Bart, I posted on a website message board that
Clinton had never sent any troops into combat that died.
I think I recall this is your position.
I know you have alot on your plate but if you
get a chance can you see if this wingnut is right???
Thanks,
GrandyKat
GrandyKat - always assume they are lying.
You'll never get hurt if you start with that
assumption.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's get our facts straight people...
Willam Jefferson Clinton did send troops to die
in Somalia, and here's why...
When George HW Bush sent troops to Somalia in
1992,
As far as I'm concerned, this argument is over.
Bush the Smarter got America into Somalia only
after
losing the 1992 election.
We're about to argue what happened next, but
(A) Why didn't Bush send troops there before
losing?
(B) No troops would've died if Bush hadn't
sent them to Somalia in the first place
and fewer troops
would've died if Bush had sent them with the armor they needed.
...it was to secure roads and trade routes for
the UN so they could get food to the people of Somalia
and not die trying. This was because the various
warlord present in Somalia were taking it and using it
to control the people. These troops were MARINES,
let me repeat MARINES. These 25,000 troops
were eventuallly scaled back by Clinton. ONCE
AGAIN LET ME STRESS THESE ARE MARINES.
Eventually, all MARINES were gone from the city
of MOGADISHU (where the slaughter of the
RANGERS/DELTA FORCE OCCURED.
Later in 93 (the beginning of "Clinton Years",
a force of Pakistani peacekeepers were attacked and a
warlord named Aibid took credit. This led to
the UN creating an objective to capture this Warlord.
Clinton fully supported it.
"Clinton sent an initial contingent of 400 Army
Rangers to Mogadishu on Aug. 24 in response to a series of
bloody attacks on Americans for which Aidid or
his loyalists were blamed. Although the administration did not
say so publicly at the time, the Rangers' mission
was to capture the elusive Aidid."
The men on the ground in Somalia in OCTOBER of
93 were these Rangers and others that CLINTON
ordered to Somalia to capture the Warlord.
Clinton sent in the RANGERS/DELTA FORCE to capture
Aidid in the city of Mogadishu...There the fateful events
of "Black Hawk Down" took place. HE commanded
them...HE sent them to carry out the UN's work...
HIS SECERATARY OF DEFENSE (Les Aspin) didn't
supply the with the fire power they needed, which CLINTON agreed with.
Bush blundered our military into Somalia without
the armor they needed, just as his idiot son would do ten years later.
Combat deaths allows the military to "get
tough" which means billions in profits
for the BFEE.
At the least Clinton could have done this, supply
our guys with the ARMORED TANKS and VEHICLES
(Remember the LOST CONVOY...maybe it would have
saved lives!), along with AC-130 gunships they needed
to get the job done safely. But no!!!!!!!!!
This guy seems to think ships loaded down with
tanks and armored personnel carriers can move as fast as airplanes.
The military campaign that Bush started without
proper support needed that armor before they landed.
Here is an article about this sad fact...Clinton
allowed the UN to use OUR BOYS IN UNIFORM
to do THEIR DIRTY WORK...and he didn't even give
them the support they needed.
Why didn't the man who planned the invasion send
armor with them?
Remember the first Gulf War? It took six
months to get enough personnel and hardware to Kuwait
but the Clinton haters wanted the laws of physics
bent because Bush sent them there without armor.
"Defense Secretary Les Aspin and his deputies
rejected sending needed tanks and armored vehicles to
Somalia because they feared a political backlash
would undermine their pro-United Nations policy,
says a Senate Armed Services Committee report.
The armor, as well as AC-130 gunships that also
were withheld, was sought by commanders to protect
U.S. troops, the report stated.
He shows no evidence for this, but the evidence
of 12,000 miles of ocean is obvious, but still,
you don't send a fireman into a burning building
AND THEN request oxygen, axes and water hoses.
You send a fireman into a burning building
with the tools he needs..
The weapons "could have been used decisively in
the rescue operation of Oct. 3-4, [1993] and if available,"
could have been used by Army Rangers in a raid
to capture Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid,
Sen. John Warner, Virginia Republican and report
co-author, said in an introduction.
"Only compelling military - not diplomatic policy
- reasons should ever be used to deny an on-scene
commander such a request," he said. "Those officials
who advocated and approved this policy must bear
the ultimate responsibility for the events that
followed."
I say, "those who sent men into battle without
the proper tools bear responsibility."
Bush could've sent those men to their deaths
before the election, but after he lost, there was no time
to ship armor so he sent the men and left it
to the new Clinton Administration to protect them.
The military raid ended with the deaths of 18
U.S. soldiers who were caught in a furious firefight with Aidid
forces in Mogadishu, Somalia.
Crowds were filmed dragging the corpses of two U.S. soldiers through the
streets.
Why didn't Bush, former head of the CIA, know
Aidid was dangerous to our armorless troops?
Armored vehicles may have saved lives and reduced casualties during the raid and subsequent rescue, the report concluded.
This is true - so why didn't Bush send the armored vehicles?
The report was released late Friday in an apparent
effort to mute its stinging critique of Clinton administration
foreign and military policy. Sen. Carl Levin,
Michigan Democrat, is the other co-author.
The report (Where
is this report? Why wasn't a link provided? Did this Clinton-hater cherry-pick
sentences that slammed Clinton?
Which sentences are the report's and which are
from this Clinton-hater?) is based on
a two-year study of the firefight in
Mogadishu Oct. 3, 1993, and tells how top administration
officials, including National Security Adviser Anthony Lake and
Mr. Aspin, allowed the United Nations to influence
deployment of U.S. forces, with disastrous results.
Why is the Clinton-hater telling us what the
report said instead of linking us to the report?
It also lays out how U.N. officials pressured
the administration into sending 450 Rangers to capture Gen. Aidid,
against the advice of senior U.S. military commanders
who saw little chance of success.
Where is the evidence of this?
In doing so, U.S. interest was subordinated to "the Clinton administration's desire to see this U.N. operation succeed," Mr. Warner said.
"This UN operation?"
Bush sent those men there.
Remember the Clinton-hater's first sentence
- "When George HW Bush sent troops to Somalia
in 1992..."
The report says Gen. Colin Powell, at the time
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was unable to resist the U.N.
pressure and then was unable to get Mr. Aspin
to approve the military's request for tanks and armored vehicles and AC-130
gunships.
...Gen. Powell, now retired and contemplating
a run for president, is quoted in the report as saying the pressure was
"a steady drumbeat," and ultimately he agreed
to "go along, since as a general principle I believe in supporting the
commander in the field."
Gen. Montgomery was acting in the dual role as
deputy commander of U.N. forces and as commander of the
4,000 U.S. forces left behind after a humanitarian
operation involving 25,000 U.S. troops ended.
On the request for armor, Gen. Montgomery told
congressional investigators he needed tanks because of attacks
by Somali militias. "I believe that U.S. forces
are at risk without it," the Sept. 14, 1993 request stated.
I agree with that - so why didn't Bush send
tanks with the men he sent into harm's way?
"I would have used it on Oct. 3-4 for the rescue,"
he said.
"If we had it, we would have gotten there faster.
We would have taken fewer casualties."
Gen. Joseph Hoar, commander of the U.S. Central
Command that dispatched forces to Somalia, said he told
Gen. Montgomery, "There is no stomach in D.C.
for new forces, but I think I can get something."
The Pentagon's formal answer to why Mr. Aspin...turned
down the armor request was that
"U.S. policy in Somalia was to reduce its military
presence . . . not to increase it."
Gen. Powell said he was "upset" when the matter
was turned over to Frank Wisner, undersecretary of defense for policy,
and other Pentagon civilians. "The policy shop
was a mess with all those assistant secretaries overlapping each other,"
Gen. Powell said. "Nothing happened."
"Aspin was looking at the broader implication
of this decision and wasn't willing to approve it just because the
commander wanted it," Gen. Powell said. "I took
Aspin's answer as being 'not now,' rather than 'never.' "
Mr. Wisner told investigators he misunderstood
the purpose for the armor. He also said "there was no need to increase
the violence nor increase the aggressiveness"
of the U.S. special forces.
There's Clinton and his Administration real bunch
of heros, ignoring the Pentagon and the Commander in the field,
...the man who knew what our troops needed best.
As you have often heard on bartcop.com,
the Clinton-haters love to wallow in Somalia,
while forgetting the 304
Marines who died when Reagan bungled Beruit,
while forgetting the 534
soldiers who died when Bush the Smarter bungled Iraq,
while forgetting the 1567
soldiers who died when Bush the Monkey lied about Saddam.
Bottom line - they forgive Reagan, Bush and Bush for getting 2405
soldiers killed
so they can scream about the 18
who died after Bush initiated his Somalia campaign.