|
Gore Waffles
"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballastic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gasses his own people. He used poison gas an dother weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people." Al Gore, December 16th, 1998
Gore recently gave a speech critical of Bush's reasoning for the War. He claims it happened because of "false impessions" ... "designed to benefit friends and supporters" and "at least partly in order to ensure out continued access to oil."
But then he goes on to end his speech with, "the removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the president deserves credit."
Typical politicans. Trying to play both sides while leaving room to waffle one way or the other. I pointed this out on Clintons comments the other week which were very similiar.
So, if everyone agrees that he Saddam should be removed; why is there so much debate about it now?
Or, maybe, the question I should be asking is:
If something right is done for the wrong reasons, does that make it any less "right"?
|
Linear Mode
