the problems an already shaky state in an inherently un-stable region.

The concept that the Arab world cannot and will not change shows your misunderstanding of the fundamental importance of money. Lets face it, that is what drives the Western world, not this crap about a "Judeo-Christian Democracy". The middle-east will become more modern when it becomes profitable to be so. Both Iran and Iraq were fairly modern countries as late as the 1970s, their current extremism is a reaction to perceived exploitation by western powers wrapped in a religious cloak.

This isn't to say that traditional Arab values don't lead to a skewed view of the world and lend themselves to inefficiency, opaqueness, and irrational behavior, but we haven't helped the issue. You can't stick your finger in someone else's open wound every day and wonder why it doesn't heal.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 11:49 AM. Reason : (Yes I realize Iran isn't Arab, but you cannot deny the influence of Arab culture on Islam)]

6/13/2007 11:47:29 AM

Hookbot reply script template:

     print ( "%s, %s\n", $curse, $insult1);

     print ( "%s (sic) -- %s\n", $grammar_error, $insult2);
 
     print ( "\:roll\:");

6/13/2007 12:54:40 PM

You made your point joe, no use in being incessant about it in every thread, it isn't helping.

6/13/2007 1:29:16 PM

yeah, well, ive got nothing else.

6/13/2007 2:46:41 PM

jesus. I'm not even going to watch the damn video. Forget the fact that situations change over 11 years.

Its just everytime I open a hooksaw thread, I cant help but wonder how little thinking this guy does for himself.

if you can't bedazzle them with your brilliance, bedazzle them with your bullshit

6/13/2007 3:26:07 PM

Quote :

"The concept that the Arab world cannot and will not change shows your misunderstanding of the fundamental importance of money. "

ah yes, blame it on economics and money again. no i'm sorry i've heard this argument for the past 40 years and i'm afraid it has run it's course. they'll change when it becomes profitable? and when is that supposed to be? AFTER they squander the one resource that makes them the most sought after countries on earth?

go back in history, their culture has nothing to do with economics

6/13/2007 3:31:09 PM

it is funny to watch people argue about a culture they have not lived in, with each one saying they are experts at it

6/13/2007 4:44:24 PM

Quote :

"AFTER they squander the one resource that makes them the most sought after countries on earth?"

Didn't foreign countries (US, England, etc) come in and build their oil wells, and take a lot of the profits away from their people? Or am I way off on this one?

How exactly are they squandering it? By giving all the wealth to the princes and none to the lower class?

6/13/2007 5:12:01 PM

^^ I don't claim to be an expert at it, but I've read enough to know that a) I don't know that much b) I still know more than most people on TWW. WTF are you from originally anyway? I'm going to keep asking this question until I get an answer.

^^^ Go back in history, every culture has to do with economics. Do not confuse economics with greed, it is really just the measure of how people make decisions in day to day life. The movement of money happens to be the primary focus of economics because that is how people execute their decisions and how we measure them.

Do not think for a second that the Arab world does not look on their past and wishes to reclaim the period in time where they were the ascendant culture in the world. For the time being they, and the West, are locked in a co-dependent relationship based around the world's requirement for cheap oil. When history finally breaks their way, and they begin to taste the fruits (good or bad) of prosperity, gaining confidence in their power, their adherence to their tribal traditions will give way.

6/13/2007 6:22:51 PM

Quote :

"with each one saying they are experts at it"

i don't recall jcash or myself saying we were experts

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.porn.ap/index.html <<< show me the economics of this

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 7:23 PM. Reason : jank]

6/13/2007 7:19:00 PM

That isn't one strictly speaking, but the fact that they execute porn stars doesn't mean that people don't have basic wants and needs. I'm not saying that they greedily pursue mammon with the zeal of a middle class American, what I am saying is that feelings of powerlessness and disenfranchisement lead to people joining radical movements that lead to this sort of thing. In a society where the citizens are comfortably wealthy, they're less likely to have issues with things that. Simply put, prosperity breeds moral relativism, poverty breeds a search for meaning in a harsh world.

Thousands of years of culture does not absolve one of being human.

6/13/2007 8:36:51 PM

i understand the point you are making. but their culture is based on their religion which has nothing to do with economics. i suppose a somewhat good example would be the UAE, which seems to be a pretty friendly place towards the US. they are a very wealthy country with a good economy. however take a look at their laws. a simple possession charge can get you 15 years in prison. that comes from their culture.

Quote :

"Thousands of years of culture does not absolve one of being human."

i would dare say they act more like animals than humans. then again all the races did. some evolved, some didn't. some aspects of some of those races evolved, some didn't.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 9:40 PM. Reason : jank]

6/13/2007 9:39:28 PM

Quote :

"jesus. I'm not even going to watch the damn video. Forget the fact that situations change over 11 years. Its just everytime I open a hooksaw thread, I cant help but wonder how little thinking this guy does for himself. if you can't bedazzle them with your brilliance, bedazzle them with your bullshit"

ben94gt

Um. . .did you ever consider not opening hooksaw threads, genius? And, yeah, Al Gore's not a hypocrite--just keep telling yourself that bullshit. Maybe I should just let the "consensus" do the thinking for me--like you do--am I right?

6/14/2007 10:41:37 AM

Maybe he has a genuine curiosity that he'll open a hooksaw thread and it won't be more of the same shit.

And Al Gore may very well be a hypocrite, but this thread isn't bearing that fruit, thats for damn sure.

6/14/2007 10:57:37 PM

^ Well, you keep coming back! This is your fifth post in this non-fruit-bearing thread. I mean, WTF?!



[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 11:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2007 11:02:06 PM

You moron.

6/15/2007 12:01:50 AM

^^Its like a bad car wreck man, we just can't look away and we stare in awe at how horrendus it is.

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 12:17 AM. Reason : ^]

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 12:18 AM. Reason : we]

6/15/2007 12:17:44 AM

^^ Piss off, dick.

^ That's your problem--not mine.

6/15/2007 12:10:02 PM

Nah. I'm going to keep bttt this gem of a red herring.

6/15/2007 1:46:38 PM

^^^^^ True. Lets get back on topic:

The Claim:

Quote :

"Well, if nothing else, the video shows that (1) Al Gore is a fucking hypocrite and (2) that President Bush didn't need to manipulate the intelligence concerning Iraq, as many have alleged. PS: Concerning "idiots," Hillary and Kerry and many others must be, too--after all, they voted to invade Iraq based on concerns about terrorism ties and WMD. "

The Refutation:

Quote :

" Nobody with half a brain has even joked that saddam had no ties to TERRORISM, or that he was TRYING to acquire WMDs. We all know those things are true. The problem lies in saying that Saddam had direct ties to Osama and had a role in 9/11, which he did not, and saying that he HAD WMDs, which he did not."

There's a difference between "terrorism" and "aiding/abetting those that planned 9/11." Gore argued Iraq had ties to to terrorism, which were true. Bush made a completely different case that tied Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11, which turned out to be 100% false.


Apples and oranges hooksaw, apples and mother fucking oranges.

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 1:48 PM. Reason : df]

6/15/2007 1:48:12 PM