What about these "irresponsible" Republicans who drafted resolutions opposing Clinton's attempt to extend the US mission in Somalia by 6 more months?:
Sen. John McCain - October 19,1993
There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.
Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.
I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.
Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .
I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.
I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.
We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.
I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible.
Sen Strom Thurmond (R-SC) - October 5, 1993
It is past time for the Congress to come to grips with this sorry spectacle and force the administration to find a way out of the quagmire.
Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), October 7
The President's decision to extend our presence for 6 more months is totally unacceptable to me and totally unacceptable, I believe, to the Congress.
If the people of Texas--who are calling my phones every moment, who are sending me letters and telegrams by the hour--are representative of the will of the American people, the American people do not believe that we should allow Americans to be targets in Somalia for 6 more months. I cannot see anything that we would achieve in 6 more months in Somalia
Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID), October 5
Mr. President, it is time for our troops to come home. I would give this directive to the military leadership and that is that they are to use whatever means they determine necessary to secure the release of American POW's in Somalia, because to leave them behind would be to issue adeath sentence to those Americans, and that is absolutely unacceptable.
But, Mr. President, the longer we leave United States troops in Somalia under U.N. command, the longer we leave United States troops in unjustified danger. I owe my allegiance to the United States, not to the United Nations. 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.
Sen. Slade Gorton, October 6,1993 (R-WA)
We are in a disaster, Mr. President. If we had retreated earlier, we would have left fewer dead Americans behind. It is time to retreat now and leave no more dead Americans behind and to learn the lesson that American power should be used only where we have a clear stake in a conflict, a clear goal to be achieved, the clear means to reach that goal, and the potential of clear support on the part of the American people.
As none of those exist in Somalia today, it is time to leave. And for this body, it is time to debate this issue and not the nomination of an Assistant Attorney General.
Sen. Jesse Helms - October 6, 1993 (R-NC)
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. We can take care of that criminal warlord over there. We have the means to do it and the capacity to do it. But it ought to be done by the United Nations. I do not want to play in any more U.N. games. I do not want any more of our people under the thumb of any U.N. commander--none.
As a matter of fact, while we are at it, it is high time we reviewed the War Powers Act, which, in the judgment of this Senator, should never have been passed in the first place. The sole constitutional authority to declare war rests, according to our Founding Fathers, right here in the Congress of the United States, and not on Pennsylvania Avenue. I voted against the War Powers Act. If it were to come up again today, I would vote against it. I have never regretted my opposition to it.
Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) - October 6
Let me close by saying I am willing to support our President, our Commander in Chief, if we have a policy either for decisive, potent, and powerful military action, without quarter, without reservation--or obviously for us instead to withdraw from Somalia.
What I cannot continue to support is the continuing endangerment of Americans in the service of a policy that remains absolutely mysterious and totally muddled.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) - October 4
And, thus, I hope that we, as a Senate, will proceed to discuss the issue of Somalia in the near future, in the immediate future, before any more American lives are lost; and that we shall put into definition and some focus what is our purpose there and, most importantly, how we intend to disengage or, if it is our decision, how we intend to engage pursuant to the laws which we, as a nation, have as a constitutional democracy.
I haven't seen it linked to here yet, but there is now an 86 page Citizens Report on Iraq avaiable in pdf format for free download. Our troops and their familes interviewed about the war and their feelings. Don't expect to ever see it in the lamestream media.
Citizens Report on Iraq
Hillary would be a dangerous leader for our country. She does not get it...
Lew,
Thanks for the link - I've read a bit here and there over the past couple days, and I think that the guantlet has been thrown down...it is telling the critics to put up or shut up. If they really think Iraq is wrong, or a complete failure, then have a real vote, not some phony-baloney, keep-the-kook-base-happy vote on a non-binding resolution. A few of the lefties in Congress are willing to do that - and my hat is off to them; they are wrong, but at least they have the courage of their convictions - but most of them are too chicken to try it.
There IS a war in Iraq. It's the kind of war that follows a sudden power vacuum, in this case caused by the death of Saddam Hussein.
Sunnis and Shia sections of the Islamic community struggle for dominance, the outcome will decide which version of Islam the country will follow in the short to mid term future. Throughout history Iraq has strived to be a good Islamic country - one might call it one nation, very nearly united, under Allah.
But now there's a fly in the ointment. Christians. To be precise, a Christian countries army has invaded and occupied their country. As of the time of writing, that Christian army has yet to hand power back. Essentially all they have done is invade, kill thousands, remove a dictator their own country put in power, and settled down to stay the course. Oh, and let's not forget upsetting the neighbours too.
So, rather than be allowed to settle down and fight one another in an Islamic rules free-for-all old fashioned civil war fight, instead when they're not taking shots at one another BOTH sides are fighting the Christians (read: invading American and British army).
So yes, it's a war of it's own. It would be whether or not the Christians were there. Whenever you remove a dictator, you cause a period of civil war while someone else manages to claw their way to power. They're not leaving - they live there. The moment the army goes home, whether it's tomorrow or 2020, the civil war will kick in, the Christian version of "democracy" - long thought corrupt by the islamic world - will go out the window, and eventually someone will rise to the top, become dictator, create a secret police force and mercilessly slaughter anyone who gets in their way.
That's how governing is done in Islamic countries. No Christian is going to set the rules by which they govern themselves, and until they leave those who live there will fight a war of attrition against the Christian invader. Why? Because they have nothing to lose. This is THEIR home, they have nowhere else to go.
The so-called "global war on terrorism" has already been corrupted. Any country that feels like cracking down on a group it doesn't like, simply labels them Al-Qaeda and everyone looks the other way while the group concerned gets massacred.
About the only thing correct in this entire posting is that it's only one part of a campaign. The next part is clearly Iran. You can tell that, because all the politicians are saying it isn't. Watch how someone one week has "the utmost confidence of the president/prime minister" and the next week they're unemployed. It's going to be the same here, only this time the stakes - and potential costs in human life - are a LOT bigger.
I like the little I have read in the peoples's report. It is so good to know thier are others that feel the same way. The driveby media would have everyone believing our beliefs are that of the few and not the majority. I see these polls on tv, but in conversation with people the numbers don't seem to match up. Granted a lot of people do not want us over there, but they do not want us to lose either. The libs need to open their eyes to the truth and the big picture. They need to stop worrying about making people feel good and start making adult decisions.
I am reminded of Aesop's fable of the wolves and the sheep.
Substitute "Republicans" for the dogs, "Democrats" for the silly sheep, and "America" for the flock. The part of the wolves is being played by terrorists, Islamo-fascists or Iran - perhaps all three.
This is of course an over-simplification. Republicans aren't the only protectors of America; patriots come from all political branches of the tree of Liberty. But for the War on Terror, it is manifest that Republicans are the best suited to the task, and will remain so until Democrats step up to the plate with an agenda speeding the solution rather than compounding the problem. Limiting, inhibiting and reversing the steps we have made in taking the fight to the enemy is tantamount to dismissing the dogs guarding the flock.
Appeasement and surrender are synonymous in these treachorous times, and those are the only options so far offered by the Left. Wordsmithing "retreat" into "phased redeployment" fools no one, and leads us down a path into the trap laid by the wolves.
To not meet a threat head-on, to believe that all your troubles will disappear if you grant the wolves' request, is the worst kind of self-delusion.
Bear: How about we substitute Republicans for the sheep and our milirty for the dogs, because that is the way it is breaking. Republicans are destroying our military. The wolves, of course, would be the oil industry. It is because of their influence we even invaded Iraq. Democrats will play the role of the shepards who save the dogs.
3,081 American troops dead, and counting.
50,000 American troops wounded (but now 20,000 through Pentagon change of definition of wounded)
200,000 to 700,000 Iraqis dead, and counting
1 million Iraqis 'internally displaced'
21,500 troop increase in present force level
57,000 troops already scheduled to deploy this year
3,300 ordered back to Mideast for 3rd tour to support surge, 550 only home 2 weeks
Some troops now on 4th tour of duty
Tours of duty increased to support surge
Increased rotation through reassignment of specialists to 'high-demand roles'
Pentagon abandons Guard, Reserve protections; institutes re-mobilizations up to 24 consecutive months
Top generals tell Congress surge won't end soon; Conway says it's now a 'plus-up'
2nd in Command Odierno says 2 to 3 years needed to reach goals
Top General tells Congress Army near the 'breaking point'
Equipment shortages affecting ability to deploy
Better armor still lacking for troops
$400 billion official cost so far, with some estimating true cost as $2 trillion, and counting.
Pentagon says war cost to rise to $8.5 billion per month
Bush 'authorizes' troops to kill Iranians in Iraq as part of wider Mideast offensive
U.S. launches CIA-Seal-Delta armed task force against Iranians in Iraq
Selective service 'testing' draft machinery
Secretary of AF: Airmen to remain in Iraq past 2010
Army Chief of Staff: Troops to stay in Iraq until 2010
4th year of war, 5th year starts in 2 months
Bear, great post. That one's going into my archives.
Let's see... Hillary wants the war over by the time she would take office and Barack wants most of the troops out by the time he would take office. What it sounds like to me is a couple of Presidential wannabes that don't wanna deal with things Presidents have to deal with.
As far as I'm concerned, that level of wimpiness disqualifies them both.
Hillary would be a dangerous leader for our country. She does not get it...
An interesting comparison of Hillary's statements in 2003 and 2007, provided by Rush Limbaugh by way of Michelle Malkin's Hotair site.
Hillary in 2007:
"I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So he took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority."
(I'm sure that "he" refers to President Bush. As an aside, I wonder why those 30+ members of the coalition don't count as "allies".)
Hillary in 2003:
"With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I’m talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective."
Note how she was saying that the U.S. would have to disarm Saddam Hussein because the "world community" would be reluctant to take on such a problem, and then justifies her position by pointing out how the U.S. "had to do it alone", without any UNSC resolution, in the earlier Bosnia and Kosovo situations that her husband had to deal with.
Hillary should be forced to answer the following questions:
How do you reconcile your implication that we went into Iraq without allies with the fact that we had 30+ partners in the coalition?
How does a country qualify as an ally?
Under what specific circumstances may the U.S. go to war without allies ("do it alone")? How do these circumstances differ with the number of allies that are willing to join us?
Under what specific circumstances (other than ethnic cleansing) is a war justified with the approval of the UN or the UNSC, and without the approval of the UN or UNSC?
Great questions, Bigfoot, but Hell will freeze over before anyone in the national media poses those to Hillary.
Please give us a clue as to what victory in Iraq looks like. Our troops made sure there were no WMD and they are still there. Then they were told that is not what we meant by victory. For victory we need to get the world’s most evil person (forget the fact Bin Laden just killed 3000 U.S. citizens.) Our troops captured and brought to justice Saddam and still they are there. Then our troops were told if only Iraqis had a Constitution there would be victory in Iraq. Our troops acted as body guards, to some of the same people that were earlier trying to kill them, as Iraqis hammered out some words on a piece of paper. Constitution is written and our troops are still there. Then our troops were told it is not just the Constitution, it is the people voting that will bring stability. Once again our troops stood as body guards so the Iraqis could hold up their purple fingers. Iraqi’s voted and our troops are still there. Our troops are then told they must squash the sectarian violence. Our troops train and retrain Iraqi troops only to find out in the heat of battle many don’t have the stomach to shoot fellow Iraqis. The fact is the Shiites would prefer Americans exterminate the Shia so that the 19 year old from Nebraska gets the blame from the Arab world. This current position neocons have placed our troops in is unconscionable, yet you say Democrats are irresponsible.
Bush and his fellow neocons continue to fall in the polls because they can not convince 70% of the population they know what final victory looks like.
Hey, Bigfoot, let me help you out. Let's take a brief look at the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" and see exactly who stepped up to the plate, joined our global struggle and sent their best and brightest to assist us in Iraq:
United States: 250,000 invasion--132,000 current (1/07)
United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion--7,200 current (1/07)
South Korea: 3,300 invasion--2,300 current (1/07)
Poland: 194 invasion--2,500 peak--900 current (1/07)
Australia: 2,000 invasion--1,300 current (1/07)
Romania: 890 current (1/07)
Denmark: 470 current (1/07)(deployed 7/03)
Georgia: 500 invasion--300 current (8/06)
El Salvador: 380 troops
Czech Republic: 300 peak--100 current (1/07')
Azerbaijan: 150 troops
Latvia: 136 peak--120 current (1/07)(deployed 4/04)
Mongolia: 131 troops--100 current (1/07)
Albania: 120 troops
Slovakia: 103 current (9/06)
Lithuania: 50 troops
Armenia: 46 current (1/07)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 36 troops
Estonia: 41 current (1/07)
Macedonia: 33 troops
Kazakhstan: 29 troops
Moldova: 24 invasion--12 current (9/06)
Italy: 1,800 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 11/06)
Ukraine: 1,650 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 12/05)
Netherlands : 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Spain : 1,300 troops (withdrawn 4/04)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04 - withdrawn 7/06)
Bulgaria : 462 troops (withdrawn 4/06)
Thailand: 423 troops (withdrawn 8/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Hungary: 300 troops (withdrawn 3/05)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (withdrawn 2/04)
Singapore: 192 troops (withdrawn 3/05)
Norway: 150 troops (withdrawn 10/05)
Portugal: 128 troops (withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03 - withdrawn 9/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 7/04)
Tonga: 45 troops (deployed 7/04 - withdrawn 12/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (withdrawal date unknown)
So let's see: The only country with more than 10,000 troops: the U.S. The only country that EVER sent more than 50,000 soliders: the U.S. The only countries to send more than 10,000 soliders: the U.S. and the U.K. The only countries to send more than 5,000 troops: the U.S. and the U.K. The only countries to EVER send more than 1,000 soliders: the U.S., U.K., Australia, South Korea and Poland.
Boy, that's some coalition you got there, guys. 95% from the U.S. (predominantly) and Britan. The rest? A token force, at best, most of whom were withdrawn in the past four years.
Make no mistake, with the exception of the British, we did this thing virtually alone.
Actor, (someone that pretends to be someone interesting),
Thanks for the list; I had forgotten that we had so many countries allied with us. By the way; I think you’d better look up the word, “virtually”.
As to the irresponsible democrats; why even Joe Biden says the “pull out and punish the Iraqis is a recipe for disaster; “ ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’ We’re not going to equip them? O.K. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.” /sarcasm
Hey, Bigfoot, let me field this one. Let’s take a long look at that “Coalition of the Willing,” shall we? Let me see:
United States: 250,000 invasion--132,000 current (1/07)
United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion--7,200 current (1/07)
South Korea: 3,300 invasion--2,300 current (1/07)
Poland: 194 invasion--2,500 peak--900 current (1/07)
Australia: 2,000 invasion--1,300 current (1/07)
Romania: 890 current (1/07)
Denmark: 470 current (1/07)(deployed 7/03)
Georgia: 500 invasion--300 current (8/06)
El Salvador: 380 troops
Czech Republic: 300 peak--100 current (1/07')
Azerbaijan: 150 troops
Latvia: 136 peak--120 current (1/07)(deployed 4/04)
Mongolia: 131 troops--100 current (1/07)
Albania: 120 troops
Slovakia: 103 current (9/06)
Lithuania: 50 troops
Armenia: 46 current (1/07)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 36 troops
Estonia: 41 current (1/07)
Macedonia: 33 troops
Kazakhstan: 29 troops
Moldova: 24 invasion--12 current (9/06)
Withdrawn:
Italy: 1,800 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 11/06)
Ukraine: 1,650 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 12/05)
Netherlands : 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Spain : 1,300 troops (withdrawn 4/04)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04 - withdrawn 7/06)
Bulgaria : 462 troops (withdrawn 4/06)
Thailand: 423 troops (withdrawn 8/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Hungary: 300 troops (withdrawn 3/05)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (withdrawn 2/04)
Singapore: 192 troops (withdrawn 3/05)
Norway: 150 troops (withdrawn 10/05)
Portugal: 128 troops (withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03 - withdrawn 9/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 7/04)
Tonga: 45 troops (deployed 7/04 - withdrawn 12/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (withdrawal date unknown)
Hmmm. Some coalition you got there. 95% of the force from either Britain or the U.S. The rest: a token showing, at best, most of whom have been withdrawn to their countries of origin.
Really impressive.
Thanks again, we can not say "thank you" enough to the countries that support us, I honor every one of them.
To paraphrase, I'd rather have a Estonian soldier in front of me than a French division behind me.
1. Iran's influence is growing there. that was foeseeable, and it was just hoped that it wouldn't happen. I believe there is a difference between hoping and planning.
2. I seriously doubt anyone here gives a crap about the iraqi's. Every poll I've ever seen says they want us out now. Do they only have the freedom to agree with you? We've seen that torture and disappearances continue now, with us in the country. It may continue with us pulling out, or it may decline. Either way, a sovereign nation should be able to decide.
3. I keep reading that it's time for the iraqi's to pull their own weight, and that they do not have a black check. that seems to be the Bush?McCain position. Simultaneously, they say that this is the greatest struggle in human history, and we can not lose. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction there? If we will do whatever it takes to win, the iraqi's do have a blank check and unlimited support. if they do not, then why are we slacking off in this perpetual war?
4. Am I the only one who remembers the efforts of Republicans to force withdrawals from Kosovo and Somalia. I agreed with them then, and thought it was appropriate that Congress exercise authority over war. that's their job. Now, it seems they like kowtowing to a monarch. Or are we required to forget hat? Sorry if it's thoughtcrime.
Wow!
I just calculated the contributions; did you realize that Italy sent .0004% of their population to Iraq? Tonga also sent .0004%, while the US only sent .00008%! I'm really honored to have such devoted allies, aren't you, actor?
http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2007/db20070130_624241.htm
"The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn't been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to "effectively complete their missions" and have had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with the Defense Dept. Inspector General's office. Soldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things, auditors found."
I suppose it's posible that Businessweek is a left wing paper that hates the troops and America and wants us to fail. Still odd that the Pentagon is saying that troops working in a place where explosives are a fact of life if it isn't true. If it is true, then the President is sending people off to die unnecessarily. Whether or not you support the war, you can't seriously support not providing armor for the troops, can you? if so, please excuse my disegarding your judgment of what is "contemptible and craven" from this point on.
And the Ukraine sent .01% of their entire population! Really impressive!
Hey, Libsbane:
Given that Italy has roughly 58 million people and they sent 1,800 troops and America has 300 million and we sent 250,000 troops, how do you figure the math, there, pal? Care to go back to the drawing board? Your caluculator is busted in a BAD way. Look at the other numbers, too, and get back to me.
Jeepers, this is SO EASY.
More lunacy:
"And the Ukraine sent .01% of their entire population! Really impressive!"
If the Ukraine sent .01% of the entire population to Iraq (the Ukraine's current population is roughly 47 million people), they would have sent 467,000 troops.
Lord, this boy isn't very bright...
Hey Mark Noonan - have you enlisted yet??? My guess is that you haven't and aren't planning to deploy to Iraq in the near future. Most moderate republicans have admitted Iraq is a failure and yet you are still promoting this ill-conceived war. Because of Chimpy's warmongering Iran's influence has increased and Baghdad has become the terrorist capital of the world. What is more, Bush is sending aircraft carriers to the Gulf in preparation for more war. This needs to end.
Even if you don't believe in Global Warming you must admit that our dependency on foreign oil negatively influences American foreign policy and the American way of life. Chimpy has made no efforts to diversify US energy sources and he prefers to coddle anti-democratic regimes. Bush is the worst president in US history. As soon as he steps down, the US will be a Chinese vassal.
467,000 is 1.01% of 46,438,504 moron!
Saaaay, you're right! Color ME embarassed! So tell me: If the Ukraine sent .01% of their entire population to Iraq...
...how many was that again?
What about these "irresponsible" Republicans who drafted resolutions opposing Clinton's attempt to extend the US mission in Somalia by 6 more months?:
Sen. John McCain - October 19,1993
There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.
Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.
I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.
Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .
I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.
I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.
We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.
I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible.
Sen Strom Thurmond (R-SC) - October 5, 1993
It is past time for the Congress to come to grips with this sorry spectacle and force the administration to find a way out of the quagmire.
Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), October 7
The President's decision to extend our presence for 6 more months is totally unacceptable to me and totally unacceptable, I believe, to the Congress.
If the people of Texas--who are calling my phones every moment, who are sending me letters and telegrams by the hour--are representative of the will of the American people, the American people do not believe that we should allow Americans to be targets in Somalia for 6 more months. I cannot see anything that we would achieve in 6 more months in Somalia
Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID), October 5
Mr. President, it is time for our troops to come home. I would give this directive to the military leadership and that is that they are to use whatever means they determine necessary to secure the release of American POW's in Somalia, because to leave them behind would be to issue adeath sentence to those Americans, and that is absolutely unacceptable.
But, Mr. President, the longer we leave United States troops in Somalia under U.N. command, the longer we leave United States troops in unjustified danger. I owe my allegiance to the United States, not to the United Nations. 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.
Sen. Slade Gorton, October 6,1993 (R-WA)
We are in a disaster, Mr. President. If we had retreated earlier, we would have left fewer dead Americans behind. It is time to retreat now and leave no more dead Americans behind and to learn the lesson that American power should be used only where we have a clear stake in a conflict, a clear goal to be achieved, the clear means to reach that goal, and the potential of clear support on the part of the American people.
As none of those exist in Somalia today, it is time to leave. And for this body, it is time to debate this issue and not the nomination of an Assistant Attorney General.
Sen. Jesse Helms - October 6, 1993 (R-NC)
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. We can take care of that criminal warlord over there. We have the means to do it and the capacity to do it. But it ought to be done by the United Nations. I do not want to play in any more U.N. games. I do not want any more of our people under the thumb of any U.N. commander--none.
As a matter of fact, while we are at it, it is high time we reviewed the War Powers Act, which, in the judgment of this Senator, should never have been passed in the first place. The sole constitutional authority to declare war rests, according to our Founding Fathers, right here in the Congress of the United States, and not on Pennsylvania Avenue. I voted against the War Powers Act. If it were to come up again today, I would vote against it. I have never regretted my opposition to it.
Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) - October 6
Let me close by saying I am willing to support our President, our Commander in Chief, if we have a policy either for decisive, potent, and powerful military action, without quarter, without reservation--or obviously for us instead to withdraw from Somalia.
What I cannot continue to support is the continuing endangerment of Americans in the service of a policy that remains absolutely mysterious and totally muddled.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) - October 4
And, thus, I hope that we, as a Senate, will proceed to discuss the issue of Somalia in the near future, in the immediate future, before any more American lives are lost; and that we shall put into definition and some focus what is our purpose there and, most importantly, how we intend to disengage or, if it is our decision, how we intend to engage pursuant to the laws which we, as a nation, have as a constitutional democracy.
Aaron,
Thank you for providing a perfect example of how short-sighted political considerations can lead to disaster for the nation. The GOPers were wrong in demanding a scuttle in Somalia, as we learned to our sorrow year after year. I hope that you will take the results of the GOP critique of 1993 into consideration as you view the overall situation in Iraq.
Cyber,
You're missing a larger point...
Had we listened to the left in the 1980s, then we wouldn't have had any troops from Poland, Hungary, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Estonia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Honduras, Macadonia, Kazakistan, Moldova, Romania, etc, etc, etc. Why not? Because all of those nations were either captive of the USSR, or were under threat of take over by forces directed from the USSR. Furthermore, had we listened to the left, then Saddam would still be not just in power, but in control of Kuwait because a USSR on its feet - which is how the left would have had it - wouldn't have allowed the 1991 coalition to eject their client Saddam from Kuwait (and, yes, surprise, surprise, surprise...Saddam wasn't our client, but the client of the USSR back there in the 80's...who would have thunk it? I know, you are flabbergasted and now ready to question all the leftwing BS you've swallowed...)
I have a cookie here on my desk I don't really want. The first person who gives me a reasonable justification for sending troops with insufficient armor and armored vehicles into combat can have the cookie. I won't mail it, but will meet you in front of the office and hand it to you, so you don't have to park.
Alternately, convince me the Pentagon is spreading left wing propaganda. I'll let you have the cookie then to.
Or come up with a ridiculous explanation of how it's Clintons' fault, or something equally asinine ("uh, liberals love this. If the vets didn't come back crippled, then they couldn't spit on crippled vets. So really, its their fault.")
C'mon, earn the cookie
"The GOPers were wrong in demanding a scuttle in Somalia, as we learned to our sorrow year after year."
Yes, but do you consider these GOPers to be "traitors", or that they "wanted to the terrorists to win", or that they were "cut and runners", or that they were "aiding and comforting the enemy", or that they were "hurting the troops", or any of the other cow dung you regularly fling at democrats for questioning Bush folly in Iraq? Or are the troops hurt only when democrats call for a withdrwal?
And what does these examples say about your assertion that Republicans always support a president during war?
I wouldn't consider the Bosnia conflict to be a "war", considering we never had boots on the ground. And, I don't hear Republicans whining about how the US is STILL THERE 9 years later.
I'm still waiting for proof of the mass graves, like the ones we found in Iraq.
Cyberactor - Your numbers are typical of deployment for everything we've been involved in after World Wat Two. Case in point: Canada has 1/11th our economy and spends 1/37th of what we do on defense. Your argument is a good one for pulling out of NATO.
Most countries don't have the capabilities we do, well none do actually. We've had help, and yes many have gone home.
But your kind hounded us out of Viet Nam and that resulted in 1 million Vietnamese dead and two million Cambodians dead. Does the blooedshed a precipitant withrawal would cause bother you not at all? Real people being really dead. Bodies rotting in the streets? Thats all OK with Cyberactor?
You scare me. I guess its all part of the liberal culture of selfishness.
Richest of the rich - Democrats
Lavish Hollywood lifestyle - Democrats
Kill your baby for your own convenience - Democrats
Give less to charity in time and money - Democrats
Make up 165 of the military - Democrats
Make exemptions in minimum wage laws for your own companies - Democrats
Stop all windmill projects in the country because of NIMBY - Democrats
Hate the Boy Scouts because they have ideals they stand up to - Democrats
16 % - I just cant type. Democrats make up 16% of the military. Less than that in the Army in Marines...
Aaron,
There was more excuse for them in 1993 than there is for you today. Heck, there was massively more excuse for Carter in 1979 than there is for you today. Time moves on, we live and learn...knowing what we now know, it is treason to advocate a scuttle in Iraq.
Come on, Aaron. Haven't you heard the term IOKIYAR? Your argument is based on the false premise that Republicans consider hypocrisy to be a bad thing. As long as Republicans attempt to limit the discussion to Stay In or else you're commiting Treason they can't be taken seriously on the Iraq war. As your anecdote so appropriately pointed out, the Republicans are far too willing to play politics with our military, and our soldiers will keep dying as a result.
Pendergast You call us hypocrites?
What about exempting American Somoa from minimum wage because Sunkist (which the Pelosis own $17 million of) does their canning there?
What about allowing genocide in Rwanda, just like they did in Cambodia, just like they did in Germany, just like they did in the USSR?
There's more. Two examples should ovrload your tiny mouse brain.
Starkist, not Sunkist. Jeeezzzz.
What about exempting American Somoa from minimum wage because Sunkist (which the Pelosis own $17 million of) does their canning there?
Poor Kahn....
Actually, American Samoa was exempted from the Congressional minimum wage bill because Congress has no authority to regulate minimum wage in American Samoa. That authority rests with people appointed by the executive branch.
Good luck with your next talking point!
Really, Sees?
then why did Pelosi issue this?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday said Democrats will close a loophole in the House-passed minimum wage increase that exempts American Samoa — an action taken after it was revealed that one of the U.S. territory’s main employers is based in her congressional district.
The decision follows criticism over the exemption, reported earlier this week by The Washington Times, to allow tuna canneries in American Samoa to continue paying $3.26 an hour — nearly $4 less than the $7.25 minimum wage passed by the House Wednesday. "
Seems you'll defend anything these crooks do, even when they contradict you with their own statements.
So let me get this straight...she goes about closing a loophole in which American Samoa is exempted from Congressional minimum wage laws (by the way, you can read the DOL rule right here, and you will hopefully notice the part where it says "The minimum wage rates for American Samoa are set by a special industry committee (29 U.S.C. 205, 29 C.F.R. Part 511) appointed by the U.S. Department of Labor, as required by the Act" though I'm sure you already knew about it, as you like to pretend that you care about facts, right?) so that AS is covered by the Congressional minimum wage bill, thereby shutting off the (pathetic, unfounded) right-wing criticism that she intentionally left AS out of the bill as a sop to Starkist Tuna despite exactly zero evidence for such a criticism...and this somehow makes her more of a crook? I'm sure that makes perfect sense out there in WIngnuttia, but here on Planet Earth...not so much.
Again, good try, but better luck with the next talking point.