Letter writer’s memory on Iraq faulty
Letter writer Dennis Reuss (“Why tire of a just war?” Sept. 18) wants us to remember how when President Bush and the Senate “declared war on Iraq” (which they did not do) that the president said it would be a “long and hard war” (which he never said).
In fact, we were told by Dick Cheney that our troops would be greeted “as liberators.” Then on May 1, 2003, President Bush gave the following speech for the cameras:
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
“In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment — yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage — your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other — made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.”
Would Reuss now like to discuss how Paul Wolfowitz told us that the occupation of Iraq wouldn’t cost the U.S. taxpayers a nickel because it would be paid for with Iraqi oil? Or are we now to believe that Wolfowitz told us it would cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and that is somehow OK?
Rich Graham, Longmont
A lot more would have been accomplished if it weren't for the surrender monkeys like Mr. Graham. You, sir, are a boil on the butt of rationality, and have been thoroughly brainwashed by a bunch of liberal, anti-American idiots from your first day of school until now.
Posted by clyde on October 4, 2007 02:44 AMThe only way more could be accomplished clyde is if we reinstated the draft (this tiem for females as well as males) - and rescinded the tax cuts to pay for properly arming the military over there instead of expecting their families & friends to provide them with body armor.If this is as important an issue as Bush claim, shouldn't we ALL bear some cost? WAIT chicken hawks always want someone else to die (or at least be maimed - and then they whine about the cost of their medical care) for their "just wars".
Posted by Mary on October 4, 2007 04:08 AMhey mary go talk to the rev dulton in NY as he is the one who wants the draft revived. if it is maybe with any luck your butt would be there and you could surrender and live a very happy life as a muslim girl.
Thanks Rich, great letter. I'm glad the Rocky let you correct the false history, but why didn't they make the correction themselves? Why did the Rocky publish the letter containing the false history in the first place?
President Bush lied about the reasons for our conqest and continuing occupation of Iraq, but it is the Media that has unquestionly spreads his lies. It is the Media that does not challenge his lies. A lie that is endlessly repeated becomes belived as the truth.
The unfortunate result of the lies is that old American Values and Ideals have been lost. The Democratic Party, that controls both Houses of Congress, will not stop the occupation of Iraq. The leading Deomcratic Presidential contenders have announced they will continue the occupation of Iraq until at least 2013. The groups that benefits from this conquest (Big Oil, the New World Order and Zionism) have a stranglehold on our elected government and the Media. The American People have transformed into stupid sheep and the American Military has been transformed in theives and killers.
Posted by Dave on October 4, 2007 05:51 AMDave, you koolaid drinking BASTARD. Who in the hell are you to dare call the US MILITARY of more lies. Calling them thieves and killers.
You are one of those that are going after Rush over altered and twisted words yet you sit there at your pc and do far worse.
May you rot in an islamic jail cell.
Posted by Service Member on October 4, 2007 06:03 AMDave,
You make a great point. The RMN does a great disservice to the community by allowing just anybody at all to come along and post their opinion.
What they need is someone to check over all the submissions and reject anything that is untrue.
They could title this position as Truth Filter. I'll bet you might even make yourself available for the job.
But tell me this. Since the President lied about what was going on in Iraq before the invasion, and since the American people are stupid sheep and since our military are theives and kellers - What are we to do now?
Sould we just get out of Iraq as quickly as possible and impeach the President, Vice-president, et. al. and begin an immediate purge of the military?
Maybe that would help turn the stupid sheep into really smart rams?
Or do you have some better plan?
Posted by James Jones on October 4, 2007 06:42 AMRich,
The President and the Senate NEVER declared war on Iraq.Besides the Congress would declare war.
Get your facts straight before spewing your opinions
Let's just hope we can stop the Islamo-Fascist terrorists before this Bush Derangement Syndrome spreads beyond the far left. It is clear they have no plan . . or no clue.
Posted by Gene on October 4, 2007 07:11 AMBush did warn us it would be a long and hard war on terrorism. I was specifically looking for it in his speech.. Whether in Iraq or elsewhere; look for at least a generation or more like fifty years. This is the cold war all over again. Don't think if We prevail in Iraq thats the end of it.
GG
Posted by GG on October 4, 2007 07:17 AMThe Iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism, until Bush decided to invade it.
I don't think anyone in DC has any idea how to get out of this situation. That's why we need to fire congress and replace them with people that have a clue.
Posted by Bear on October 4, 2007 07:23 AMGene,
The only cure for BDS will be the end of Bush's term. Even that's not certain.
Posted by James Jones on October 4, 2007 07:24 AMIsn't it amazing how many people in this country have blinders on? As long as the republicans and democrats keep bantering each other, nothing will ever get done. It just makes them look stupid.
Posted by Bear on October 4, 2007 07:33 AMNo Bear. We decided to invade Iraq because they had wmd's. When it was discovered the didn't have them it came the terrorist. When there was no link to terrorism it became turn the country into a democracy. It's going to be important to keep these things in order because the right, with all their moral values, will have the whole thing blamed on the democrats before its all said and done.
Posted by right-always-wrong on October 4, 2007 07:38 AMhe dumb wing they did find the wmd's in a un building in NY and the un was surprised at how they got into one of their buildings. may have happened in the eight years that nothing but words were uttered and someone looked the other way so as to not to cause any wakes on his way to destiny in the minds of morons like you.
has there been anymore attacks on US soil or any of our ships attacked or embassies hit since we went over there to talk tough?
no but look at what happened to spain, and dont forget kerrys favorite france and even england. they have all flowed the white flag of liberals and see what it got them.
now all of your anti war dumocrats are talking 2013 and even one wants to raid Pakistan for some reason.
I am 100% for this war, as long as I don't have to go and as long as they son't raise my taxes to pay for it. God Bless President Bush!!
Posted by Watching Out For #1 on October 4, 2007 08:00 AM"Big Oil, the New World Order and Zionism"
Are you a part of the white power movement? Are you from Hayden Lakes or do you just not bother to research your positions? The Protocols have been debunked numerous times, in 1993 the Russian courts even ruled as such. I guess some people just want to believe in a Jewish conspiracy.
Anon 6:56 - You misread Rich's letter, you look stupid.
James Jones- What to do:
1- Support Ron Paul for President.
2- The Rocky should INCREASE the control it execises over the letters they publish and the posting on it's web site. They already control what appears, but their minimal standards encourage deceptiion. At a minimum they could annotate false information in letters they publish.
moving to wishes-
3- leave Iraq immediately.
4- punish the military members that have been proven to be murderers (ie marines from Haditha incident, Warrant officer from Ft Carson that murdered Iraqi General, rapists/killers with Steven Green, murderer from Fallujah TV tape that executed wounded prisoner, etc)
5- have candidates at elections that offer alternatives to present course of action. In most elections, both R and D agree on all major policies.(ie- non-enforcement of immigration laws, continued deficit spending, sticking most people with increasing FICA taxes while cutting income taxes, term limts for SEnators and Congressmen, etc)
6- Change FCC rules to limit Radio and TV control to ONE broadcast station.
Do you agree with my wishes?
Posted by Dave on October 4, 2007 08:17 AMAnyone who actually believes that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction is a true unadultrated moron. You see, we were stupid enough to actually announce the date that we wer going to invade. This tactically stupid move allowed weapons to be buried, and moved into Syria. The fact that we haven't found them was just a way to get at Bush. But don't worry, I'm sure a few of them will turn up soon, most likely on U.S. soil. Even then, people will still be following their stupid party lines like imbiciles. WAKE UP AMERICA!
Posted by Vet on October 4, 2007 08:40 AMSo Vet, the Iraqi's did all of this burying and moving of WMD's and we just sat and watched? We have the most sophisticated reconnaissance systems in the world. I don't believe your fantasy for a second. I suspect that you're still beating the drums of the idea that WMD's were a major reason for invading when, it appears, Saddam used up the WMD's, which the U.S. gave him to fight Iran, on the Kurds.
Posted by Stan B on October 4, 2007 09:10 AMI've lost all respect for the GOP
Posted by No longer a Republican on October 4, 2007 09:14 AMVet, speaking of imbiciles that follow party line you should look in the mirror before pointing fingers.
With regards to wmd's. What else can the Repubilcans say other than they were moved or buried. The fact of the matter was they had reports that there were no wmd's and reports there were wmd's. Bush chose to believe the latter and to date, until they are found, he chose wrong.
Posted by right-always-wrong on October 4, 2007 09:19 AM"We have the most sophisticated reconnaissance systems in the world." And yet, Bin Laden is still roaming about 6 years later? Not quite the "Eye of God" in the sky that you portray. Second, Vet is quite correct about Iraq having WMD's, you see, we gave them to Iraq. You can fit enough lethal doses into a canteen to be able to wipe out a small city, not exactly that hard to hide, especially when you consider that the DEA only finds about 5% of the drugs(which are typically high density, as in, easy to hide) that are brought into the US each about. But I guess if you want to believe in an omnipotent government security blanket, that's your thing. None of this is to lend support to the war in Iraq, it was a tremendous socialist mistake, as most are, but if you're going to rip someone, you might as well be logical about it. So right-always-wrong, when a huge shipment of coke is brought over the Mexican border but the drug police lose track of it, it ceases to exist because it can't be found? We were the dealers, we know that Iraq received our weapons, there has yet to be substantial evidence found by weapons inspectors that ALL of the weapons were destroyed, but you seem to be arguing that anything that wasn't destroyed vanished into thin air because we don't know where it is. Great thinking.
Posted by on October 4, 2007 09:38 AM9:38,
I don't think anyone claimed that WMD's vanished into thin air. They were used by Hussein on his own people. Since we now know that Hussein had no nuclear weapons, much less a way to process or deliver them, then the WMD's were likley nerve gases, which deteriorate (expire) in a relatively short time. That's why we can't find WMD's in Iraq.
Posted by Stan B on October 4, 2007 09:54 AMActually Stan, you might want to look up the Riegle report which documented that the United States supplied anthrax spores to Iraq, which stay viable as an infectious agent for long periods of time. They also happen to be compact and easy to hide, but go ahead and keep believing that the only explanation is that the weapons are gone and that great government man in the sky is watching out for you, maybe you could write a Neo-Bible about it.
Posted by on October 4, 2007 10:02 AM09:38
Right, and when the military uncovered a cache of Ak47's one of the Republican congressmen or senators tried to pass those off a wmd's.
When the idea of wmd's was introduced to the american people they were in the form of missle's (possibly carrying chemicals in a canteen) that could reach the United States. It would only be a matter of time if I recall correctly. Those would have been a lot harder to hide or move without being detected.
Posted by right-always-wrong on October 4, 2007 10:12 AMrich,you liberal idiot.Find out the facts before you write.Just think if the idiots didn't vote in clinton in we would of not be having to fight Al Qaeda now.
Posted by Keith on October 4, 2007 10:14 AMO.K. 10:02, are you saying that Hussein was smart enough to store the spores he obtained and that our military didn't realize that if he were smart enough, he could keep them to use against us? Why, pray tell, didn't he use them when he had the chance with months of warning? See, it doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Stan B on October 4, 2007 10:36 AM"Right, and when the military uncovered a cache of Ak47's one of the Republican congressmen or senators tried to pass those off a wmd's.
When the idea of wmd's was introduced to the american people they were in the form of missle's (possibly carrying chemicals in a canteen) that could reach the United States. It would only be a matter of time if I recall correctly. Those would have been a lot harder to hide or move without being detected."
Is there a point hidden somewhere in there? It is messed up that a politician would try and pass off Ak's as wmds, but given that you didn't provide a name, I'm gonna wait until you do before I buy that little factoid(come on, there aren't that many representatives/senators). As for the second paragraph, so what. It certainly would be a lot harder to hide missiles, but where are you going with this? Are you trying to imply that the only means of deploying those weapons are ICBMs? Clearly it isn't that difficult to sneak people or noxious chemicals into the US, so a lack of Iraqi ICBMs is not a security blanket. What is your point(if there is one)?
Posted by on October 4, 2007 10:41 AMStan, you are a real jackass. Once again you make the assumption that your explanation is the only explanation. I'm sure that the military had plans regarding the potential use of the weapons we supplied Iraq with against our soldiers. You act like the fact that just because they had the weapons means that they had some obligation to use them. Maybe the top guys in Saddam's government realized that by using bioweapons they would be opening the door to a whole different kind of assault, the kind that would kill massive numbers of Iraqis and Americans. I know that it is popular to imagine that all these folks were heartless monsters( a lot of them certainly had the monster part down), but I also imagine that some of them had a desire to keep their loved ones alive, a much more likely outcome in a war without the US deploying its own wmds. Your logic is so faulty it's hard to know where to begin, so I'll leave you with a question. Pray tell. why didn't the USSR use their weapons at the end, when they had months/years of foreknowledge that their little socialist experiment/war was coming to a crashing halt? Think about it before you respond.
Posted by on October 4, 2007 10:51 AMBush Lied? Tired and worn excuse.
How about faulty Intelligence reports from the Clinton CIA, which I might add was carried over by the incoming Bush Administration, provided report after report that Iraq had WMD and were pursuing Nuclear weapons. A "slam dunk" I believe was the phrase used by Tenent. Additionally the UK, French and Russian Intelligence all reported the same, thing and still stand by their reports today, yet the US backed off when it became too political.
Congress has the power to authorize and fund a war, only the President can wage war. Congress gave the authority to fund the war on terrorism.
Iraq was deemed to be a terrorist state and sponsor of terrorism. Al Gore ran on this platform during his failed attempt for President. Bubba said it, Teddy said it, Fancy Nancy and "Mr. Rogers" Harry Reid too. They all said it. They had access to the same exact Intelligence the White House had, nothing less, the same exact information. They all believed the WMD was there.
Let alone we gave the guy enough time to send the stuff to a neighboring safe country. Heck 12 years and 20+ Security Council resolutions? All the while the UN's in bed with the guy with the food for oil program to the tune of 10's of billions of dollars? There are more than enough possibilities as to where the WMDs he was believed to have had, might have gone.
I'm sure I'll be labeled a "chicken hawk" or worse by every poster here, but facts are facts. It's not as cut and dry as you all make it out to be.
Posted by on October 4, 2007 10:55 AM10:52,
I didn't have to think about your USSR senario at all. The USSR was afraid to start a world war over a country that had little strategic significance to them, just ideological.
If my logic is so faulty why haven't we, after 4.5 years, hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands and thousands of lives found any WMD's. I know, because Saddam was sneaky. He hid them so he couldn't use them to so the talk show crowd could keep on ranting and avoid the embarrassment of realizing that the excuses for going to into Iraq were baseless. Allied troops found a camoflaged foxhole where Hussein was hiding but they can't find WMD's. Maybe, just maybe, they don't exist. Is that a possibility? Think about it before you respond.
Posted by Stan B on October 4, 2007 11:32 AManon 08:05 - Three groups that benefit most from our ocupation of Iraq.
Big Oil - With the 2nd or 3rd largest PROVEN reserve of oil unable to sell oil, the price the world pays is TWICE what it would be (check oil price before Iraq invasion).
The New World Order - Iraq (with at least 12 PERMANENT American bases) becomes the unsinkable aircraft carrier with which the US controls the mideast oil. Saddam Hussein, a formerly loyal and pliable servant (remember his attack on Iran?) was publicly executed for not obeying New World Order directives. This example will go a long way to keeping would-be Nationalist leaders from serving their indigenous people.
Zionism - All Jews are NOT Zionists. Lots of Israelis reject the evils that their government perpetarates on the Non-jews. Zionists are supremacists that have stolen the future of the indigenous people of Israel/Palestine. They were aided by the British, who were supposed to be Trustees of a piece of the Ottoman Turk Empire, but instead of granting self-rule to the people that lived there, allowed 100s of thousands of ILLEGAL immigrants to flood into the place. The Brits promised self-rule to the locals in 1940, but that never happened. The Zionists used the Holocaust in Europe to advance their theft of the Israel/Palestine and are perpetrating a living hell on the enslaved Palestinians that is worse than the Holocaust. Zionism benefits by the media constantly showing Arabs and Islamic people as fanatical, suicidal and uncontrollable crazies.
Posted by Dave on October 4, 2007 12:07 PMYou know guys, I think the RMN can publish letters without fact checking them.
There are enough link sites and enough people with good memories to insure that someone will post the opposite view.
We are not children here. We all remember what the pres and vice pres said.
The flowers, the oil fields paying for the invasion, the combat over. We all know that.
If it is true that China was going to try to buy Iraq oil, negotiate with Saddam if the sanctions were lifted, then the war makes sense, at least to the Bush administration at the time.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 4, 2007 12:15 PM
Stan:
Doubt you are really open to all this, but if we are narrowed down now to "where are the WMD?" then I am glad you have accepted their existance in the first place. Best thinking I have heard - we have satellite imagry of truck convoys going into Syria during Saddam's one year warning period - Russian trucks or at least assistance - Bush, at the time was trying diplomatic things with Putin and decided not to confront the situation. Later, Bush, not being a petty politician, like everyone else! . . has not addressed his critics on that subject. But who really knows. I have faith in the Bush team. . . Any thinking person should be scared to death of the Democrat team, the way they handle these things.
Great rebuttal, Dave to the anonymous post at 8:05am. I might also add to the anonymous poster, that if the Protocols have been debunked, why are current events going exactly as specified?
Posted by on October 4, 2007 12:26 PMAnonymous 10:41
Yeah. I'll go right out and look that up for you. Since you post anonymously you have no credibility anyway so. I'll be sure to get that done for you.
If you don't get the second part let me explain that to you.
1. Bush lied
2. You Republicans have done everything you can to cover it up.
Better?
Posted by right-always-wrong on October 4, 2007 12:40 PMHey Gene...is that the same satellite imagery that Powell pimped out at the U.N. that supposedly showed trucks that were mobile bio-weapons labs, but turned out to be nothing of the sort. You can speculate all you want, but these supposed images prove nothing. I hate to think that you have faith in a team that relied on such suspect intelligence when making decisions that started a war.
Posted by Keith and Hank sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G on October 4, 2007 12:47 PMThe war would have been over a long time ago if it wasn't for the Democrats and their media friends.When the terrorists were losing the Democrats would speak out to tell the terrorists not to quit that they are winning.They would tell the terrorists their cause is just because "Bush lied".They would tell he terrorists that our soldiers are torturing their terrorists fighters ,to anger them so they would keep fighting.Where Bush made his mistake is he underestimated how much the Democrats hate this country and how hard they would fight to help the terrorists kill or soldiers.
Posted by An American on October 4, 2007 12:53 PMI missed Keith's earlier post...he crawls out from under his rock to hurl a bunch of babble. As usual...nothing but insults and nothing resembling fact in his post as well.
Posted by Keith and Hank sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G on October 4, 2007 12:58 PMEveryone knows that Democrats, not Republicans, started the occupation and Bush told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Check.
Posted by Stan B on October 4, 2007 01:00 PMAn American must be smoking crack if he thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with his lunatic, narrow view (those he calls liberals or Dems) actually fights to help terrorists kill our soldies This screed is nothing more that parroted drivel from Rush "Ass Pimple Deferment" Limbaugh's show. What this loser won't put in his post is that the majority of people in this country want this war to end at some point., times ranging from immediately to a year or two from now. So, using his twisted logic, I guess a majority of Americans are terrosist sympathizers and traitors. Funny how a letter like this brings out all the koolaid swillers and Rush Limbaugh-brainwashed dittoheads.
Posted by Keith and Hank sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G on October 4, 2007 01:11 PMPseudonyms are anonymous too, tool: Did you even read what your wrote? What a moron.
Posted by Posted by Pseudonyms on October 4, 2007 01:38 PMCan someone please tell me exactly when the 'party of personal responsibility' became the 'party of 1000 excuses'?
Posted by flimflam on October 4, 2007 01:41 PM"I didn't have to think about your USSR senario at all. The USSR was afraid to start a world war over a country that had little strategic significance to them, just ideological."
Why am I not surprised that a) you dont think before responding b) continue to hold the view that since your mind is only capable of generating of possible scenario, that is the only scenario that can exist(talk about a God complex) and c) write using words that you clearly don't know the meaning of? Did you really just type that a country which could launch thousand of nuclear missiles that would arrive within minutes and end life on earth as we know it has "little strategic importance"? Do you know what the word strategic means? Maybe you should look it up, although I doubt you will. You also clearly don't understand what a logical thought process is. If time, money, and lives are all that are required to find that which is hidden, then why do we still have a drug war going on, one which doesn't find more than a small fraction of the drugs coming into the country? We have spent infinitely more money, time, and lives on that, so I guess you would argue that "is it a possibility" that the drugs we are searching for don't exist, that the DEA is just making them up to justify its own existence? I certainly concede that those WMDs may not exist anymore, but I like to apply Occam's razor to situations like this. The reason that those weapons would no longer exist would be their destruction by the Hussein government of Iraq, so let's look at the two possibilities we've been discussing. Scenario 1: Saddam Hussein was actually busy destroying those weapons during the time he wouldn't allow weapons inspectors in the country, and he wouldn't allow verification of this because he really preferred being embargoed to engaging in trade which he could use to line his own pockets as the government spent tax money. He later wouldn't allow verification of this by the UN because he really just wanted the US to come in and f*ck the country up, depose him, and ultimately let him die by mob hanging Scenario 2: Saddam was busy spending the time when there were no inspectors to move and conceal the weapons, because destroying them would weaken his power base and hiding them as a trump card would preserve the power generated by the threat of their use. He then failed to use them in the war because by not using them he was able to portray the US as the big bully aggressor whereas had he used them the rest of the world would have been far more likely to jump on the Allied Forces bandwagon and not view the US as a pariah nation. These are just two possibilities, I'm sure there are a lot more, I just want to illustrate that things aren't always as cut and dried as you seem to think they are, sorry, as you feel they are.
Posted by on October 4, 2007 01:41 PMKeith wrote: "if the idiots didn't vote in clinton in we would of not be having to fight Al Qaeda now."
Yup, Clinton distroyed our military. And his wife wants to do the same and raise our taxes along with it.
Posted by Yup on October 4, 2007 01:44 PMright-always-wrong:
"Yeah. I'll go right out and look that up for you. Since you post anonymously you have no credibility anyway so. I'll be sure to get that done for you."
you post with a pseudonym. Discounting someone for posting anonymously?
Posted by dragon mouth on October 4, 2007 02:30 PM1:16 beat me to it and so did this guy:
"Pseudonyms are anonymous too, tool: Did you even read what your wrote? What a moron."
a great benefit to everyone. Thank you Pseudonyms
Posted by too-many-balls on October 4, 2007 02:37 PMblaming clinton for al queda?
childrens do learn
Posted by narp on October 4, 2007 02:41 PMmost common comments on RMN editorials:
1. "Do you even know what you wrote?"
2. "Drink(ing) the koolaid."
3. "Bush lied."
4. "Maybe you should look that up."
5. "Democrats and their (...)."
6. "Right wing (...)!"
"I didn't have to think about your USSR senario at all."
because you don't feel like it?
"The USSR was afraid to start a world war over a country that had little strategic significance to them, just ideological."
you make me laugh stan b... Your understanding of the world you live in is so limited. Is this how the whole country is?
I understand that this is casual but at least take a second and reflect on what you write before you click the post button... I believe that is what the preview button is for.
Posted by harry knutes on October 4, 2007 02:57 PM1:41,
The word strategic was used exactly as intended. Look it up and think about what I said. Furthermore the USSR was an invader, just as we are in Iraq. If I were defending myself, I would certainly use every tool at my disposal. Your use of various senarios are quite legitimate but that does not mean my scenario(s) are not. I'm just saying that, to me, the possibility or likelyhood that Hussein had WMD's at the time of the invasion does not make sense. It would have been illogical for him not use them because he had power and his nation to lose and he lost both, plus his life.
Posted by Stan B on October 4, 2007 03:15 PMBill Clinton on Obama's inexperience:
"Obama has the added difficulty that the international situation is more complicated today, with the threat of terrorism and the war in Iraq, than it was in 1992. At that time, the most pressing international issue was how to build a post-Cold War world, we didn't have the terror threat back then."
But if we take a look at history we find:
The November 1979 invasion of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the holding of hostages, who were not released until Inauguration Day 1981.Hezbollah's 1983 bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241.
The holding of American hostages, and murder of some, in Beirut throughout the 1980s.
The 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait.
The 1985 bombing of a Madrid restaurant frequented by American soldiers.
The 1985 Hezbollah hijacking of TWA flight 847 and murder of a U.S. Navy diver on board.
The 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, in which an American passenger was murdered.
The 1986 bombing of TWA flight 840, which killed four Americans.
The 1986 bombing of a disco in Berlin, which prompted a retaliatory strike on Libyan targets.
The 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270.
Clinton had been in office barely a month when terrorists first tried to destroy the World Trade Center, killing six. His term saw the following attacks on American interests overseas:
The 1995 car bombing of U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five servicemen.The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, killing 19 Americans.
The 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224.
The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, less than a month before the election of Mr. Clinton's successor, killing 17 American sailors.
Then of course came 9/11, less than eight months after Mr. Clinton left office. How can anyone, looking back in 2007, claim "we didn't have the terror threat" in 1992?
Careful KW, you don't want to let Keith know that Islamic terrorism grew unchecked and unanswered under Reagan's watch.
Posted by on October 4, 2007 04:33 PMKeith bores even me.
That's why I've been gone. And now
Others use my name.
-- a haiku from the (poetic) anti-Keith
Posted by Accept no substitutes! on October 4, 2007 05:12 PMStan, I looked up the word strategy prior to that post just to make sure I was using it properly, something I do rather frequently when I post here and not many others seem to do. Maybe you should look it up, but you won't so here it is, ty dictionary.com
strategy-1. Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations. I would love to hear your reasoning as to how the US was an insignificant consideration to them under that definition. You then say "Furthermore the USSR was an invader". Of whom? The USSR invaded a lot of countries, but not the US, which the country referred to in your "strategy" post. I agree that Saddam probably felt that he should use every tool at his disposal, but that does not mean use of all weaponry regardless of scenario. As I posted earlier, which you apparently scanned over, had Saddam used bio/chemical weapons, he would have lost the ability to use the weapon of international opinion, which is certainly a large consideration to most countries not named the USA. Furthermore, I happen to watch what our current president does, and likely so did Saddam, meaning that there was no guarantee that Bush wouldn't launch a nuke into Baghdad regardless of what the security council might have said, Bush is that kind of crazy ahole. Six months in a hole might not seem so swell to us spoiled Americans, but six months of breathing in a cramped spot is better than six months of dead. That is why I think our reasoning is faulty, and is not a reason to be so sure. As I said, it's not impossible that Iraq dismantled those weapons, but then why kick out the inspectors which could have lifted the embargo if the weapons were dismantled?
5:36,
Get your dictionary out and read the rest of the definition.
Posted by Stan B on October 5, 2007 09:52 AMNew Fox poll showes that 20% of Democrts think it would be better if the terrorists win the war.I bet these are the ones posting on the RMN page.Also I bet that number goes up to 50% in the Democrat leadership!! Point proven!!
Posted by An American on October 5, 2007 11:08 AM"An American" pays attetion to faux news? big shocker..Why dont ya quote the 700 club you schmuck!
Posted by TJ on October 5, 2007 01:04 PMAs you can see TJ is a good example of a Democrat that wants the terrorists to win the war.He really hates this country.
Posted by An American on October 5, 2007 02:43 PM