Weak Men Weaken the Country

[TexasTiger 11,058]

I certainly don't always agree with Lindsay Graham, but I respect him. As politicians go, he has above average integrity. As Republicans go, I'd put him in the 95 percentile.

Graham hits on one of the things that bothers most about Bush. I know alot of you buy his tough guy schtick. The reality is that he is a very weak man playing cowboy.

WAR ON TERRORISM: Grabbing power, losing respect

By Eric Mink

Of the Post-Dispatch

Wednesday, Jan. 12 2005

For more than three years, President George W. Bush has been using the

terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and legal sophistry produced by attorneys

appointed to key positions in the White House, Justice Department and the

Department of Defense to justify the exercise of essentially unlimited and

unchecked presidential power.

In the spring and summer of 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the

president's chief legal adviser, presided over discussions of abusive

techniques military and civilian U.S. interrogators could use to extract

information from prisoners in their custody. Out of these discussions emerged

the official legal position of the American government, spelled out in a

Justice Department memo to Gonzales dated Aug. 1, 2002. It has come to be known

as the "torture memo."

After its contents became public last summer, the memo provoked widespread

outrage, mostly over the nauseating perversion of language that rationalized a

definition of torture so narrow that virtually all conduct by interrogators was

lawful.

The fruits of this cynical exercise have been grimly apparent since the Abu

Ghraib scandal erupted last May. Last month's court-ordered release of

thousands of government documents and records demonstrates beyond reasonable

doubt that abuse has been widespread. It stretches back to 2002 and well into

2004 and involves hundreds of prisoners, probably more, under American control

on at least two continents. And that doesn't include those secreted by the CIA

at clandestine facilities in unspecified locations all over the globe and those

shipped by the United States to countries where torture is routine.

But even more chilling than its winking at torture was the broader legal

finding at the heart of the August 2002 memo: The U.S. Constitution - rather

than enshrining the structure of a representative democracy, balancing the

limited authority of government among three branches and protecting the rights

of the individual - actually is a blueprint for dictatorship. The memo states

that the Constitution empowers the president, as commander in chief of the

armed forces, to violate laws passed by Congress, to betray the word and bond

of the United States by ignoring its ratified international treaties and to

authorize anyone else to commit any act he deems necessary - any act

- absolved of responsibility and free from the risk of criminal prosecution and

punishment.

This memo stood as the official position of the United States for more than two

years. Briefly embarrassed by its disclosure, the Bush administration seemed to

disavow portions of it last summer. But not until Dec. 30 did the Justice

Department issue a superseding legal opinion that restored common sense to the

definition of torture. The new memo said nothing, however, about authoritarian

presidential power.

Six months before the 2002 torture memo was issued, Bush used opinions from the

same legal team in declaring that the Geneva Conventions, treaties signed and

ratified by the United States and obeyed by presidents for more than 50 years,

were optional obligations to be applied or ignored as he saw fit. Prisoners

taken in the course of actions he chose to label as the war on terrorism -

whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere - would be entitled to Geneva

protections only if he judged them deserving of it. And they would be held,

questioned and treated as he determined they should be.

Prisoners sent to the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - including

Afghans, Iraqis, suspected terrorists from assorted Arab countries,

Australians, Brits, Canadians, Germans and even American citizens - could be

kept there indefinitely on the president's order alone. They could be denied

access to a lawyer, denied access to the courts and denied the ability to

challenge their imprisonment.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected this claim last spring, ruling in a case

involving Guantanamo prisoners that the president may not exercise absolute and

arbitrary power to rob people of their freedom, even in wartime.

But the administration doesn't seem to be taking the Supreme Court very

seriously. The Washington Post recently reported that

officials in the Bush administration are having serious discussions about

keeping some suspected terrorists imprisoned without trial for life, possibly

in prisons built abroad, despite an absence of evidence against them or reason

to believe they possess any useful information.

And this week, Newsweek reported that strategists at the Bush

Pentagon, faced with the failure of current tactics against insurgents in Iraq,

are considering training Iraqi death squads to assassinate or kidnap insurgent

leaders. This has been dubbed "the Salvador Option," patterned after comparable

notorious operations employed by former dictators in El Salvador - also with

U.S. assistance - Honduras, Chile and Argentina.

At last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of

Gonzales to be attorney general, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South

Carolina tried to explain the danger of such cynical thinking. "I think you

weaken yourself as a nation," he told Gonzales, "when you try to play cute

(with the law) and become more like your enemy, instead of like who you want to

be."

Weakness is exactly the point. For all their bullying assertions of power and

moral superiority, these are frightened little men who lack faith in the

elemental principles of the most noble and heroic nation in human history.

They're afraid that American ideals are too weak to prevail against the

ruthless rage of terrorists, afraid that the rule of law is inferior to the

rule of violence and intimidation.

In this, they are terribly terribly wrong.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/emaf.nsf/...6256F8700380EC8

[Auburn85 415]

Well , then, these people weaken the country too

They say Bush lied about WMD, but you couldn't have told them that before

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

[TitanTiger 18,202]

I don't think that's the point. I'm also troubled by some of the tactics we're excusing in the War on Terrorism. We've got to think longer-term than just this enemy and this era and this president. We may trust him to do the right thing (others don't), but what happens when these powers are in the hands of someone that scares the living hell out of us all?

[AURaptor 1,113]

OBL was convicned of America's weakness when Clinton cut bait and ran when we were in Somolia. In fact, in one event after another, when al qaeda attacked the United States, Clintoin did the very minimal he could to pretend he was fighting terror, when instead he was getting a Lewinsky from his portly intern. After 8 yrs of that 'leadership', OBL was sure that America would fall on its knees with an 9-11 attack. OBL didn't reckon on a few things, and one of them was GW Bush.

[Auburn85 415]

I don't think anyone can win a politically correct war

And that's what we are trying to do.

Terrorists not in a militia uniform do not deserve Geneva Convention protection

Many of which are SUICIDE BOMBERS

[Auburn85 415]

I look at the Clinton years as almost being a trial and error period for terrorists.

[TexasTiger 11,058]

I look at the Clinton years as almost being a trial and error period for terrorists.

138816[/snapback]

Here's another perspective. A few weeks after Clinton took office, Islamic terrorist bombed the World Trade Center for the first time. For the next 7 years 11 months of Clinton's term, foreign terrorists did not successfully attack us on our shores. Then, less than 8 months after Dubya took office, they hit us hard and brought down the Trade Center. Then, we had Anthrax attacks in Washington and elsewhere.

[TexasTiger 11,058]

OBL was convicned of America's weakness when  Clinton cut bait and ran when we were in Somolia. In fact, in one event after another, when al qaeda attacked the United States, Clintoin did the very minimal he could to pretend he was fighting terror, when instead he was getting a Lewinsky from his portly intern.  After 8 yrs of that 'leadership', OBL was sure that America would fall on its knees with an 9-11 attack.  OBL didn't reckon on a few things, and one of them was GW Bush.

138814[/snapback]

If you listen to the terrorism expert for the last three presidents he was just waiting for GW Bush to take office and take his eye off the ball.

[TexasTiger 11,058]

I don't think that's the point.  I'm also troubled by some of the tactics we're excusing in the War on Terrorism.  We've got to think longer-term than just this enemy and this era and this president.  We may trust him to do the right thing (others don't), but what happens when these powers are in the hands of someone that scares the living hell out of us all?

138807[/snapback]

Amen, brother. Our basic principles must be timeless and consistent. That's Lindsey Graham's point.

[DKW 86 6,943]

OBL was convicned of America's weakness when  Clinton cut bait and ran when we were in Somolia. In fact, in one event after another, when al qaeda attacked the United States, Clintoin did the very minimal he could to pretend he was fighting terror, when instead he was getting a Lewinsky from his portly intern.  After 8 yrs of that 'leadership', OBL was sure that America would fall on its knees with an 9-11 attack.  OBL didn't reckon on a few things, and one of them was GW Bush.

138814[/snapback]

If you listen to the terrorism expert for the last three presidents he was just waiting for GW Bush to take office and take his eye off the ball.

138848[/snapback]

Yes he was, he was so good at it that he planned the attack three to four years before Bush was even elected....

[TexasTiger 11,058]

OBL was convicned of America's weakness when  Clinton cut bait and ran when we were in Somolia. In fact, in one event after another, when al qaeda attacked the United States, Clintoin did the very minimal he could to pretend he was fighting terror, when instead he was getting a Lewinsky from his portly intern.  After 8 yrs of that 'leadership', OBL was sure that America would fall on its knees with an 9-11 attack.  OBL didn't reckon on a few things, and one of them was GW Bush.

138814[/snapback]

If you listen to the terrorism expert for the last three presidents he was just waiting for GW Bush to take office and take his eye off the ball.

138848[/snapback]

Yes he was, he was so good at it that he planned the attack three to four years before Bush was even elected....

138863[/snapback]

He knew Clinton was term limited.

[AURaptor 1,113]

OBL was convicned of America's weakness when  Clinton cut bait and ran when we were in Somolia. In fact, in one event after another, when al qaeda attacked the United States, Clintoin did the very minimal he could to pretend he was fighting terror, when instead he was getting a Lewinsky from his portly intern.  After 8 yrs of that 'leadership', OBL was sure that America would fall on its knees with an 9-11 attack.  OBL didn't reckon on a few things, and one of them was GW Bush.

138814[/snapback]

If you listen to the terrorism expert for the last three presidents he was just waiting for GW Bush to take office and take his eye off the ball.

138848[/snapback]

If you listen to the terrorist themselves, they'll say it was Somolia that proved to them that America would not fight. Bush showed the terrorist otherwise. Sounds as if these 'experts' you speak of were Democrats.

[TexasTiger 11,058]

OBL was convicned of America's weakness when  Clinton cut bait and ran when we were in Somolia. In fact, in one event after another, when al qaeda attacked the United States, Clintoin did the very minimal he could to pretend he was fighting terror, when instead he was getting a Lewinsky from his portly intern.  After 8 yrs of that 'leadership', OBL was sure that America would fall on its knees with an 9-11 attack.  OBL didn't reckon on a few things, and one of them was GW Bush.

138814[/snapback]

If you listen to the terrorism expert for the last three presidents he was just waiting for GW Bush to take office and take his eye off the ball.

138848[/snapback]

If you listen to the terrorist themselves, they'll say it was Somolia that proved to them that America would not fight. Bush showed the terrorist otherwise. Sounds as if these 'experts' you speak of were Democrats.

138876[/snapback]

Faulty analogy. What were we "fighting for" in Somalia? Every engagement has its own limits. What we have a stake will vary each time. How many Republicans believed we should be in Somalia in the first place? Other than GHWB who put us there? How many callled for our removal? Do your homework.

Republicans criticized Clinton for even bombing places intelligence said OBL was. They didn't think OBL was a problem. They said OBL was just a distraction. They accused Clinton of wagging the dog.

Republicans had one foreign policy principle during Clinton's years: oppose everything we do, no matter if troops are in battle or not.

Hate Clinton all you want, but get some better reasons.

[Auburn85 415]

OBL was convicned of America's weakness when  Clinton cut bait and ran when we were in Somolia. In fact, in one event after another, when al qaeda attacked the United States, Clintoin did the very minimal he could to pretend he was fighting terror, when instead he was getting a Lewinsky from his portly intern.  After 8 yrs of that 'leadership', OBL was sure that America would fall on its knees with an 9-11 attack.  OBL didn't reckon on a few things, and one of them was GW Bush.

138814[/snapback]

If you listen to the terrorism expert for the last three presidents he was just waiting for GW Bush to take office and take his eye off the ball.

138848[/snapback]

If you listen to the terrorist themselves, they'll say it was Somolia that proved to them that America would not fight. Bush showed the terrorist otherwise. Sounds as if these 'experts' you speak of were Democrats.

138876[/snapback]

Faulty analogy. What were we "fighting for" in Somalia? Every engagement has its own limits. What we have a stake will vary each time. How many Republicans believed we should be in Somalia in the first place? Other than GHWB who put us there? How many callled for our removal? Do your homework.

Republicans criticized Clinton for even bombing places intelligence said OBL was. They didn't think OBL was a problem. They said OBL was just a distraction. They accused Clinton of wagging the dog.

Republicans had one foreign policy principle during Clinton's years: oppose everything we do, no matter if troops are in battle or not.

Hate Clinton all you want, but get some better reasons.

138890[/snapback]

Bush has been criticized way more than Clinton ever was.

Kerry disagreed with Bush from A-Z.

Bush had said during one of the debates that FREEDOM is a gift from God.

Kerry had to take it a step further, he had to say right after Bush, that EVERYTHING was a gift from God. Not that this was wrong, just that Kerry rediculed everything Bush said

So it was Foreign Terrorists that brought out the Anthrax?

Does the USS in 2000 in the Pacific not count under Clinton?

I know he's not foreign , but what about Timothy McVeigh killing 168 people with a bomb.

Several terrorists have been arrested over here taking pictures of certain big buldings in the US to take down.

And I do expect violence to pick up in Iraq as election day approaches. They want to do everything possible to stop the election.

[Auburn85 415]

They just recently arrsted someone who had a big load of risin. You know a deadly poison. This guy was American.

I wonder what he was planning on doing with it?

Then, you have people like John Walker.

[TexasTiger 11,058]

Bush has been criticized way more than Clinton ever was.

Criticized for what way more? Maybe you didn't notice because you were partipating.

Kerry disagreed with Bush from A-Z.

Gross oversimplification. One of the critiques on Kerry was that he didn't distinguish himself enough in regard to Bush. But you do realize he was runnning against him, right?

Bush had said during one of the debates that FREEDOM is a gift from God.

Kerry had to take it a step further, he had to say right after Bush, that EVERYTHING was a gift from God. Not that this was wrong, just that Kerry rediculed everything Bush said

You're getting pretty nitpicky criticizing what Kerry said in this case. You don't disagree, but he was wrong to say it?

So it was Foreign Terrorists that brought out the Anthrax?

We still don't know because of the incompetence of the current adminstration in figuring it out.

Does the USS in 2000 in the Pacific not count under Clinton?

Count? Sure. In the same way Iraq "counts" under Bush. We've endured terrorist attacks daily under Bush with this approach. Every single roadside bomb is similar to the USS Cole if that is how you choose to measure and compare. I did specify on our shores, but we can look at it other ways.

I know he's not foreign , but what about Timothy McVeigh killing 168 people with a bomb.

What abou† it? It was a heinous act by a NRA member and a registered Republican. Not an Islamic terrorist. We have a number of bad actors in this country with access to explosives. We had the DC sniper under Bush. Was that his fault?

Several terrorists have been arrested over here taking pictures of certain big buldings in the US to take down.

Okay, and several attempts were thwarted under Clinton. What's your point?

[AURaptor 1,113]

Faulty analogy. What were we "fighting for" in Somalia?

Texas, there's nothing 'faulty' about it.It wasn't an analogy, it was fact. The terrorist DID say they were emboldened by how Clinton turned tail in Somolia. It doesn't matter to them what we were doing there, they perceive us as the enemy and the images of them dragging our dead Marine's bodies through the streets meant something to THEM.

[Auburn85 415]

How is Bush weak?

He is on illegal immigration

Was Clinton strong?

The difference between the USS COLE and Iraq is that we didn't do anything to be hit in the first place

Just like we didn't do anything to be attacked on 9/11.

Clinton raised taxes and Bush cut them. But yet, Bush is blamed for loss of jobs, the flu vaccine, 9/11, global warming, high gas prices,

Wanna know why no flu is made here? Because flu vaccine is not a money maker.

We want Canadian drugs now. Clinton had 8 years but Bush only has 4.

Bush ended up talking out of both sides of his mouth when talking about foreign medicines

Wants to play it safe if we import drugs from Canada, but we got flu vaccine from Great Britain.

Which proves the big risk in importing drugs.

So if you lose your job at Burger King, it goes down as a loss job under Bush. So if 50,000 jobs are lost in Alabama and some are restaurant, bad mismanagement in local government, a hurricane, etc....

Not all the jobs lost are due to the economy.

And I get tired of hearing that wow, the economy is really struggling 100,000 lost their jobs. It's not all the economy.

Clinton was never compared to Hitler, but Bush is?

Clinton can deliberatly lie under oath, but Bush gets bad intelligence and he is marked a liar. Then Kerry, Kennedy and every other politician who VOTED to go to war. Yes, they could have stopped us from going to Iraq. It's not ALL BUSH.

It's tough for me to believe anything Clinton says anymore. Because of lying under oath, he has lost credibility

Clinton attacked a place without really getting the ok from Congress or the UN, but this can be overlooked because the economy was in such great condition.

Bush did not attack Iraq for the oil

Yet world leaders and some of our own people are willing to take this belief to the grave.

The media tried to weaken Bush more than Bush weakened himself. The media was on the side of Kerry from the start. They would take up for Kerry more and came to his defense and remained on the offensive more with Bush

Kerry even called out FOX NEWS for hurting his chances to win. GIVE ME A BREAK.

[TexasTiger 11,058]

How is Bush weak?

He is on illegal immigration

Was Clinton strong?

The difference between the USS COLE and Iraq is that we didn't do anything to be hit in the first place

Just like we didn't do anything to be attacked on 9/11.

Clinton raised taxes and Bush cut them. But yet, Bush is blamed for loss of jobs, the flu vaccine, 9/11, global warming, high gas prices,

Wanna know why no flu is made here? Because flu vaccine is not a money maker.

We want Canadian drugs now. Clinton had 8 years but Bush only has 4.

Bush ended up talking out of both sides of his mouth when talking about foreign medicines

Wants to play it safe if we import drugs from Canada, but we got flu vaccine from Great Britain.

Which proves the big risk in importing drugs.

So if you lose your job at Burger King, it goes down as a loss job under Bush. So if 50,000 jobs are lost in Alabama and some are restaurant, bad mismanagement in local government, a hurricane, etc....

Not all the jobs lost are due to the economy.

And I get tired of hearing that wow, the economy is really struggling 100,000 lost their jobs. It's not all the economy.

Clinton was never compared to Hitler, but Bush is?

Clinton can deliberatly lie under oath, but Bush gets bad intelligence and he is marked a liar. Then Kerry, Kennedy and every other politician who VOTED to go to war. Yes, they could have stopped us from going to Iraq. It's not ALL BUSH.

It's tough for me to believe anything Clinton says anymore. Because of lying under oath, he has lost credibility

Clinton attacked a place without really getting the ok from Congress or the UN, but this can be overlooked because the economy was in such great condition.

Bush did not attack Iraq for the oil

Yet world leaders and some of our own people are willing to take this belief to the grave.

The media tried to weaken Bush more than Bush weakened himself. The media was on the side of Kerry from the start. They would take up for Kerry more and came to his defense and remained on the offensive more with Bush

Kerry even called out FOX NEWS for hurting his chances to win. GIVE ME A BREAK.

139015[/snapback]

If you don't trust everyone who has ever lied about their sex life, that doesn't leave many folks.

Bush is the most dishonest man to ever serve in the office. Anyone who paid attention, laid off the Kool Aid and watched him campaign knows that.

[TexasTiger 11,058]

Faulty analogy. What were we "fighting for" in Somalia?

Texas, there's nothing 'faulty' about it.It wasn't an analogy, it was fact. The terrorist DID say they were emboldened by how Clinton turned tail in Somolia. It doesn't matter to them what we were doing there, they perceive us as the enemy and the images of them dragging our dead Marine's bodies through the streets meant something to THEM.

138980[/snapback]

Which "terrorist" said it? Got a link?

So is your point that we should have stayed in Somalia on the nation building project GHW Bush started?

[Auburn85 415]

How is Bush weak?

He is on illegal immigration

Was Clinton strong?

The difference between the USS COLE and Iraq is that we didn't do anything to be hit in the first place

Just like we didn't do anything to be attacked on 9/11.

Clinton raised taxes and Bush cut them. But yet, Bush is blamed for loss of jobs, the flu vaccine, 9/11, global warming, high gas prices,

Wanna know why no flu is made here? Because flu vaccine is not a money maker.

We want Canadian drugs now. Clinton had 8 years but Bush only has 4.

Bush ended up talking out of both sides of his mouth when talking about foreign medicines

Wants to play it safe if we import drugs from Canada, but we got flu vaccine from Great Britain.

Which proves the big risk in importing drugs.

So if you lose your job at Burger King, it goes down as a loss job under Bush. So if 50,000 jobs are lost in Alabama and some are restaurant, bad mismanagement in local government, a hurricane, etc....

Not all the jobs lost are due to the economy.

And I get tired of hearing that wow, the economy is really struggling 100,000 lost their jobs. It's not all the economy.

Clinton was never compared to Hitler, but Bush is?

Clinton can deliberatly lie under oath, but Bush gets bad intelligence and he is marked a liar. Then Kerry, Kennedy and every other politician who VOTED to go to war. Yes, they could have stopped us from going to Iraq. It's not ALL BUSH.

It's tough for me to believe anything Clinton says anymore. Because of lying under oath, he has lost credibility

Clinton attacked a place without really getting the ok from Congress or the UN, but this can be overlooked because the economy was in such great condition.

Bush did not attack Iraq for the oil

Yet world leaders and some of our own people are willing to take this belief to the grave.

The media tried to weaken Bush more than Bush weakened himself. The media was on the side of Kerry from the start. They would take up for Kerry more and came to his defense and remained on the offensive more with Bush

Kerry even called out FOX NEWS for hurting his chances to win. GIVE ME A BREAK.

139015[/snapback]

If you don't trust everyone who has ever lied about their sex life, that doesn't leave many folks.

Bush is the most dishonest man to ever serve in the office. Anyone who paid attention, laid off the Kool Aid and watched him campaign knows that.

139035[/snapback]

Really? Why is he considered the most dishonest man to serve our country? I would say that Ted Kennedy is high on that list

[AURaptor 1,113]

Faulty analogy. What were we "fighting for" in Somalia?

Texas, there's nothing 'faulty' about it.It wasn't an analogy, it was fact. The terrorist DID say they were emboldened by how Clinton turned tail in Somolia. It doesn't matter to them what we were doing there, they perceive us as the enemy and the images of them dragging our dead Marine's bodies through the streets meant something to THEM.

138980[/snapback]

Which "terrorist" said it? Got a link?

So is your point that we should have stayed in Somalia on the nation building project GHW Bush started?

139036[/snapback]

Gee TexasTiger, lemmie think for a second...hmmmm. Hey, ever heard of this guy? I think he counts as a terrorist....unless you're Michael Moore or Al Frankin. Then OBL is just a misunderstood 'freedom frighter' .

Osama bin Laden's Fatwa - Declaration of War against The United States

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

Should we have even been there , trying to help other nations of the world help resolve a massive famine ? Nawww.I guess not. Prob should stay out of S.E. Asia too, and ignore the Tsunami victims as well,huh?

[TexasTiger 11,058]

Faulty analogy. What were we "fighting for" in Somalia?

Texas, there's nothing 'faulty' about it.It wasn't an analogy, it was fact. The terrorist DID say they were emboldened by how Clinton turned tail in Somolia. It doesn't matter to them what we were doing there, they perceive us as the enemy and the images of them dragging our dead Marine's bodies through the streets meant something to THEM.

138980[/snapback]

Which "terrorist" said it? Got a link?

So is your point that we should have stayed in Somalia on the nation building project GHW Bush started?

139036[/snapback]

Gee TexasTiger, lemmie think for a second...hmmmm. Hey, ever heard of this guy? I think he counts as a terrorist....unless you're Michael Moore or Al Frankin. Then OBL is just a misunderstood 'freedom frighter' .

Osama bin Laden's Fatwa - Declaration of War against The United States

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

Should we have even been there , trying to help other nations of the world help resolve a massive famine ? Nawww.I guess not. Prob should stay out of S.E. Asia too, and ignore the Tsunami victims as well,huh?

139044[/snapback]

You ducked the question. Should we have stayed there? Should we have stayed in Viet Nam? Should we have stayed in Beirut?

Yes, Beirut. You are big on pointing to Somalia, which Republicans were no more eager to remain in than Clinton after the pilot was dragged through the streets. The folks you tend to read and listen to talk it about as if it exists in a vacuum. OBL mentioned Beirut, also. In fact, it was first. Remember Beirut?

984: US troops withdraw from Beirut

American forces have withdrawn almost all of their troops from the Lebanese capital, Beirut.

About 1,000 US marines left the coast beside the international airport as Shi'ite militiamen arrived in jeeps and armoured vehicles to take over.

Only 100 soldiers have been left in the city to guard American diplomatic personnel at the British Embassy on the western sea front.

US President Ronald Reagan ordered military personnel to begin pulling out of the area over a week ago following a recent upsurge in terrorist attacks.

The withdrawal ends 18 months of conflict in a country which has been torn apart by war with Israel.

As long as there is a chance we are not bugging out. We are moving to deploy into a more defensive position

US President Ronald Reagan

Despite the withdrawal, President Reagan insisted that the US was not turning its back on Lebanon.

"Once the terrorist attacks started there was no way that we could really contribute to the original mission by staying there as a target just bunkering down and waiting for further attacks," he said.

"I don't think we have lost as yet, although I know things don't look too bright. As long as there is a chance we are not bugging out.

"We are moving to deploy into a more defensive position."

US forces were originally sent in to act as a peacekeeping force between warring Christian and Muslim factions in August 1982.

But 264 American military personnel have died since then, most of them killed during a suicide bomb attack last November.

Fighting has continued over the last week with several Israeli military aircraft bombing towns and villages held by Palestinian guerrillas high in the mountains to the east.

Further conflict has also broken out along the Beirut front line.

The US Marines were sent in 18 months ago to help the Lebanese administration but as the last troops pulled out there was no official government delegation present to see them off.

Instead, gunmen riding motorcycles watched without emotion as US military helicopters airlifted the last front line troops to warships off the Lebanese coast.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/4153013.stm

Want to blame the Reagan adminstration for not better protecting the over 200 troops that died in that suicide bomb attack? Okay. Each administration bears some level of responsibility for what happen's on its watch. Want to blame him for pulling the troops? That one may not be so fair. Democrat or Republican, whoever the President is, there is a point in every conflict since Viet Nam when the American people reach the conclusion that the mission may not any longer be worth the costs, if it ever was in the first place. That happened with Reagan in Beirut. Did that embolden terrorists? Perhaps. According to the OBL quote you cite it did. But the lesson wasn't really new. It had largely been learned by the world from Viet Nam. Hell, we've stayed in Korea until this day, but in Viet Nam, we showed we had limits. Bad? Not unless you think we should still be there, too. Seeing an American be dragged through the streets of Mogadishu made most Americans seriously doubt it was a place we should stay. Blame the President at the moment if you want to,-- the fact that it was Clinton makes it almost irrestible for you--- but it would have been the same regardless of the person's party.

[Auburn85 415]

Last time I checked when we went into Afghanistan no elections were ever happening. Now, recently, they just had elections.

Iraq is scheduled to have elections Jan 30.

I don't think elections would be in thought if we weren't doing something correct over there

Saddam has been captured. His 2 sons are dead. Many of Saddams puppets have been detained, many al- quada terrorists have been killed or captured

[TexasTiger 11,058]

Saddam has been captured. His 2 sons are dead. Many of Saddams puppets have been detained, many al- quada terrorists have been killed or captured

139067[/snapback]

Yeah, we were told things were going to get much better after we paid 25 million US tax dollars for telling us where Saddam's sons were. Then the capture of Saddam from his rat hole was going to demoralize the insurgents. Do you really follow the news from Iraq?