Somalia?
While Bill Clinton is certainly guilty of mishandling Somalia, unlike George W. Bush with Iraq, at least when he screwed up there he decided to leave before he made a bigger mess.
2007-08-26
13:53:51
·
14 answers
·
asked by
ThatOneDude
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Yes, I'm aware that Bush Sr. sent the troops into Somalia, but Clinton kept it going. The Black Hawk Down incident occured in October of 1993. Clinton had been in office for nine months and could have pulled the troops out.
2007-08-26
14:04:39 ·
update #1
Lancelot, the Iraq War has NOTHING to do with Clinton. It was Bush's war. It was not about 9/11 or terrorism. It was about lies and greed.
2007-08-26
14:06:39 ·
update #2
slappj, WRONG, Bush had almost the entire country's support as well as the Democrat's support on the Afghan War.
2007-08-26
14:11:43 ·
update #3
dez, WRONG, Clinton responded to the embassy bombings with Operation Infinite Reach, missile strikes on Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and Sudan.
You know what the Republican response was? They accused him of just trying to distract the public from the Lewinsky scandal.
2007-08-26
14:13:09 ·
update #4
canctu, you're addressng the wrong issue in my question.
2007-08-26
14:22:09 ·
update #5
ZERO
2007-08-26 13:58:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
You don't have to worry about any democrat starting anything, not one of them would defend the USA. YOu might not like the answer but it's true.
Gore would never have taken the fight to Afghanistan but he would have done a great deal of tough talking and then deferred to the United Nations.
We would certainly have already had another 911, if a Gore or Kerry, type liberal was in the WH.
Oh yeah, Bush made a mistake invading Iraq; so that gives socialism and liberals vindication and credibility? Hah!
Liberals opposed anything Bush did, good or bad & got lucky with Iraq. Socialists and socialism is still and will always be a haven for cowards, dreamers and traitors.
2007-08-26 21:07:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
WMD- In 2002, CIA director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) was asked by Mr. Bush point blank about Saddam's WMD. Mr. Tenet replied that it was a "slam-dunk". Now, if you are the President, and the director of the CIA tells you WMD exist and you do not act on it, what in God's name would happen to your credibility when Iraq levels Chicago with a nuclear weapon? Sorry, but if anyone is the blame for this invasion, blame Bill Clinton and his administration, they all claimed Bin had them and intended on using them. Or was this a set up against Bush, to open the door for another Clinton to get in and finish off the US.
2007-08-26 21:16:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by lilly4 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your assumption is that Iraq is screwed up. The biggest screw up is the fact that the News media does not report any GOOD news from Iraq. The History of Iraq did NOT start the day we invaded it, but for centuries before..
Also, IF Clinton HAD done something about Bin Laden, then maybe there would not have Been a 9/11 and NO wars.
Remember, History did NOT start the day you was born. Only your concept of History. Study
2007-08-26 21:02:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by lancelot682005 5
·
7⤊
0⤋
You're right. Clinton didn't take any offensive action against Osama bin Laden. But I wouldn't say that's something to be proud of. It enabled 9/11, which wasn't a quagmire, but which some people might say was still bad.
And Iraq isn't an unwinnable quagmire.
2007-08-26 23:50:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Somalia was Clintons Fault?
Really!!
George H W Bush put troops into Somalia on December 10, 1992, almost a month after Clinton became President-Elect, but before he was sworn in!
George Bush never bothered to tell President Elect Clinton that he was doing it, or even ask his advice!
"Black Hawk Down" is one instance and the transpired:
These were the same questions that Clinton was asking his aides. Until this raid, Clinton had been briefed on missions in advance. This one had been mounted so quickly he had not been informed. He complained bitterly to Lake. He felt he had been blindsided, and he was angry. He wanted answers to a broad range of questions from policy to military tactics.
At the breakfast table in the East Wing on Oct. 6 were Lake and his deputy, Samuel R. Berger, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine K. Albright. Then they walked with Oakley into the Oval Office, where they joined the President, the vice president, Christopher, Aspin, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and several advisers.
The meeting lasted six hours. The thrust of the discussion was: What do we do now? An American soldier's body had been dragged through the streets by jeering Somalis. Eighteen soldiers were dead and 73 wounded. Hundreds of Somalis were dead. Durant was being held captive. The public was outraged, and Congress was demanding withdrawal.
Staying in Mogadishu to pursue Aidid was out of the question, even though retired Adm. Jonathan Howe, head of the U.N. effort there, and Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, commander of Task Force Ranger, thought Aidid had been struck a mortal blow, and that it wouldn't take much to finish the job. Intelligence reports were that Aidid supporters were fleeing the city, their arsenals of rocket-propelled grenades expended. Others were sending peace feelers, offering to dump Aidid. But it was clear that America had lost its stomach for anything further in Somalia.
The meeting ended with a decision: America was pulling out. Task Force Ranger, reinforced to make a show of military resolve, would stay on - but would make a dignified withdrawal by March 1994. All efforts to capture Aidid would be called off.
Oakley was dispatched to Mogadishu to deliver this message and to try to secure the release of Durant.
There would be no negotiating with Aidid. Oakley was instructed to deliver a stern message: The President of the United States wanted the pilot released. Now.
Durant was released!
Actually Clinton didn't leave for a month after that! And please remember who put the troops in. It was not Clinton!
If you want to read a mission that Clinton was Responsible for, read about Operation Desert Fox, a 4 day attack on Iraq, wiping out 54 military targets the first night. Not one person was lost!
And don't even try and compare Bush and Clinton! Bush is intellectually challenged!
Well Bush was president 9 months before 9/11 and ignored all the warnings and then attacked a nation that had nothing to do with it. And Clinton didn't send the troops to Iraq!
Clinton was not told of the attack and 17 men were killed. Compare that to 4, 025 brought home in body bags from Iraq. Five (5) more killed yesterday and Iraq is just starting a new day. How many more dead by the time you get up?
Lilly, that is not what Tenet is saying in his book! You rewriting history, and npo one EVER linked Saddam with 9/11 or terrorist other than the Administration.
Listen to POWELL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBA9JD5oW4&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs&mode=related&search=
2007-08-26 21:16:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Still trying to figure out what the hell i was doing in Bosnia????
Still trying to figure out why Clinton did nothing in 96 when Khobar Towers killed 19 Airman and wounded 300
Still trying to figure out why Clinton did nothing in 98, when 2 U.S. Embassy's were bombed wounding 5,000
Still trying to figure out why Clinton did nothing in 2000 when terrorists blow a hole in the U.S.S. Cole.
EDIT///////////////////////////Was that before or after the WhiteWater scandal or before or after Gen Flowers scandal or before or after the Prejure Charges, or before or After getting his law licensed ripped away by the courts a FIRST for a U.S. President, was that before or after he and HIS OLD LADY were busted for charging there Liberal friends money to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, Was that before or After he Pardoned all his Croonies from the WhiteWater scandal??? Dude there are so many scandal in 8 years I lose count.
That Air Strike was a easy way out, Taliban should have been taken out then, since they commited an act of war!!!!!!!!!!
2007-08-26 21:08:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by dez604 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
In defense of BJ Clinton he did not start Somalia Bush Sr did. He did screw up being there however and then he did start military actions in Bosnia that continue to this day. BJ Clinton used our military in a variety of places during his 8 years, and its too bad he didn't use them to pursue al queda - even once.
2007-08-26 20:59:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by netjr 6
·
4⤊
1⤋
As much as I hate Bush, I have to include that Clinton didn't have to respond to 9/11
Imagine if he did nothing and we got attacked again. He'd be known as the president who did nothing and got us attacked.. not a pretty title
2007-08-26 20:58:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
You neglected to point out that it was Bush 41 who sent our troops into Somalia. If a dem wins the white house in 2008 and we're still in Iraq it will be the second time in 15 years that a dem has inherited a foreign policy debacle from a president named Bush.
2007-08-26 21:01:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
5⤋
unwinnable quagmires? Have you been smokin' dope while watchin' CNN?
No matter the reasons we went into Iraq, to leave now would be a deep act of betrayal.
2007-08-26 21:12:43
·
answer #11
·
answered by Conor H 2
·
0⤊
1⤋