Clinton's war in Somalia cost us 31 men, and Bush's war in Iraq has cost us 2,826 men and is still counting...
Sounds like Clinton was better for our military then Bush, or do you like our troops killed?
2006-11-04 04:58:13 · 14 answers · asked by John S 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clinton tried to kill bin laden remember? But which political party claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to connect him to the embassy bombings? Take a guess...
2006-11-04 05:02:49 · update #1
Really? Bin laden said that our "running" emboldened him? And you trust bin laden? At least I know where you cons get your sources from...
Hey, you know bin laden also stated he wasn't behind 9/11 too... are you gonna take his word on that one?
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
2006-11-04 05:07:25 · update #2
Centurion: Conservative logic is well represented by your statement. You certainly are masters of debate.
2006-11-04 05:08:36 · update #3
Afterflakes: Those casualties were not American... I'm talking about soldiers. If you want to include civilians, then Bush's war in Iraq has cost us over 600,000 lives...
2006-11-04 05:23:44 · update #4
i agree with you
2006-11-04 05:00:06 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I complain about how Clinton handled the military because in Somali, he did not let the army have gun ships. He did not allow them to stay and finish the job. Bush is allowing such. Why don't I complain about Bush? I do, but not on Iraq. People always seem to ask, "What about WMD's? What about Oil?" I vomit at these questions, because (1) WMD's, if found, could not be told to the public, the military keeps their secrets, until that generation has almost all died out. (2) why are we not getting oil. The death toll in Iraq is saddening, and what is more saddening is the civilian distorted death toll that everyone believes. That death toll counts the terrorists, since they wear the same clothing.
Clinton, was not all that bad, but not better for the military, at all
2006-11-06 15:24:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton cost 31 deaths in Somalia and ran like a little stepchild. Even Bin Laden has stated that the Americans running emboldened him because he thought he could kill and cause mayhem and America would do nothing. Surprise, Bush wasn't gonna play that game homeboy!
Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden?????? LOL What are you smoking? What, because Bill said he did? He did nothing of the kind or we probably wouldn't be at war right now you Moron!
Tofu, your smoking bad crack again, clinton cut the military almost in half, he revolutionized nothing!
2006-11-04 05:00:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Terrorists have known for years that if a Democrat is President, they can do whatever we want to us and we won't retaliate.
Remember the Iranian hostages? How they were suddenly "released" the day and nearly the hour that Reagan was inaugurated? That was no coincidence. Iran knew they could keep our Americans as hostages as long as Democrat Carter was in office. They knew with Republican Reagan in office, there would be no fooling around.
And this pattern has repeated itself ever since.
Sure, Clinton was better for our military than Bush - if you think massive force reductions, miniscule pay raises, no money to replace antiquated equipment, and the resulting loss of morale was good for them. And we won't even talk about the loss of face when the USS Cole was bombed and we weren't allowed to retaliate.
No one likes to see troops killed. But unfortunately, sometimes it's part of the job and they all know that when they go in.
2006-11-05 00:23:23 · answer #4 · answered by retired military wife 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton, against the advice of all military leaders, cut the force & expanded the mission. Bush did no such thing.
We had no national interest in Somalia, we do in Iraq.
2006-11-04 05:03:32 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
a) Somalia wasn't an all out war
b) Clinton revolutionized our army, Bush would be even worse off if he weren't riding on the coattails of Clinton's reorganization techniques
c) This question isn't fair and balanced, but I'll forgive you because it's almost election day.
2006-11-04 05:02:18 · answer #6 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
you have got to be kidding? clintion made every mistake conceivable in somalia. clinton made things worse for the U.S. in matters of military. he was an absolute do nothing and idiot on foreign policy...oh, ok, he made kofi anan commander in chief of the military forces of the united states of america, the ***, and sent a clear message that the US military was shackled to the UN. he sent another clear message that we will CUT AND RUN if anyone gets killed. and we did. it took two hours for pakistan & malaysia to come to our rescue with blackhawk down with their tanks and armed vehicles while the pentagon denied the rangers this equipment when they asked for it....hmmmmm....soon after the idiot did not even know who was in command of said troops. needless to say mr, oval office cigar brought the troops home and taught the terrorists an important lesson. if you kill a few americans, they will run and hide. THANKS BILL!
oh, and dont those thousands who died during the continued violence when we left somalia count as casualties?
john s, your stupidity is mind numbing!!!!!!!
john, every life counts in and in the case of the 31 you speak of, they died because billa and his buds did not know how to operate.
2006-11-04 05:19:40 · answer #7 · answered by afterflakes 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
their argument is that if clinton would have killed laden the many times he had a chance there would be no war in iraq right now
2006-11-04 05:00:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Oh, "only 31 men"...in one day! October 3 will live with me forever.
2006-11-04 05:03:20 · answer #9 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, and Somalia is sooooo much better off today! please note sarcasm.......
Clinton was better at playing domestic politics, NOT shaping global politics.
2006-11-04 05:02:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
In Bosnia, we had ZERO deaths. We can thank Wesley Clark, another dem, for that.
2006-11-04 05:00:09 · answer #11 · answered by Cold Stone 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋