RRC Archives

So why not use that in the State of the Union address? Seems more convincing the a speech filled with mistruths. Why not send Colin Powell to the UN with this justification for war as opposed to a false justification for war. This has become plan b for the Bush administration; the threats we mentioned did not exist but it doesn't change the fact that he was a bad guy. That is a bunch of backpeddling bullshit.

I'm thinking that charlie's got the right idea. pointless to respond to or read this thread. just makes my blood pressure go up.

gunslga, I think you've confused a PM with a post.

Mcrib makes sense in saying....
So why not use that in the State of the Union address? Seems more convincing the a speech filled with mistruths. Why not send Colin Powell to the UN with this justification for war as opposed to a false justification for war. This has become plan b for the Bush administration; the threats we mentioned did not exist but it doesn't change the fact that he was a bad guy. That is a bunch of backpeddling bullshit.

These are the reasons I support the war, I think Bush did't count on us to vote for war due to these atrocities on foreigners, he knew we needed to be threatened here at home before we would approve his war.

Gulliver says....
gunslga, I think you've confused a PM with a post.

Yes and I'm sorry, I did send you a pm as well, I'm not as computer savy as I would like to be sometimes. I had RRC up on one window and the BBC archives on another, in between the cut and paste session, I realised after I was done that I had put it on the thread instead of the pm, please forgive me!

Overhung says...
I just can't believe there are such gaping holes in his military record. Gunslina, you and I were both were in the military and you know how fastidioius they are about record keeping. If you or I disappeared for an entire year while on duty, what would've happened to us?

Yeah, I agree here too, He is better than Whodini, funnier though that his military record at all is almost non-existant, but John Kerry had to embelish his Vietnam experience to overcome it. Neither one did anything noteworthy, but you would think they both were some kind of heros from the spin on they're service. If we were like the Spartans of ancient Greece, the king could not be a king unless he was a warrior, The king Leonidas fought in the front lines at Thermopoly, where he was killed by Xerxes Persian Army. I think to send young men to die for they're country that the president should have served his country more than on the weekends........

I'll say this, I'd rather be at a barbecue with George W. Bush than John Kerry. I bet Bush is a hoot to hang around with.

gunslnga wrote:...He is better than Whodini...

Heh heh. Whodini was a rapper from the early 90's. Houdini was the master magician. Still, the idea of Shrub kickin' some jams...

Actually it was the 80's, my favorite song was"The Freaks Come Out at Night" And
"Freinds", he also was associated with U.T.F.O and Roxanne, Roxanne.......
G-dub bought blow from Whodini (this statement not backed by fact)

gunslnga wrote:3. Did Clinton cave in after the raid and sell out the Rangers?

"There's no doubt that the perception people have of this episode is that it was a total fiasco. But this was a successfully completed mission. … The failure was Clinton's decision to pull out the day after this happened. The truth is he lacked the kind of moral personal force that it took to persuade Congress and the American people that even though this is not popular, we have to do it."—Bowden, in an interview with Elizabeth Snead, reporting for the Washington Post

A few days after the Rangers' deaths and the humiliating CNN coverage, Clinton did completely reverse course. He announced it had been a mistake to "personalize the conflict." He sent in more firepower, but only to cover a U.S. withdrawal. Nation-building was over. The key anti-Aideed Clinton official was removed from his post, and Oakley was sent back in to negotiate. Within weeks, Oakley was flying Aideed to a peace conference on a U.S. plane.

I know this seems way off topic, but given the current circumstances it seems important. The context you're missing is what was going on in domestic politics. The right wing media machine and the reckless partisans in Congress, led by Newt Gingrich, were doing everything they could to sabotage and undermine the President at home, and that included undermining the Commander in Chief while troops were in combat in Somalia. (We are now learning, thanks to the Enron, Ambramoff and other scandals, what was going on behind the scenes in the Republican party at the time)

The horrible irony in all of this is that American progressives believe in nation building, and actually know how to do it. But at the time, the right wing of the Republican party was out screaming about how nation building is impossible, and that the US had no place in trying to stabilize Somalia. From their worldview, Somalia was a waste of time. (We now know the critical role the instability in Somalia played in the leadup to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, as a base of operations and support for bin Laden and al Qaeda) Newt and others were using difficulties in Somalia as a means to weaken the President for their own political gains, even if it meant that quite a few soldiers' deaths would be in vain. With the 'Contract on America' Congress working to sabotage him, Clinton had little choice but to end the operation. I distictly remember Newt's red, pudgy face spewing brilliant manipulations and propoganda on ALL the news outlets at the time. Newt and the Republicans won, Clinton lost, the Soldiers lost and, tragically, the terrorists stood there and were handed a victory thanks to short sighted partisans fighting over domestic politics in the US.

The specific irony of this is that today, the same right-wingers who said that nation building is impossible are the very people in charge of trying to rebuild Iraq. It isn't surprising that when a bunch of corrupt dolts say that something is impossible from the outset, they will be incompotent failures when they try to do it themselves.

tomdarch says.....
I distictly remember Newt's red, pudgy face spewing brilliant manipulations and propoganda on ALL the news outlets at the time. Newt and the Republicans won, Clinton lost, the Soldiers lost and, tragically, the terrorists stood there and were handed a victory thanks to short sighted partisans fighting over domestic politics in the US.

I wonder what Newt Gingrich, the Republican Congress, and the political right did to make him bomb Iraq his self in 1998.....

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

I don't disagree with tom's statement, I do know that reguardless of the group running things that there are several groups behind,under and on top that are trying to push or pull things they're way. it will always be that way....

mcrib wrote:I'm thinking that charlie's got the right idea. pointless to respond to or read this thread.

I kinda like the political threads. Many of the posts sport logical fallacies of the simplest kind, such as ad hominem, straw man, and equivocation, but even these are worthwhile for the practice of spotting them. A few, though, are thought-provoking and worth reading.

ZSpider