Tom,

I'm not sure Ms Underestimated's readers are actually listening to the contents of Gore's speech. Otherwise, they would have noted that Gore was asking why the US (Bush Sr., Reagan) were so passive when Saddam gassed the Kurds, or why we sold Saddam weapons when we knew he was a despot. He was no Hitler, but he wasn't someone the US should have been associating with if we were at all serious about standing up for human rights & democracy. Why the gassing of the Kurds was used as a pretext to invade Iraq 15 years later is a mystery to me and I'm sure many others.

Orion's mom is falling into the same trap right wingers always fall into:

1. Assuming that all Muslim terrorists are the same (childish view of the world). Abu Nidal does not equal Osama bin Laden.
2. Assuming that dropping nukes will solve our problem and not contaminate Israel, or our troops in the region or our allies with radioactive fallout at all. Do right wingers give their ideas any thought whatsoever?

I can barely understand Orion's mom's illiterate ramblings. In keeping with the leanings of this blog, I suggest that Orion's mom be deported to her native country or learn to write proper English.

Tom has some good points (Bush Sr. should have nuke Saddam) but misses two major Goreism's.

Gore has long railed Bush over the supposed lack of ties to Muslim terrorist and seeking WMDs. Turning the story over into a host less rant about Bush doesn't hide the fact that Iraq harbored Muslim terrorist and sought nuclear weapons long before the Gulf war and Gore the MSM and the Dhimmicrats knew it then and he knows it now.

I have to give one thing to Bush Sr. Unlike Gore and Bush Jr. he wasn't a brain dead liar. He was dealing with the devil we knew in fighting Iran. There is no excuse for letting the gassing of the Kurds or exporting Muslim terrorism stand. Two points the left still refuse to discuse.

Simply put no matter how screwed up a USA policy is, Islam is still the main threat, not Bush.

Of course, there is no big difference between Iraq in 1992 and 2002. Or between the situation where we were fighting Iraq with a degree of international approval and cooperation that dwarfs the “Coalition of the Willing.” Not to mention that Gore is pointing out the degree to which the elder Bush helped to arm Iraq during AND after Iraq’s war with Iran. Also, when opposing younger Bush’s push for war in 2002 and 2003, Gore didn’t base his argument on whether Iraq had or was seeking WMDs, but on the fact that the war was not garnering international support and a unilateral action would most likely damage our credibility around the world as well as increase the danger of further terrorist acts (not to mention that beating Sadam would be the easy part, the hard part being dealing with the ruins and internal conflict afterwards). He also objected to Bush pushing the vote just before midterm election to help pressure Congress into war. What he called for at the time was an open, honest debate. He called for Bush to show us the evidence of WMDs and the implied link between Iraq and 911. Surely you agree that if we, as a nation, had taken the time to look at the situation soberly we would be on better footing now.

Guess what, Gore was right.