Obama Finding The Same Tough Issues Bush Had
by Big Dog on Jul 2, 2009 at 20:17 Political
Barack Obama addressed the issue of indefinite detentions for the enemy combatants we are holding and said that the thought “gives me huge pause.” He has already discovered how difficult it is to get rid of the ones that we have determined can be released because, like Bush, he is unable to find them homes.
According to the AP:
But the president says there are some detainees who don’t fall neatly into existing categories for criminal prosecution in the United States or under international law.
Obama says that dealing with these situations is going to be “one of the biggest challenges” of his administration. The president says he’s not comfortable imposing indefinite detentions by executive order. But he didn’t explicitly rule it out. Breitbart
Obama has discovered that some of these people do not fit into neat little categories and that bringing them to trial is a difficult issue. He said that he was not comfortable with the Executive Order but did not rule it out. In fact, recent news indicates that his administration is drafting an EO that will do just what he is uncomfortable with.
This rookie went to the White House full of bravado and ideals with plans that he just knew would get things done. He made it sound so elementary during the campaign. Bush was an evil man who just wanted to hold these innocent people who were out wandering around battlefields minding their own business when our troops captured them. Some claim that a few were turned in for reward money. They were falsely accused. If that is the case would they have ever made it to Gitmo? We have plenty of places to hold them overseas and could have easily released them. Even if true, it amounts to a small minority of those held and they have probably been cleared but don’t want to go home and no one will take them.
Obama’s biggest problem with this is that he acted without thinking in order to appease his supporters. He signed the order to close Gitmo in a year before he had all the facts and before he discussed the release with other countries. Now he has a base that expects him to close the place on time and he is having trouble getting rid of the offenders. He might end up moving them to other prisons in the war zone in order to close Gitmo but he will not really be keeping his promise. He will just be shifting the issue from Cuba to some other place. He can claim he did what he said but it would be a hollow claim.
Rushing in without thinking seems to be a pattern with this guy. He rushed on Gitmo and then he rushed the stimulus bill through so quickly that he broke promises about transparency in so doing. In addition, no one had a chance to read the thing and there have been unintended consequences. The stimulus has also not had any effect on the economy. This economic downturn would have begun a recovery by now had the government not involved itself. It is FDR and the Great Depression all over again.
Now they are rushing Cap and Trade and Health Care Reform through. No one had the chance to read Cap and Trade and it is a disaster.
This guy is rushing head first into things in order to get them passed while he has a majority and popularity. He wants to get these things done, never letting a crisis go to waste, before the public turns on him which it is beginning to do.
The natives are restless. Obama promised that unemployment rate would not go higher than 8% if the stimulus was enacted but would be higher if it was not. The stimulus was enacted and unemployment is at 9.5%, further proof they do not know what they are talking about. The report is here and the end note only states that the estimate for unemployment without action could be higher. It does not give an out for it going up if they enacted the stimulus. They believed it would work so why have an out?
(1) Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.
Obama rushes head first into the fire without knowing what is going on. He is using the “crisis” to get the Democrats’ wish list passed before the pitchfork crowd starts surrounding DC.
His pattern from Gitmo to economy has been to rush in. He exercises “caution” when he should be a roaring voice in the world but rushes things here at home. That is no way to lead.
A rookie at the helm is a bad thing.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: detainees, gitmo, indefinite detention, Obama, rookie, stimulus
Obama is so full of arrogant pride that there isn’t any room in his head for a brain.
BIGD: “He has already discovered how difficult it is…>>
DAR
It’s “difficult” because Bush left the evidence trail in shambles and tortured the suspects. What a mess! And this is Obama’s fault? Hardly. Not one bit in fact.
And now we are finding out the extent of the torture:
***
The suppressed fact: Deaths by U.S. torture
“The interrogation and detention regime implemented by the U.S. resulted in the deaths of over 100 detainees in U.S. custody — at least. While some of those deaths were the result of “rogue” interrogators and agents, many were caused by the methods authorized at the highest levels of the Bush White House, including extreme stress positions, hypothermia, sleep deprivation and others. Aside from the fact that they cause immense pain, that’s one reason we’ve always considered those tactics to be “torture” when used by others — because they inflict serious harm, and can even kill people. Those arguing against investigations and prosecutions — that we Look to the Future, not the Past — are thus literally advocating that numerous people get away with murder.
…As Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently put it:
“We should never, as a policy, maltreat people under our control, detainees. We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A.”
Journalist and Human Rights Watch researcher John Sifton similarly documented that “approximately 100 detainees, including CIA-held detainees, have died during U.S. interrogations, and some are known to have been tortured to death.”
SALON.
What a disgrace. Thanks Bush.
D.
ps. I know, let’s blame Obama’s! It’s his fault! All of it!
Oh here we go again with Bush- Hey D- News flash- Bush aint around- this stinkin’ pile of mess is Hussein’s, and he has no clue.
Internationally, he has a deer in the headlights look- it would be funny if he were the President of FRANCE, but he is our (gag) duly elected leader, so I would like him to grow a pair, at least internationally, and quit with the taxing the top 100% of our people,
I know- let’s cut and paste our “General of the day” quote as many times as we can.
If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes perceived as the truth. Perhaps it is his “come to Jesus moment”
Can we expect a “Come to Jesus Moment” from you , Darrel?
BLK: “If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes perceived as the truth.”
DAR
Ah, so now you speak of your specialty!
Why do people come to Jesus and put their sins on him, when we’ve got all of these goats?
D.
As if the enemy is treating our soldiers better. Maybe we should have cut off their f’en heads and be done with it. Go back to Canada
Oh, is that the standard WE go by? A standard set by terrorists? Really? If so, how are we better?
Perhaps we do not need to be better, only more efficient.
Muslim extremists do not respect weakness, but they DO rely on soft souls such as you to say, “Aaaw- what a poor, sad little terrorist- do not harm him- perhaps he will grow a conscience one day.”
That reminds me of the tale of the scorpion and the frog- one day a scorpion and a frog stood on one side of the river. They both needed to get across. The scorpion suggested that the frog carry the scorpion on the frog’s back, “But you will sting me,” said the frog. The scorpion promised not to do so. Reassured, the frog allowed the scorpion to crawl on his back and they set off, the frog swimming for the opposite bank.
Halfway across, the scorpion suddenly stung the frog- as the frog was dying, he asked why-” Why have you stung me,” he asked. “Now we will both die.”
The scorpion replied, ” I can’t help it, I am a scorpion.”
We cannot, nor should not place ordinary values into the mindsets of these terrorists- they do not think as we do, and we will lose the war if we cannot think as THEY do- it is that cut and dried, so get your head out of the sand.
Darrel, ever hear of Hell Week our own Navy Seals have to go through? It’s much worse than the “torture” the bad guys have to endure. Your argument holds no “water”.
BUDS Hell Week is an endurance challenge. People are not subjected to it against their will. They are there because they want to be there. If they can’t handle it, they can quit anytime they want. It’s a completely different scenario.
MIKE; “It’s much worse than the “torture” the bad guys have to endure.”>>
DAR
Oh really? How many Navy Seals died during this training exercise?
D.
—————-
VENTURA: “…I’m bothered over Guantanamo because it seems we have created our own Hanoi Hilton. We can live with that? I have a problem. I will criticize President Obama on this level; it’s a good thing I’m not president because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it. I would prosecute the people that ordered it. Because torture is against the law.
KING: You were a Navy SEAL.
VENTURA: That’s right. I was water boarded, so I know — at SERE School, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion. It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all, in essence — every one of us was water boarded. It is torture.”
video clip.
MIKE “It’s much worse than the “torture” the bad guys have to endure.”
DAR “Oh really? How many Navy Seals died during this training exercise?”
And how many Gitmo bad guys were even waterboarded let alone died?
Mike: “how many Gitmo bad guys were even waterboarded let alone died?”>>
DAR
We don’t know. Yet. The ACLU is working on getting this information released.
When you torture enough people that you “accidentally” kill a hundred people, this suggests that you are torturing a lot of people.
No one said they were necessarily at Gitmo.
D.
——————–
“The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing “war crimes” and called for those responsible to be held to account.
The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who’s now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.
…Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. “The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture,” he wrote.”
LINK
Happy fourth.
Darrel is a Canadian, and has had limited experience with violence. As a Canadian, it is possible that it might be a genetic abhorrence, or something more liberal than that.
Randy says:
BUDS Hell Week is an endurance challenge. People are not subjected to it against their will. They are there because they want to be there. If they can’t handle it, they can quit anytime they want. It’s a completely different scenario.
I was personally witness to a “torture” simulation that was not voluntary. It was during the sixties under a Democrat and included draftees. Anyone caught during an escape and evasion exercise was juiced with an electric current until they talked. It was conducted by a former POW of the Korean “conflict”.
So you think it is OK for us to juice detainees with an electric current until they “talk”?
Randy says:
So you think it is OK for us to juice detainees with an electric current until they “talk”?
I wouldn’t torture run of the mill POW’s. But if I had a overwhelming evidence they could provide terrorist info that could prevent a cataclysmic event I would cut their balls off and stuff them in their 72 virgins. How’s that for polically correct?
You sound an awful lot like the enemy we were once trying to defeat Mike.
Randy says:
You sound an awful lot like the enemy we were once trying to defeat Mike.
I don’t want to take over the world. I don’t want to propagate my religious beliefs on the world. And I wouldn’t torture or kill to make a political statement. But I would do whatever is necessary to protect my own. If that equates me with our enemies so be it.
Mike- you can’t reason with someone who does not understand that our laws make the enemy laugh at our weakness.
Anything that is done should never be a source of joy, but if we managed to stop a terrorist attack, it should be viewed as a job well done, and nothing more.
Liberals are willing to roll the dice with respect to your loved ones- also their loved ones, which causes me to wonder if mentally they are the exception to the “survival of the fittest”-
If they are willing to sacrifice their women and children, you can be sure they will gladly sacrifice yours.
I choose not to be that callous or that stupid.
BLK: “Darrel is a Canadian, and has had limited experience with violence.”>>
DAR
Blake makes a good point. If you have an option of resolving a problem peaceably, it’s always better to choose the route that has lots of death, destruction and violence.
Oh wait, maybe I have that backwards.
D.
Darrel- I choose the route that gets things done and over with- if that can be done peacably, fine- if not, then whatever gets it done with the least amount of deaths on OUR side. do not care about the enemy. There are no warm and fuzzy traitorous liberal feelings here.
Whatever gets the job done.
BLK: “I choose… whatever gets it done with the least amount of deaths on OUR side.”>>
DAR
Then you must be proud of Clinton’s record. He went to war, and won, with ZERO US combat deaths. Bush’s efforts have killed more Americans than Bin Laden. And wounded 50,000 more. He killed a million more and orphaned 5 million but you…
BLK: “do not care about the enemy.”
DAR
Of course not. You are a tribalist who can’t see beyond your own “team.” How myopic and provincial. Ironically, you are exactly the kind of vindictive, narrow, hateful, unevolved person the founders created our liberal constitution to protect everyone else *from.* The world used to even have *more* of you knuckle draggers back then! Now you’re on the run.
D.
—————-
“I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.” –John Stuart Mill
Hey Jackass, what does any of what you said have to do with the FACT that Obama cannot do what he wants because it is tougher than he thought.
I don’t know if we “tortured” as many people as claimed. Seems that now a days not letting them have a Koran is torture.
Some of them died, if we had shot them instead of capturing them it would have made no difference.
You guys keep preaching torture chambers but I don’t see alot of things that are torture. Cold, noise, heat, awake too long. Boo hoo. Our troops are going throgh all of that in the war zone.
Ventura uses the phrase IT SEEMS. That is a phrase you Darrel, said I used with Obama and said it was wrong…
But it seems this way to Ventura who was not there so he does not know what happened. He also went through that training as a Seal so he thinks it is OK for it to be done to him and not the bad guys.
Also, let us not forget we are talking about a guy who pretended to beat people up for a living.
Ventura never said it was ok for it to be done to him. He said it was done to him and he said it was torture. I also don’t see how the fact that he became an entertainer after his service as a Navy SEAL takes away any of his credibility on the matter.
Ventura had no choice because Congress said it was OK to do it to him. It is part of their training. It is a bit specious to say that when Congress allows it to our troops it is OK but when Congress allows it for the enemy it is not. If Ventura thinks it is torture when done to him then Congress is allowing torture of our troops.
But you can’t have it both ways. If it is torture then Congress needs to clearly define it as such instead of writing wishy washy laws that are open to interpretation. If Congress specifically says it is torture then it needs to disallow it for our troops.
It is that simple.
Ventura had a choice. SEALs can quit at any time. It isn’t like the regular military. When I say he could have quit at any time, I mean that quite literally. It isn’t like he didn’t know what he was getting into. At the moment he knew what was going to happen to him in training, he could have simply quit and not had to do it. When folks have that treatment forced upon them with no say so whatsoever in the matter, it is quite a different beast.
Bigd is again trying to pretend he can’t see the difference between:
a) guys on your team performing a voluntary simulation event to give a person a taste of water boarding
vs.
b) an enemy, forcing you, while constrained, while sleep deprived, in excess of 100 times, to be water boarded.
Reasonable people can see that there is no comparison.
Waterboarding, as vile as it is, is apparently small potatoes compared to the rest of the torture. What a disgrace.
D.
When we do this to an enemy, it is not for gratification, but to obtain info.
George Orwell once wrote,” People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
I am sorry you are too weak to understand that this has become a part of war, but the purpose of war is to win, and if you wish to bitch, at least stand to one side when you do.
Here Darrel, while admitting that A) he doesn’tknow how many people were waterboarded, and B) has no clear idea of what “other” tortures may or may not have occurred, pontificates on the “disgrace” of the possibly imaginary tortures his little mind conjures up.
A Canadian mind is a terribly wasted thing, right, D?
Bigd: “Ventura uses the phrase IT SEEMS”>>
DAR
He used the phrase “it seems” with regard to the idea that Guantanamo was an American Hanoi Hilton:
“I’m bothered over Guantanamo because it seems we have created our own Hanoi Hilton.”
With regard to waterboarding he said: “It is torture.”
That’s “seems” rather unequivocal.
&&&
BLK: Here Darrel, while admitting that A) he doesn’t know how many people were waterboarded,>>
DAR
Why would the number need to be known? Keeping track of the exact number of people the US tortures… not my specialty. If you are not persuaded by 100 killed, then you really don’t care anyway. Your devotion to ideology again trumps any rational discussion.
BLK: “has no clear idea of what “other” tortures may or may not have occurred,…”
DAR
Let’s ask the person George W. Bush hired to investigate what tortures “may or may not” have occurred:
“The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing “war crimes” and called for those responsible to be held to account.
The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who’s now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.
…Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. “The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture,” he wrote.”
LINK
Let’s ask Gen. Barry McCaffrey:
“We should never, as a policy, maltreat people under our control, detainees. We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A.”
–ibid
etc.
D.
You toss out that “100 killed” as if you know, yet you say you do not- which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
If you would read for comprehension you would know that *your* question above was regarding, specifically, “waterboarding,” not the number killed.
To quote:
“he doesn’t know how many people were waterboarded,” –blk
D.
I referred to the use *your* use- of the term 100 killed- you give no reference to this, just toss it out.
How about this- the U.S. Army saved 25 million people- I think my stat beats your stat.
Why don’t you take your “feelings” and go sit in a corner, and stay out of the way of those who do men’s work.
BLK: “I referred to the use *your* use- of the term 100 killed- you give no reference to this, just toss it out.”
DAR
I of course DID give a reference and there were more at the link I provided.
And you are confused. The record is clear above. Let me hold your hand and spoon feed you your error:
You said:
“Darrel, while admitting that A) he doesn’t know how many people were waterboarded,”
I responded:
“Why would the number need to be known?… If you are not persuaded by 100 killed, then you really don’t care anyway.”
You responded:
“You toss out that “100 killed” as if you know, yet you say you do not- which is it?”
DAR (new)
My comment about not knowing a number was specifically with regard to your question of the “number waterboarded.”
You then tried to change this and pretend I didn’t know of the number killed. A number *I* provided with referenced citation.
It’s all above, in black and white.
D.
Taguba was forced to retire. Wonder if that motivated his claims
Obviously the truth motivated his claims. Otherwise he could have given a sugar happy candy report and the chickenhawks in leadership would have been happy. The most sensible motivation is he told the truth and the politicians couldn’t deal with it.
D.
————–
“In January of 2006, General Richard A. Cody, the Army’s Vice-Chief of Staff, instructed Taguba to retire by the following January. No official explanation was given; Taguba himself believes his forced retirement was ordered by civilian Pentagon officials in retaliation for his report on abuse of prisoners.[9] Taguba’s retirement, effective January 1, 2007, ended a 34-year career of military service.” –wiki
No Darrel, Big Dog is saying that since the law authored by Congress allowed those methods and since the legal opinion came to that conclusion then it was not torture.
You have indicated a number of times that something was perfectly legal because the SCOTUS said it was. Well Congress is the law making branch and they said it was OK.
Until that was changed, no torture took place.
I am not opposed to waterboarding if they say it is legal. If they say it is not then I have no problem with them stopping.
Being deprived of sleep, being kept in the heat or cold and having to listen to loud noise is NOT torture.
BIGD: You have indicated a number of times that something was perfectly legal because the SCOTUS said it was.”>>
DAR
It used to be “perfectly legal” to kill slaves and do all sorts of abhorrent things. Best not to confuse moral issues with legal issues.
Abortion is perfectly legal, this doesn’t mean it is morally right. Two completely separate issues.
We used to understand torture was wrong. Now, because of the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration, there has been some confusion. No longer. Because of the moral decency of our current president (which is in line with the American people*) this has stopped. Note:
***
On January 15, 2009 the U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, told his Senate confirmation hearing that waterboarding is torture and the President cannot authorize it.[73][74][75][76] In a press conference on April 30, President Obama also stated, “I believe waterboarding was torture, and it was a mistake.”[77] LINK
Bigd: “I am not opposed to waterboarding if they say it is legal.”>>
DAR
So your moral system is run by… politicians. If “they” (Congress!) says it’s okay, you’re not opposed to it. Got it.
As Twain said:
“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself.” –Mark Twain
D.
————-
*Note:
“in a new poll (April ’09) the New York Times and CBS News found that 71 percent of Americans consider waterboarding to be “a form of torture”
LINK
I was not aware of a declared war when Clinton was in office.
Bigd: “I was not aware of a declared war when Clinton was in office.”>>
DAR
Transparent quibble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Bombardment_in_the_Kosovo_War
He goes to war, accomplishes the mission, and no one lost in combat. People who are not so stuck in irrational bitter partisan ideology can see this as the success it was.
D.
—————–
“The NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia was NATO’s military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.”
“over 38,000 combat missions”
Sorry Darrel, Clinton did not go to war. He participated in someone else’s.
I think this campaign involved air attacked to the tune of nearly 40,000 sorties.
I don’t recall our troops being on the ground fighting in ground combat.
The military planned it, not Clinton. And when you only do air strikes you are not going to have many casualties.
Funny though, I always hear you guys criticize Bush for “trumping” up the reason for war.
Clinton was accused of the same thing and I don’t recall hearing you complain when you tell us how great he was in providing air support for SOMEONE else’s war.
Clinton also made things worse because he did not want to use force. He was hoping that making threats of force would settle things.
That did not happen. Just like with Bin Laden, he was seen as a paper tiger (which gave us 9/11).
Now presumably Milosevic must face the consequences. But what are the consequences? Well, that takes a little explaining, because as Saddam Hussein can tell you, in Bill Clinton’s world the American response to flagrant international misbehavior is not exactly what you would call swift and sure.
The Clinton administration is once again hoping to use the “threat of force” — as opposed to force itself — to make Milosevic back down. One might think that the abject failure of this tactic over the past year, both in Kosovo and in Iraq, would by now have convinced the administration to give up on it.
Absolutely no one in the world is falling for this Clintonian bluff anymore, least of all Milosevic. But the administration persists in believing that the “threat of force” is actually a key tool of policy.
Source
BIGD: Clinton did not go to war.>>
DAR
This action, for obviously reasons, is routinely referred to as war (regardless of your quibble about whether congress was involved).
I bet if someone ran 38,000 bombing missions over America, you wouldn’t quibble about whether the country attacking had followed a certain legal procedure? I think you would call it war.
BIGD: I think this campaign involved air attacked to the tune of nearly 40,000 sorties.>>
DAR
Right. That’s what the “38,000” in my post responds to. See also “Air War” at my link. Oops, they called it “war” (repeatedly).
BIGD: I don’t recall our troops being on the ground fighting in ground combat.>>
DAR
Hence, the brilliance. Blake said he likes it when our side doesn’t die, and the other side does. So I referred him to this excellent example. Unfortunately he can’t be proud of this American success because the president wasn’t a member of the correct party.
BIGD: “…when you only do air strikes you are not going to have many casualties.”>>
DAR
Hence the brilliance.
BIGD: Clinton also made things worse because he did not want to use force.>>
DAR
He didn’t want to but he *did.* The objectives were accomplished and we lost no one in combat. How pray, is that making “things worse?”
Bigd: “He was hoping that making threats of force would settle things.”>>
DAR
Oh the horror! Settling things without killing and blowing things up. A neo-con nightmare.
Actually, this is the benefit of spending so much on the military. You can get things done without actually having to kill people. Bush wasn’t that smart. So he tipped our hand and showed the entire world how badly he could screw things up and tie us down in an attack, on a little country, with the GDP of… Kentucky. Now they know.
And your notion of only “making threats” hardly applies to Kosovo. We followed through. You didn’t read your own article again!
Bigd: [Weakly Standard quote]
“Now presumably Milosevic must face the consequences. But what are the consequences? Well, that takes a little explaining, because as Saddam Hussein can tell you, in Bill Clinton’s world the American response to flagrant international misbehavior is not exactly what you would call swift and sure.”>>
DAR
Dear BigDog. Your stupid article is from February 1999. The “NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was between March 24 and June 10, 1999.”
Had you been paying attention you would have noticed that your ten year old article was FLATLY REFUTED a month and a half after it was written.
It now reads as parody. That is, someone making fun of rightwingers who got it wrong.
“Absolutely no one in the world is falling for this Clintonian bluff anymore, least of all Milosevic.”
Milosevic found out Clinton wasn’t bluffing. When are you going to find out?
D.
——————–
“Milošević… was arrested by Yugoslav federal authorities on Saturday, 31 March 2001.” He died in prison.
By waiting the way he did he allowed a lot of civilians to be killed by the genocidal idiots. By not having troops on the ground the enemy was able to kill a lot of people in its retreat.
I am happy that we did well and no one died (in combat) but no one ever wins a war with air alone.
That is probably one of the reasons we still have troops there today. They were put on the ground much too late.
Clinton had use threat of force so much no one paid attention to him. The withdrawal from Somalia is what led to 9/11.
The 38,000 sorties were not all ours.
And yes, if someone flew 38,000 sorties over America (as if anyone could) then I would say they were declaring war on us. That is why I say we are at war with the Islamic extremists who attacked us on 9/11. That was an act of war despite the morons who want to treat it like a crime.
War crime maybe because it targeted civilians.
BIGD: “By waiting the way he did he allowed a lot of civilians to be killed by the genocidal idiots. By not having troops on the ground…>>
DAR
Clinton fought the republicans tooth and nail just to do the air war. Would you like to see the quotes of what the republicans of the time were saying? Here’s a taste. There are lots more. They called it nation building and ridiculed it ceaselessly. Al Franken (now senator) documented a bunch of these in his best seller “Lying Liars.” I have a copy (signed).
Bush even got a little dig about this in the debates:
“If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I’m going
to prevent that.”
–Bush v Gore debate, October 3, 2000
Are you telling me, that at the time, YOU were for the US conducting a ground war there? Really? I am really really skeptical of that. Do do have any old comments/posts from then?
BIGD: “…no one ever wins a war with air alone.>>
DAR
We did. Ask Milosevic. Objectives accomplished. ZERO combat deaths. Truly incredible.
BIGD: “That is probably one of the reasons we still have troops there today.”>>
DAR
No, that has nothing to do with the reason. Stabilizing forces would have been there for a long time either way and if there was a ground war (which was not politically possible) there would have been many more killed and perhaps a bloodbath.
BIGD: Clinton had use threat of force so much no one paid attention to him.>>
DAR
That’s just nonsense! He used force, and it worked. And with respect to the safety of our troops, which should be a priority, it worked perfectly.
BIGD: The withdrawal from Somalia is what led to 9/11.>>
DAR
Papa Bush got us in Somali. Clinton got us out.
D.
We were in Somalia as part of the peacekeeping mission. Clinton did not “get us out” he left after 18 combat deaths. That emboldened bin Laden and that is why we got 9/11. In bin Laden’s own words.
BIGD: We were in Somalia as part of the peacekeeping mission.>>
DAR
That’s nice. Papa Bush put 28,000 US troops on the ground. Bush got us in, Clinton got us out.
Note:
“President George H. Bush orders 28,000 U.S. troops to Somalia, a war-torn East African nation where rival warlords were preventing the distribution of humanitarian aid to thousands of starving Somalis… the controversial mission stretched on for 15 months before being abruptly called off by President Bill Clinton in 1993.”
BIGD: Clinton did not “get us out” he left after 18 combat deaths.>>
DAR
Now you want to quibble that there is a difference between “he left” but “did not get us out”?
BIGD: That emboldened bin Laden and that is why we got 9/11. In bin Laden’s own words.>>
DAR
Getting us out of Somalia is “why we got 9/11? Really?
We got 9/11 because of the incompetence and intelligence failure of GW’s administration.
If you want to start quoting Bin Laden’s words you will find they implicate your Bush more than anyone else. He laid out his strategy, mailed a copy to him and then Bush fell in every trap Bin Laden laid. And now we pay, in lives, prestige and treasure.
BIGD: “Sorry Darrel, you are acting like it was solely an air war. NATO finally put troops on the ground.>>
DAR
Of course. As the leader of NATO said, the proclaimed goal of the (less than 3 month) bombing mission was:
“Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back”
And they did it. Zeros combat deaths. Hence the reason this is such a good example of going to war and not losing anyone on your team.
BIGD: I was not for action at all at the time.>>
DAR
Of course you weren’t. Hence your breathtaking hypocrisy for now criticizing Clinton for, and I quote:
“waiting the way he did”
and
“not having troops on the ground”
and
“they were put on the ground much too late.”
D.
Sorry Darrel, you are acting like it was solely an air war. NATO finally put troops on the ground.
I was not for action at all at the time.