somalia. although i dont really blame clinton or bush much for terrorism, i do think wimping out in somalia was a terrible decision.
Ditto, Richard Clark a credible source? I don't think so! Yep, Clinton was tough on terrorism, thats why Sandy Burger got caught stealing documents out of a secure facility. :lol: Just because you lob a few missiles or attempt to capture or kill someone doesn't mean your tough on terrorism by the way. No casualties? http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9905/05/kosovo.02/
Red, I'm not going to do a google search & find a document but I can specifically remember stories about Clinton selling the Chinese missile technology - not "aerospace" technology as a Clinton supporter would have you believe. Clinton bombed empty caves as a PR move, IMO. He never truley attempted any meaningful measures to capture/kill Osama. Perhaps you are right about Jung. I don't remember. Clinton drastically cut the military & every military move he made seemed to me to be more about PR & less about the safety of this country. Anybody can find facts to support Clinton, but I think it requires a gullible person to believe that he actually tried to stop terrorism. And I don't think this has anything to do with him being a democrat or getting a bj in the oval office (or lying under oath). I'm trying to take an objectivists view on it & this is what I come away with.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9806/24/clinton.china.01/ http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/12/95433.shtml http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1998/040798c.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/crs/98-485.htm http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/1/11/110257 http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2003/01/22.html "One of Bill Clinton’s China scandals may finally be coming to closure. In 1998, the New York Times’ Jeff Gerth broke a story about the Clinton administration’s willingness to permit two U.S. aerospace corporations to transfer sensitive missile technology to the Chinese. The CEO of one of the corporations, Loral, had pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions into the Democratic National Committee. In return, the Clinton administration waived controls on Loral’s export of these technologies to the Chinese aerospace industry." Damn, way to go slick willy In fairness, this stuff happened quite some time ago and nothing has come of this so I'm really wondering if there isn't anything else to it?
Somalia. Well, George Bush senior is the president that got us into Somalia and left a bad situation for Clinton to deal with. We went there to provide security for relief workers trying to get badly needed food to a country in the midst of a famine. So what did the ungrateful bastards do? They stole the food and kiledl the aid workers in a tribal power struggle. So our military went in to stabilize the situation and the Somalians turned on it, too. After the 18 dead in the "Black Hawk Down" incident of October 3, 1993 in which Americans watched dead pilots being dragged through the street to the cheers of Somali children, American public opinion on why we should be there changed. Although Clinton initially responded by sending more Rangers and armor to Somalia, Congress gave the president until October 15 to provide a detailed strategy for withdrawing the 4,500 US troops in Somalia, under threat of cutting off all funding for American participation in the UN-run operation. Clinton what he had to do, he withdrew Americn military forces and it was the right move. The Americans didn't want to get involved in an African tribal conflict. And if the Somalis want to kill Americans for trying to bring them food when they wre starving, then fugg 'em! We're out of there and the Somalis can just kill each other if that's what they want. And they are still doing it. Sometimes a military withdrawal is the right move. Reagan knew it in Lebanon when he withdrew after 241 Marines were killed by a single suicide bomber. Otherwise we might still be mired in Lebanon in the middle of another civil war. George HW Bush knew it in Kuwait in 1991. We withdrew rather than destroying the rest of Saddams army and occupying Bagdad. The senior president Bush said it best in his his 1997 memoir "A World Transformed" when he explained why he did not march on Baghdad in 1991: "Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy'. Had we gone the invasion route, The United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Well, he was the leading counterterrorism expert in the US government in his position at the National Security Council under both Clinton and Bush. He had the highest security clearance and access to all terrorism intelligence. Condoleeza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission confirmed every point that Clark made. They just don't come any more credible than this, Sourdough. What in the world makes you find him incredible? Just because he exposed the fact that Al Qaida was ignored by the Bush administration before 9/11? OK, I modify my statement. The air war with Yugoslavia produced zero American combat casualties, however 2 soldiers were killed in a helicopter training accident in the theater.
Name me one "meaningful" measure that George W. Bush did to capture Osama before 9/11 spurred him to action. Fact is, Clinton did more than Bush. Americans would not have supported an invasion of Afghanistan before Al Qaida struck on American soil. So we hit them with Air Power. That's what we do under such circumstances. Reagan bombed Quadaffi, he didn't invade the place. We bombed Syrians in Lebanon, we didn't invade the place. Again, you may have heard this, but you cannot document this claim. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the huge Cold War miitary needed downsizing and much obsolete miitary harware had to be disposed of. This process started under Reagan and continued under Bush, Clinton, and Bush. It still continues as Cold War bases are being closed and this downsizing is driven by Congress, not the President. The figures don't support that Clinton reduced the military any more than was required by Congress. Well, I have listed above many times when Clinton used the military in the best interests of the US. You still haven't listed a single instance of Clinton's "cowardice" or failure to make the country safe. Come on, Parso. You just admitted that facts exist to support Clinton, but anyone who believes them is gullible. Still you provide no information to support your contention. Then you say you are trying to make an objective view and you still chose to disbelieve the facts. Who is being gullible here? And who is being objective?
Probably true. I can't think of anything W. did pre-9/11 to stop terrorism, but then again, there were no terrorists attacks during his term (before then). Clinton was forced into action because we were attacked. And, I think that his actions were spurnned by PR to make himself look good & less because of his willingness to use the military. I don't have facts to support it, it's just my opinion. Clinton was a great politician, managed to make himself look good in alot of situations that might not have warranted it. Hmmm... I really don't feel like googling this. A part of Clinton's cut in spending was because of the end of the Cold War, but I seem to recall him cutting more than that. I don't think Clinton respected the military the way a Commander in Chief should, but maybe it was just the "conservative" media presenting it to me that way. :hihi: martin listed Somalia. I don't think he did enough after the terrorists attacks. Take it any way you want. The facts are that Clinton took action - not his motives, nor how far his actions went in protecting America. Also, it's up to each person to decide whether they feel the President has taken the proper action for the situation. You think he did. I don't.
What are you basing this on? Are you insinuating that Clinton simply did not care to battle terrorism for its own sake, or for the purpose of actually protecting the country that he was running? It's odd that you seem to believe he did it out of hubris, yet red55 had to inform you, as well as most others on this board, of their happening. If you stand by this completely subjective and poorly-supported claim, then do you also think that's the only reason that W did anything about terrorism? What inherent difference between the two men do you point to to make such a distinction?
I think you nailed it with that last statement. It appears that the recent trend is to completely discredit anyone, regardless of how legitimate their position, that exposes the questionable tactics of the administration.
