What Did You Do In The War On Terror, Daddy

[red states rule]

They keep repeating it 'cause they got nothin' else.

Libs will always try rewrite history when the facts go against them


Rep. John Murtha Urged Somalia Pullout in '93

After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.

"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, a month after 4 U.S. Military Police had been killed in Somalia by a remote-detonated land mine.

The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."
Two weeks later, after 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in the battle of Mogadishu, Murtha visited U.S. forces in Somalia.

Upon his return he proclaimed to the world that the Mogadishu defeat had a devastating impact on the Rangers' morale.

"They're subdued compared to normal morale of elite forces," Murtha said. "Obviously, it was a very difficult battle. A lot of Somalis were killed, but it was a brutal battle."

Murtha said the U.S. had to no choice but to pull out now, explaining, "There's no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."

The comments were eerily similar to Murtha's assessment of U.S involvement in Iraq last week, when he declared, "the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further militarily. It is time to bring [the troops] home."

Taking Murtha's advice back then, however, turned out to have deadly consequences for U.S. security.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/21/100353.shtml

 

[musicman]

That's just recycled propaganda from Vietnam.

Ah, yes - Vietnam - another small, but strategic battle in a larger war we HAD to win (and did, no thanks to the American left). Another shameful example of the Democrat Party, and its lapdogs in academia and the fourth estate, dragging at America's heels in a naked quest for power that cared nothing for American security, interests, or lives. Yeah - I remember Vietnam.

Lyndon Johnson said we were "fighting Communists there so we wouldn't have to fight them on our own soil"....he was wrong of course.

The Communists never followed us home to California.

Emboldened by Vietnam, they got a hell of a lot closer than revisionist historians would have you believe. And John Kerry & friends struggled heroically to give the Soviet Union a free hand in the Western Hemisphere - violating the constitutional separation of powers by meeting with Ortega - sympathetically presenting his "proposal" (basically, a call for the opposition to surrender) to Congress - trying, as it were, to SET U.S. foreign policy - and tying the Executive branch's hands with the unconstitutional Boland Amendments. The only thing that halted Soviet expansionism into Central America was a clear-eyed, stout-hearted Chief Executive named Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The American left have been on the wrong side of every national security issue since the advent of the Cold War, and their stance on this small, strategic battle in a larger war we must win should come as a surprise to no one.

Why do you think this recycled claim would be true now if it wasn't then?

It was true then, and it is true now.

 

[red states rule]

When facts go againt them. libs will rewrite them to fit thier current aganda

 

[Bullypulpit]

When facts go againt them. libs will rewrite them to fit thier current aganda

Let's review the facts, and the historical revisionism of the Republicans.

<blockquote>I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option. - Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, 10/06/1993</blockquote>

<blockquote>Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home. - Republican Senator Dirk Kempthorne, 10/06 1993</blockquote>

<blockquote>I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . . - Republican Senator Bob Dole, 10/05/1993</blockquote>

<blockquote> All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now. - Republican Senator Jesse Helms, 10/06/1993</blockquote>

Republican senators sought to force an immediate withdrawal from Somalia, but finally accepted a compulsory six month time-line for withdrawal. Contrary to the propaganda from the right-wing noise machine, Bill Clinton vigorously fought to keep our troops in Somalia, not wanting to pull out at the first signs of trouble, which would make the US seem weak and panicked. Ironically, that's just what Reagan did in the face of the attack on the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.

<blockquote>And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . .

If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . .

So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: "Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution." . . .

So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right. -President Bill Clinton, 10/08/1993</blockquote>

The only re-writing of history here is what the GOP spin machine has done and right wing-nut lick-spittles, such as yourself, greedily lap up and regurgitate with feckless abandon. All the while, the GOP spin-meisters and their slavish lackeys, such as yourself, seem to forget that there are public records and recordings of Congressional proceedings which show their propaganda for the falsehood it truly is.

The public record DOES NOT support your assertion. That you continue to cling to said assertion reminds me of nothing more than the magical thinking common to children. Just keep wishing hard enough, and it will be so. Or, more sinister, Joseph Goebbels' "Big Lie". Goebbels said, of the English, "They(<i>sic</i> The English)...follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." The same can be said of the Republicans and their noisy, vacuous, fatuous supporters today. Game, set, match. You lose. Dismissed.

 

[Gunny]

That's just recycled propaganda from Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson said we were "fighting Communists there so we wouldn't have to fight them on our own soil"....he was wrong of course.

The Communists never followed us home to California.

Why do you think this recycled claim would be true now if it wasn't then?

Communism did seek expansion through aggression, just as militant Islam does now. Unlike the commies, we WERE attacked on our own soil by Islamofascists.

 

[Gunny]

Let's review the facts, and the historical revisionism of the Republicans.

<blockquote>I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option. - Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, 10/06/1993</blockquote>

<blockquote>Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home. - Republican Senator Dirk Kempthorne, 10/06 1993</blockquote>

<blockquote>I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . . - Republican Senator Bob Dole, 10/05/1993</blockquote>

<blockquote> All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now. - Republican Senator Jesse Helms, 10/06/1993</blockquote>

Republican senators sought to force an immediate withdrawal from Somalia, but finally accepted a compulsory six month time-line for withdrawal. Contrary to the propaganda from the right-wing noise machine, Bill Clinton vigorously fought to keep our troops in Somalia, not wanting to pull out at the first signs of trouble, which would make the US seem weak and panicked. Ironically, that's just what Reagan did in the face of the attack on the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.

<blockquote>And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . .

If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . .

So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: "Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution." . . .

So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right. -President Bill Clinton, 10/08/1993</blockquote>

The only re-writing of history here is what the GOP spin machine has done and right wing-nut lick-spittles, such as yourself, greedily lap up and regurgitate with feckless abandon. All the while, the GOP spin-meisters and their slavish lackeys, such as yourself, seem to forget that there are public records and recordings of Congressional proceedings which show their propaganda for the falsehood it truly is.

The public record DOES NOT support your assertion. That you continue to cling to said assertion reminds me of nothing more than the magical thinking common to children. Just keep wishing hard enough, and it will be so. Or, more sinister, Joseph Goebbels' "Big Lie". Goebbels said, of the English, "They(<i>sic</i> The English)...follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." The same can be said of the Republicans and their noisy, vacuous, fatuous supporters today. Game, set, match. You lose. Dismissed.

SO do I understand correctly your point is that most people with a mind supported leaving Somalia since our mission was humanitarian and not military to begin with?

If so, I'm not seeing what the point is of making it. We were there to feed them and provide some medical care. They wanted to shoot at us, so we left.

 

[musicman]

I'm not being the least bit coy or facetious here, Bully - I'd really like to know: have U.S. troops ever been put in harm's way WHILE UNDER U.N. COMMAND - other than in Somalia? Because that little detail puts the calls for withdrawal in a somewhat different context, I think.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not being the least bit coy or facetious here, Bully - I'd really like to know: have U.S. troops ever been put in harm's way WHILE UNDER U.N. COMMAND - other than in Somalia? Because that little detail puts the calls for withdrawal in a somewhat different context, I think.

Korea. Bosnia.

However, you DO have to take into account the scope of UN involvement. We bascially were the UN force in Korea. In Bosnia, we were part of a peacekeeping effort.

Somalia was a humanitarian effort.

 

[musicman]

Korea. Bosnia.

However, you DO have to take into account the scope of UN involvement. We bascially were the UN force in Korea. In Bosnia, we were part of a peacekeeping effort.

Somalia was a humanitarian effort.

But, were U.S. troops under the command of the U.N. - not the U.S. - in Korea? As in, obeying the orders of the Secretary General, and not the President? I can hardly believe that. This seemed to be Sen. Helms' principal objection to the situation in Somalia.

 

[Gunny]

But, were U.S. troops under the command of the U.N. - not the U.S. - in Korea? As in, obeying the orders of the Secretary General, and not the President? I can hardly believe that. This seemed to be Sen. Helms' principal objection to the situation in Somalia.

US troops were under the command of Truman.

IMO, Sen Helms had a legit beef. It is my opinion US troops should not be placed under UN command unless they are ALL volunteers for the duty. I didn't sign up to wear a baby-blue helmet and fight for the inept, one world order.

I'm sure Sen Helm's bitch was more aimed at the fact that European commanders are generally more conservative and reserved that US commanders, and might not make the same decisions US commanders would.

 

[musicman]

US troops were under the command of Truman.

IMO, Sen Helms had a legit beef. It is my opinion US troops should not be placed under UN command unless they are ALL volunteers for the duty. I didn't sign up to wear a baby-blue helmet and fight for the inept, one world order.

I'm hip - and I'm not surprised that this state of affairs came about on Clinton's watch. It was either careless or disingenuous of Bully to represent calls for withdrawal from Somalia in any other context but this. Maybe he thinks we're all napping.

 

[Gunny]

I'm hip - and I'm not surprised that this state of affairs came about on Clinton's watch. It was either careless or disingenuous of Bully to represent calls for withdrawal from Somalia in any other context but this. Maybe he thinks we're all napping.

I'm not sure I understand. In what context do you think Bully represented the calls for withdrawal?

Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

[musicman]

I'm not sure I understand. In what context do you think Bully represented the calls for withdrawal?

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Juging by context, I perceive that Bully would like to portray Republicans - critical of Democrat "surrender legislation" - as hypocrites. "See - Republicans did it, too", he seems to gloat - while conveniently omitting one or two pretty darned important differences in regard to the mission in Somalia.

 

[Gunny]

Juging by context, I perceive that Bully would like to portray Republicans - critical of Democrat "surrender legislation" - as hypocrites. "See - Republicans did it, too", he seems to gloat - while conveniently omitting one or two pretty darned important differences in regard to the mission in Somalia.

My perception was that Bully was pointing to those who blame Clinton for the US leaving Somalia when at the time, quite a few Republicans supported leaving.

In that regard, which is how I perceived it, I can see his point.

As far as "surrender legislation" goes, I'm critical of anyone who is stupid enough to post the dates their army is abandoning the field, even if that's what they decide to do.

 

[musicman]

My perception was that Bully was pointing to those who blame Clinton for the US leaving Somalia when at the time, quite a few Republicans supported leaving.

In that regard, which is how I perceived it, I can see his point.

I gotcha. But, I think some of the Republicans who supported leaving were operating in a context something like this:


The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C., 20500
October 25, 1993

President Clinton:

As a warrior who was disabled in the Vietnam War and as a father of a warrior killed in action in Somalia, I cannot accept your letter of condolence for the death of my son Ranger Corporal James E. Smith. To accept your letter would be contrary to all the beliefs I, my son and the Rangers hold so dear, including: loyalty, courage and tenacity. During the battle for Anzio, in World War II, an inept indecisive field commander sent the Rangers into battle where they were slaughtered. Fifty years later the Rangers again were ordered into battle, where they were surrounded and outgunned. But this time is was not the fault of the field commanders. No -- this time it was the fault of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. Your failure to provide the requested combat support reveals a lack of loyalty to the troops under your command and an extreme shortage of moral courage.

I had the honor to meet the Rangers who fought along side my son and were with Jamie when he died. I heard of magnificent acts of courage and sacrifice. I had Rangers, with tears in their eyes, apologize for letting my son die or their failure to break through and rescue the trapped Rangers. The failure is not theirs, it is yours. Trucks and Humvees cannot replace the requested tanks, armored personnel carriers and Spectre gunships.

As a combat veteran I know that there are no certainties on the battlefield; however, as an Infantry Officer I will always speculate that significantly less casualties would have resulted if you, as Commander in Chief, provided the Rangers with the requested combat support -- equipment with which Rangers routinely train and for which approval should have been automatic. The Rangers were pinned down for twelve hours -- long hours when the Rangers were fighting for their lives and a Delta Force medic fought to save my son. Jamie bled to death because the requested armor support was not there to break through to the Rangers. Rangers pride themselves on the Ranger Creed. "Driving on to the Ranger objective", or "Surrender is not a Ranger word" are not hollow phrases to the men of the black beret. These soldiers understand the word tenacious and wanted to complete their mission. As Ranger after Ranger told me, they were hitting Aidid's forces and command structure hard. But, the United Nations was actually impeding Ranger missions by offering sanctuary to Aidid's supporters. Your willingness to allow this dangerous situation demonstrates a lack of resolve in supporting the men you sent into battle.

My son is no longer here to "Lead the Way"; however, I am.

Until you as President and Commander in Chief are either willing or able to formulate a clear foreign policy, establish specific objectives and, most important, support the men and women in uniform, I will "Lead the Way" in insuring that you no longer send America's finest to a needless death. When you are capable of meeting these criteria, then I will accept you letter of condolence.

Sincerely,

(signature)
James H. Smith
Captain/Infantry (Retired)

www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ad1e70d77b3.htm

I just think that bears clarification any time the matter of Clintonian foreign policy comes up. If you're not going to do it right...

As far as "surrender legislation" goes, I'm critical of anyone who is stupid enough to post the dates their army is abandoning the field, even if that's what they decide to do.

Agreed!

 

[Bullypulpit]

I gotcha. But, I think some of the Republicans who supported leaving were operating in a context something like this:


The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C., 20500
October 25, 1993

President Clinton:

As a warrior who was disabled in the Vietnam War and as a father of a warrior killed in action in Somalia, I cannot accept your letter of condolence for the death of my son Ranger Corporal James E. Smith. To accept your letter would be contrary to all the beliefs I, my son and the Rangers hold so dear, including: loyalty, courage and tenacity. During the battle for Anzio, in World War II, an inept indecisive field commander sent the Rangers into battle where they were slaughtered. Fifty years later the Rangers again were ordered into battle, where they were surrounded and outgunned. But this time is was not the fault of the field commanders. No -- this time it was the fault of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. Your failure to provide the requested combat support reveals a lack of loyalty to the troops under your command and an extreme shortage of moral courage.

I had the honor to meet the Rangers who fought along side my son and were with Jamie when he died. I heard of magnificent acts of courage and sacrifice. I had Rangers, with tears in their eyes, apologize for letting my son die or their failure to break through and rescue the trapped Rangers. The failure is not theirs, it is yours. Trucks and Humvees cannot replace the requested tanks, armored personnel carriers and Spectre gunships.

As a combat veteran I know that there are no certainties on the battlefield; however, as an Infantry Officer I will always speculate that significantly less casualties would have resulted if you, as Commander in Chief, provided the Rangers with the requested combat support -- equipment with which Rangers routinely train and for which approval should have been automatic. The Rangers were pinned down for twelve hours -- long hours when the Rangers were fighting for their lives and a Delta Force medic fought to save my son. Jamie bled to death because the requested armor support was not there to break through to the Rangers. Rangers pride themselves on the Ranger Creed. "Driving on to the Ranger objective", or "Surrender is not a Ranger word" are not hollow phrases to the men of the black beret. These soldiers understand the word tenacious and wanted to complete their mission. As Ranger after Ranger told me, they were hitting Aidid's forces and command structure hard. But, the United Nations was actually impeding Ranger missions by offering sanctuary to Aidid's supporters. Your willingness to allow this dangerous situation demonstrates a lack of resolve in supporting the men you sent into battle.

My son is no longer here to "Lead the Way"; however, I am.

Until you as President and Commander in Chief are either willing or able to formulate a clear foreign policy, establish specific objectives and, most important, support the men and women in uniform, I will "Lead the Way" in insuring that you no longer send America's finest to a needless death. When you are capable of meeting these criteria, then I will accept you letter of condolence.

Sincerely,

(signature)
James H. Smith
Captain/Infantry (Retired)

www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ad1e70d77b3.htm

I just think that bears clarification any time the matter of Clintonian foreign policy comes up. If you're not going to do it right...



Agreed!

Suspicious as I am of anything sourced from freepers, one need but change a few words and names around in the above letter, and it would apply equally well to the Bush administration's policies regarding Iraq. In trying to wage war on the cheap...By ignoring commanders who stated we needed two to three times the number of troops than were sent in...By hiring civilian administrators in Iraq based on loyalty to party and president rather than competence...The Bush administration laid the foundations for the quagmire we now see I Iraq. The onus for this lies with none other than President Bush and his administration.

<blockquote>President Bush,

Until you as President and Commander in Chief are either willing or able to formulate a clear foreign policy, establish specific objectives and, most important, support the men and women in uniform, I will be among those working to ensure that you no longer send America's finest to a needless death. When you are capable of meeting these criteria, I may then accept your qualifications as Commander in Chief. But I won't be holding my breath. - Bullypulpit</blockquote>

 

[Bullypulpit]

Juging by context, I perceive that Bully would like to portray Republicans - critical of Democrat "surrender legislation" - as hypocrites. "See - Republicans did it, too", he seems to gloat - while conveniently omitting one or two pretty darned important differences in regard to the mission in Somalia.

No, not gloating, never at the expense of human lives which this Administration so recklessly and fecklessly sends into the meat-grinder that is Iraq...A meat-grinder of their own creation. The responsibility for the quagmire of Iraq falls squarely upon him, as the Commander-in-Chief who sent our troops into that beleaguered country.

As for GOP hypocrisy, well by its fruits ye shall know it.

 

[red states rule]

Libs continue to try and rewrite history

Clinton pulled troops out of Somalia after 18 were murdered

He refused to send them help when they asked for it, and they were killed

 

[musicman]

No, not gloating, never at the expense of human lives which this Administration so recklessly and fecklessly sends into the meat-grinder that is Iraq...A meat-grinder of their own creation. The responsibility for the quagmire of Iraq falls squarely upon him, as the Commander-in-Chief who sent our troops into that beleaguered country.

As for GOP hypocrisy, well by its fruits ye shall know it.

Bully, you are blinded by hate. Afford that outraged, grieving father the courtesy of a re-read...

"As Ranger after Ranger told me, they were hitting Aidid's forces and command structure hard. But, the United Nations was actually impeding Ranger missions by offering sanctuary to Aidid's supporters. Your willingness to allow this dangerous situation demonstrates a lack of resolve in supporting the men you sent into battle."

...and then explain to me how you can possibly equate George Bush's strategic battle in a larger war we MUST WIN - with the unconscionable, uncaring actions of that unspeakable prick, Bill Clinton.

 

[red states rule]

At least Murtha is consistent.

He told Clinton to surrender in Somalia


MURTHA: The thing that disturbed me and worries me about this whole thing is we can't get them to change direction. And I said over and over in debate, if you listen to any of it, in Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia President Clinton changed direction, and yet here, with the troops out there every day, suffering from these explosive devices, and being looked at as occupiers — 80 percent of the people want us out of there — and yet they continue to say, "We're fighting this thing." We're not fighting this. The troops are fighting this thing. That's who's doing the fighting.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/murtha_we_should_change_directions_in_iraq_like_cl/