Here are some great quotes from Al Gore's interview with Will Dana in Rolling Stone (w/ Johnny Depp on the cover).

What did you think during the 2000 campaign on the day that Bush announced he would limit CO2 emissions if he were elected? Did you think, "That's bullshit"?
I thought it was fraudulent. I actually did not anticipate that he would directly and brazenly break that pledge, and go 180 degrees in the opposite direction at full speed, but I thought that he would slow-walk it and make it meaningless. They were trying to drain the moral energey out of an issue that they felt could hurt them if the public perceived a clear contrast on the issue.

Did it seem like a msart move, strategically, at that point?
Well, if you define the word "smart" in an antiseptic and clinical way that excludes any ethical dimension, then, yeah, I guess it was smart. Smart, if you're willing to say things that you know are not true. But that's what Karl Rove is known for. Bush's whole pose as a compassionate conservative was fraudulent. His budget was fraudulent. Even the idea that he would be staunchly opposed to nation building was fraudulent. I don't mean the actually knew at the time of the campaign that he was going to invade Iraq -- because I don't think Chene had told him yet [laughs]. But the statement on global warming, and the specific pledge to reduce CO2 emissions with the force of law, was part of a larger pattern. He was completely fraudulent from head to toe.

Let's look at Iraq right now. Is there some way we can pull out?
We're going to have to pull out of there. But the hard truth is that even those of us who tried like hell to prevent this catastrophic mistake are now bound to share in the moral consequences of whatever choices we as a nation make int he manner of our leaving. We have to pursue two objectives simultaneously, and that's always hard. The first objective is to get the hell out of there as quickly as we can. The second objective is to avoid the moral mistake of doing even more harm to those people in the manner of our leaving than we did in the manner of our invation. And, tragically, it is possible to do even more harm if we are not alert to the etical choices that we have to make as we prepare to leave. Unfortunately there are no "good options," because Bush and Cheney have driven us into an ethical cul-de-sac. General Odom, who used to run defense intelligence, said last year that the invasion of Iraq "will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."

[...]

If you had written this in a novel before it all played out, you'd get the proverbial rejection slip -- nobody would believe it. That any group of leaders could be this incompetent, and catastrophically blind to reality. But here's my point: What they've done with Iraq, what they did with Katrina, is exactly the approach they're taking to global warming. They're ignoring reality, they're twisting and cherry-picking the evidence to create false impressions that serve the interests of a small, powerful group that has a financial interest in the outcome.

That was a good read, B, thanks. I particularly liked



This seems to be the case with the London government as well.

I particularly liked that part.

thanks for transcribing that, very interesting.

I would have done more, but it was long, and it was all ... "blah, blah, blah, the environment ... we're destroying it ... blah, blah, blah."

"But the hard truth is that even those of us who tried like hell to prevent this catastrophic mistake are now bound to share in the moral consequences of whatever choices we as a nation make int he manner of our leaving."

Oh, really Al? Funny how you supported the motivation for going to war back in 2002....

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Oh, and I love this part....

"But here's my point: What they've done with Iraq, what they did with Katrina, is exactly the approach they're taking to global warming. They're ignoring reality, they're twisting and cherry-picking the evidence to create false impressions that serve the interests of a small, powerful group that has a financial interest in the outcome."

Ignoring reality, Al? Creating false impressions, Al? What say you to this....

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?S ... 3543-2413r

***
Bush: I'm 'solving' global warming debate

WASHINGTON, July 6 (UPI) -- In an interview with People magazine, President George W. Bush said there is "a worthy debate" on whether global warming is caused by human activities.

"It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline," he said.

Bush said the major question on climate change is whether it is caused by human activities.

Most of the interview, timed for Bush's 60th birthday Thursday, involved how he feels about his aging body and his relationships with his wife, daughter and parents.

Bush said that his mother, especially, tends to be free with her opinions on how he is doing.

"The other day she said, 'It's hard to believe I have a 60-year-old son,'" the president said. "I didn't say, 'It's hard for me to believe I have an 81-year-old mother.'"
***


Al Gore is a liar and pathetically can't get past the fact that he lost the 2000 election. But he'll do alright with his "A Convenient Lie" film and go on making his fortunes at speaking engagements. Hopefully he will change his mind and run for president in '08....it will be fun watching the Republicans make him eat his own words.

Ouch, my belly hurts! I can't stop laughing. And to think, the GOP made fun of Al Gore for saying that he invented the internet.*

*Al Gore didn't actually say he invented the internet.

But hey, George is "the decider", why shouldn't he be "the solver" too?


Ah, yes, that's the kind of stuff I expect from an interview in People Magazine. Man, reading those first couple of paragraphs must have hurt the readerships collective brain cell. Where's the part where he talks about his dogs? Ah, mentally soothing...
[/i]

hahahah

have you ever read / heard that in context, or did you pull it from an email? allow me:



i wouldn't call this "supporting the motivation" so much as "repeating information he was misled into believing (much like a great deal of this nation)."

Al Gore hates America, folks.

"Repeating information he was led into believing (much like a great deal of this nation?" And what information would that be - the "No WMD" liberal lie??
I am assuming so, therefore allow me to debunk that....

http://www.delcotimes.com/site/index.cf ... =461&rfi=9


06/30/2006
Weldon: WMD discovery justifies invasion
William Bender , Of the Times Staff

U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon presided over a House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday in which the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) acknowledged that the degraded chemical munitions revealed in last week’s report constitute weapons of mass destruction.
While the usefulness of the approximately 500 pre-Gulf War munitions is disputed by weapons experts, Weldon said in his opening statement their discovery over the past three years justifies the March 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime.

"I want to be absolutely clear about what we are talking about here. These 500 chemical munitions are weapons of mass destruction," said Weldon, R-7, of Thornbury. "Some may want to play down the significance of this report or even deny that WMD have been found in Iraq."

Hussein’s former weapons capability has become a campaign issue back in Weldon’s district, where he is facing Democrat Joseph Sestak, a retired Navy admiral.

"Curt Weldon is once again looking backwards at a vote that was in support of the president for a war that was wrong and trying to justify his mistake by holding onto the past," said Sestak, a former defense adviser to Bill Clinton. "Let’s look forward."

Weldon insists he is doing just that, indicating that during his next trip to Iraq he would question military leaders on potential WMD sites that have yet to be searched.

Thursday’s hearing was in response to an April 2006 intelligence report that was partially declassified last week and released by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra. The declassified section of the report said the projectiles preceded the 1991 Gulf War and contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

While the purity of the aged chemical agents is dependent on the manufacturing process and storage environment, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified that they are "hazardous and could be lethal."

"I believe they would qualify as chemical weapons and they have been recorded as such," Maples said. But Army Col. John M. Chiu, commander of the NGIC, said they were so old they could not be used for their intended purpose.

Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group that concluded that Hussein did not possess WMD stockpiles leading up to the U.S. invasion, said in an interview this month that chemical munitions produced during the 1980s are probably ineffective.

"What we found was that there were no existing stockpiles" of WMD, Duelfer said. "The programs had been curtailed during the 1990s in response to the sanctions and the inspections, but certainly Saddam retained the ambition to recreate these programs."

Following Duelfer’s September 2004 report, President Bush conceded that much of the pre-war intelligence was wrong.

Nonetheless, Weldon said he plans to continue his search.

"I don’t want to keep the American people in the dark about the evidence of WMD in Iraq," he said. "I think they deserve to know what we’re finding over there."

I wouldn't want to step on your toes, so I'll merely highlight above, in your own post, the key points, not the "campaign talking points" of a man desperate to keep his job (much like Rick Santorum who "broke" this story).

I mean did you even read what you posted?

Not a problem - I enjoy a vigorous debate on the key issues facing our country.

Mind you, you did not highlight such parts as "the degraded chemical munitions revealed in last week’s report constitute weapons of mass destruction" and "Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified that they are "hazardous and could be lethal" as well as "potential WMD sites that have yet to be searched."

The point being - the "NO WMD" falsehood that the Liberal Smear Merchants keep banging their drum about is just that, a falsehood.

I agree that the Administration was wrong when it claimed that Iraq had an "ongoing" weapons program. However, the Administration was correct when it asked the U.N. about the cache of weapons that were not accounted for (i.e. no records of having been destroyed or such). And, according to the article, there are still sites that need to be searched.

From this article it is clear that Saddam Hussein was in breach of the UN resolutions that he agreed to and still had WMD. Imagine if these weapons were passed off to terrorists who would then release these deadly agents into, say, a subway station or the like. It was a risk that we were not able to take.

By his definition perhaps. They certainly aren't the "mushroom cloud" over London that Dr. Rice scared us into thinking might happen.


So are a couple dozen things I've got in my garage and kitchen cabinets.


Just keep lookin', you'll find something!

Look, if the "weapons" were not in service, and in fact were not even servicable, then there was not a "grave threat" to ANYONE, and therefore the pre-war hype was bad intel at best and a flat out lie at worst. Nothing found in Iraq thusfar constituted a THREAT, and that is why we went there, wasn't it?

Soooo....we've gone from global warming to WMD? OK, I can play along, though I sense a split coming soon.

LeninFlux, a simple question. If the WMD reason has been proven to have been solid enough with evidence to justify going to war with Iraq, how come the Bush Administration isn't being more vocal about developments in WMD discovery? It would sure help him build more clout for future executive power and help his party in the upcoming election.

Don't get me wrong - I realize there was bad intelligence (the mobile trucks, the active nuclear program). However, there was also the question that Secretary Powell raised when he presented his case at the UN regarding weapons Iraq had that were not verified to have been destroyed. These are the weapons in question.
Servicable? Probably not insofar that they could not be loaded onto a missle and fired. However, they are still dangerous (the chemicals inside the shell). Keep in mind that one of the Bush Administration's main concerns was proliferation. In other words, he feared that Saddam Hussein would give some of these weapons to terrorists who would smuggle them into the US and release them into a subway or something like that. This was the threat - and now the threat has been eliminated.

Actually Donald Rumsfeld has said that WMD were found - you won't hear about it that much in the Liberal Mainstream Media.

Was what has been discovered enough to warrant the invasion? I suppose that is a highly debatable issue. I would say yes, given the profliferation threat. In my opinion, Saddam Hussein wouldn't have thought twice about passing off some of these weapons to terrorists who would smuggle them into the USA and release the contents of the shells into subways and such. This is just my opinion. Keep in mind, however, that the result of the 2004 election was an affirmation of the Bush Doctrine and the War in Iraq by the American people.

What's this, Rumsfeld said WMDs were found. Well, holy shit, stop the presses. I'm very aware of this fact and there is no way in hell I am about to take a politician at his word....

An affirmation? So the american people are now a single collective unit and this unit voted back into office an individual without any friction. I disagree and I strongly oppose this line of thinking.

If Al Gore wasn't a fucking robot he would be president right now. Go back to Tennessee Al, it's over.

No, the American people aren't essentially a single collective unit. However, the American political system is a democracy, and the majority vote wins. That being said, the person who wins the majority vote is president. People voted for other candidates, but at the end of the day they have to recognize that the person who won is President and have to come to terms with it. A soldier in the military can't refuse an order from the Commander-In-Chief because "I voted for the other guy." Democracy doesn't work that way.