Posted by Frank James at 5:39 pm CDT
While yesterday's duel between Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Sen. Hillary Clinton at the Senate Armed Services Committee is still fresh in our minds I wanted to say a few words about it.
There was definitely a Sister Souljah moment quality to it. You remember Sister Souljah. She was the rapper presidential candidate Bill Clinton criticized for racism, using her as a foil in 1992 to prove he wasn't hostage to the Democratic party's African-American base. It was a play for white moderates.
Sen. Hillary Clinton used Rumsfeld as a foil too. As a senator who voted for the Iraq War authorization, bashing Rumsfeld could be seen as her play to draw closer to anti-war Democrats and independents. I'm not accusing her of being insincere. But sincerity and political calculation aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
(Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) watches as (foreground L-R) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, General John Abizaid and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace testify on Capitol Hill August 3, 2006. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.)
Clinton's first words to Rumsfeld were "Mr. Secretary, we're glad you're here." She wasn't kidding. If she does run for president in 2008, don't be surprised if you see footage from yesterday's hearing in one of her campaign commercials.
Rumsfeld had nearly deprived Clinton of yesterday's set piece battle of wills in front of the news cameras. He had wanted to skip the public hearing. She sent him a letter which she made public demanding that he attend the hearing.
For his part, Rumsfeld said he never got the missive. "But she never wrote me the letter. I never got the letter. Something was released to the press in a letter form, I think, to be technical," Rumsfeld told reporters at a press availability yesterday afternoon.
When Clinton hit Rumsfeld, it was with a barrage.
SEN. CLINTON: Under your leadership, there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq.
Now, whether you label it a civil war or not, it certainly has created a situation of extreme violence and the continuing loss of life among our troops and of the Iraqis.
You did not go into Iraq with enough troops to establish law and order. You disbanded the entire Iraqi army. Now we're trying to recreate it. You did not do enough planning for what is called phase four and rejected all the planning that had been done previously to maintain stability after the regime was overthrown. You underestimated the nature and strength of the insurgency, the sectarian violence and the spread of Iranian influence.
Last year Congress passed the U.S. Policy in Iraq Act, which I strongly supported. This law declares 2006 to be a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.
However, we appear to be moving in the opposite direction, with the number of U.S. troops in Iraq scheduled to increase, not decrease. That's the only way I think you can fairly consider the decision with respect to the 172nd Stryker Brigade.
So Mr. Secretary, as we return to our states for the August recess, our constituents have a lot of questions and concerns about the current state of affairs in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't need to remind any of us that we continue to lose our young men and women: 120 from New York alone.
Besides the U.S. losses, violence does seem to be increasing. From January to June of this year there were 14,338 Iraqi civilian casualties, at least as far as anyone can count -- in May and June alone, more than 5,000 deaths and 5,700 injuries. In a July 22nd article in The New York Times General Abizaid was quoted as saying "Two months after the new Iraqi government took office, the security gains that we had hoped for had not been achieved."
Then there was the big ballyhooed announcement of "Forward Together" and the commitment by the new Iraqi government to secure Baghdad. Two months into that, it's clear it's not working, and we are now putting in more American troops, and, following the lead of Senator McCain's line of questioning, removing them from other places that are hardly stable and secure.
In Afghanistan your administration's credibility is also suspect. In December 2002 you said the Taliban are gone. In September 2004 President Bush said the Taliban no longer is in existence. However, this February DIA Director Lieutenant General Maples said that in 2005 attacks by the Taliban and other anti-coalition forces were up 20 percent from 2004 levels, and these insurgents were a greater threat to the Afghan government's efforts to expand its authority than at any time since 2001. Further, General Eikenberry made a comparable comment with respect to the dangers that are now going on in Afghanistan and the failure to be able to secure it.
Obviously, I could go on and on. A recent book, aptly titled "Fiasco", describes in some detail the decision-making apparatus that has led us to this situation. So Mr. Secretary, when our constituents ask for evidence that your policy in Iraq and Afghanistan will be successful, you don't leave us with much to talk about. Yes, we hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios, but because of the administration's strategic blunders and, frankly, the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy. Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?
Clinton's barrage left Rumsfeld seemingly unruffled. He has some of the best protective armor in Washington. Plus he's been around long enough to know exactly what Clinton was up to.
SEC. RUMSFELD: My goodness. First, I'll -- I've tried to make notes and to follow the prepared statement you've presented.
First of all, it's true, there is sectarian conflict in Iraq, and there is a loss of life. And it's a(n) unfortunate and tragic thing that that's taking place. And it is true that there are people who are attempting to prevent that government from being successful. And they are the people who are blowing up buildings and killing innocent men, women and children, and taking off the heads of people on television. And the idea of their prevailing is unacceptable.
Second, you said the number of troops were wrong. I guess history will make a judgment on that. The number of troops that went in and the number of troops that were there every month since and the number of troops that are there today reflected the best judgment of the military commanders on the ground, their superiors, General Pace, General Abizaid, the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense and the president of the United States. I think it's not correct to assume that they were wrong numbers. And I don't think the evidence suggests that, and it will be interesting to see what history decides.
The balance between having too many and contributing to an insurgency by the feeling of occupation and the risk of having too few and having the security situation not be sufficient for the political progress to go forward is a complicated set of decisions. And I don't know that there's any guide book that tells you how to do it. There's no rule book, there's no history for this. And the judgments that have been made have been made by exceedingly well-trained people: the gentlemen sitting next to me, the people on the ground in Iraq.
They were studied and examined and analyzed by the civilian leadership and by the president, and they were confirmed. And so I think your assertion is at least debatable.
The idea that the army was disbanded, I think, is one that's kind of flying around. My impression is that to a great extent that army disbanded itself. Our forces came in so fast. It was made up of a lot of Shi'a conscripts who didn't want to be in it, and thousands or at least many, many hundreds of Sunni generals who weren't about to hang around after Saddam Hussein and his sons and administration were replaced. The work to build a new army has included an awful lot of the people from the prior army, and it has benefitted from that.
Third, the assertion that the government rejected all the planning that had been done before is just simply false. That's not the case. The planning that had been done before was taken into account by the people who were executing the post-major combat operations activities.
The comments about Baghdad I'll possibly let General Abizaid comment on.
The goal is not have U.S. forces do the heavy lifting in Baghdad. There are many, many more Iraqi forces in Baghdad. The role of the U.S. forces is to help them, to provide logistics, to assist them as needed and to create a presence that will allow the Iraqi security forces to succeed. And then, as our forces step back, the Iraqi -- allow the Iraqi security forces to be sufficient to maintain order in the city. I can't predict if it will work this time. It may or it may not. It happens to represent the best judgment of General Casey, General Chiarelli and the military leadership. And General Abizaid and General Pace and I have reviewed it, and we think that it is a sensible approach, as General Abizaid testified earlier.
Afghanistan. I don't know who said what about whether Taliban are gone, but in fact, the Taliban that were running Afghanistan and ruling Afghanistan were replaced, and they were replaced by an election that took place in that country. And in terms of a government or a governing entity, they were gone, and that's a fact.
Are there still Taliban around? You bet. Are they occupying safe havens in Afghanistan and other places -- correction -- in Pakistan and other places? Certainly they are. Does the violence -- is the violence up? Yes. Does the violence tend to be up during the summer and spring and summer and fall months? Yes, it does. And it tends to decline during the winter period.
Is it a -- does that represent failed policy? I don't know. I would say not. I think you've got an awful lot of very talented people engaged in this, and the decisions that are being made are being made with great care after a great deal of consideration. Are there setbacks? Yes. Are there things that people can't anticipate? Yes. Does the enemy have a brain and continue to make adjustments on the ground requiring our forces to continue to make adjustments? You bet. Is that going to be the case? I think so. Is this problem going to get solved in the near term, about this long struggle against violent extremism? No, I don't believe it is. I think it's going to take some time.
And I know the question was some wars lasted three years, some wars lasted four years, some wars lasted five years. The Cold War lasted 40-plus years. And the struggle against violent extremists who are determined to prevent free people from exercising their rights as free people is going to go on a long time and it's going to be a tough one. That does not mean that we have to spend the rest of our lives as United States armed forces in Iraq. The Iraqis are going to have to take that over. We can't want freedom more for the Iraqi people than they want for themselves. And Senator Thune mentioned earlier about that issue. And I would point out, the number of tips that have been coming from Afghan -- or Iraqi people have been going up steadily. They're at a very high level. And it does suggest to me that the Iraqi people do want to have a free country, as I mentioned, because of their voting patterns.
So I would disagree strongly with your statement.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, Mr. Secretary, I know you would, and I know you feel strongly about it. But there's a track record here. This is not 2002, 2003, 2004, '05, when you appeared before this committee and made many comments and presented, you know, many assurances that have, frankly, proven to be unfulfilled and...
SEC. RUMSFELD: Senator, I don't think that's true. I have never painted a rosy picture. I have been very measured in my words. And you'd have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I've been excessively optimistic. I understand this is tough stuff.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to submit for the record a number of the secretary's former comments. And also, may we keep the record open for additional questions?
Clinton's office made those Rumsfeld comments available on her official website. Did she prove that he was "excessively optimistic?" I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "excessively" is.
But it does appear that Rumsfeld expressed enough optimism over the years to support her position. Here's her press release.
August 3, 2006
Senator Clinton Highlights Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pattern of Painting Rosy Picture of Iraq
Washington, DC – In an exchange during today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asserted he has “never painted a rosy picture” of the war on Iraq. In response, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton submitted the following statement for the record showing a pattern of comments by Secretary Rumsfeld, both in appearances before Congress and in news media and other forums. The following is the text of Senator Clinton’s statement for the record to the Senate Armed Services Committee:
Statement for the Record by Senator Clinton
In the August 3 Armed Services Committee hearing, I had the following exchange with Secretary Rumsfeld:
CLINTON: Well, Mr. Secretary, I know you would, and I know you feel strongly about it, but there's a track record here. This is not 2002, 2003, 2004, '5, when you appeared before this committee and made many comments and presented many assurances that have, frankly, proven to be unfulfilled. And...
RUMSFELD: Senator, I don't think that's true. I have never painted a rosy picture. I've been very measured in my words. And you'd have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I've been excessively optimistic. I understand this is tough stuff.
I ask unanimous consent that the following quotes from Secretary Rumsfeld be included in the record:
Congressional Hearings
July 9, 2003: Senate Armed Services Committee hearing
“The residents of Baghdad may not have power 24 hours a day, but they no longer wake up each morning in fear wondering whether this will be the day that a death squad would come to cut out their tongues, chop off their ears, or take their children away for “questioning,” never to be seen again.”
Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2003/sp20030709-secdef0364.html
September 30, 2003: House Appropriations Committee hearing
“My impression is that the war was highly successful.”
Source: Transcript of Hearing of House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense on President’s FY ’04 Supplemental Request for Iraq and Afghanistan, available online from FDCH Political Transcripts on Lexis-Nexis.
February 4, 2004: Senate Armed Services Committee hearing
“The increased demand on the force we are experiencing today is likely a ‘spike,’ driven by the deployment of nearly 115,000 troops in Iraq. We hope and anticipate that that spike will be temporary. We do not expect to have 115,000 troops permanently deployed in any one campaign.”
Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2004/sp20040204-secdef0842.html
May 7, 2004: Senate Armed Services Committee hearing
“SENATOR BAYH: So my question, Mr. Secretary, my final question is just very simply, do you believe we're on the right course presently, or is dramatic action necessary to regain the momentum so that we can ultimately prevail in what is a very noble and idealistic undertaking?
SEC. RUMSFELD: I do believe we're on the right track.”
Source: http://www.pentagon.mil/speeches/2004/sp20040507-secdef0443.html
June 23, 2005: Senate Armed Services Committee hearing
“But terrorists no longer can take advantage of sanctuaries like Fallujah.”
Source: http://www.cq.com
June 23, 2005: House Armed Services Committee hearing
“The level of support from the international community is growing.”
Source: http://www.cq.com
March 9, 2006: Senate Appropriations Committee hearing
“SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Mr. Secretary, how can Congress be assured that the funds in this bill won't be used to put our troops right in the middle of a full-blown Iraqi civil war?
SEC. DONALD RUMSFELD: Senator, I can say that certainly it is not the intention of the military commanders to allow that to happen. The -- and to repeat, the -- at least thus far, the situation has been such that the Iraqi security forces could for the most part deal with the problems that exist.”
Source: http://www.jcs.mil/chairman/speeches/060309CJCS_SecDefSecStateCENTCOM SenApproCom.html
Press Interviews and Other Forums
November 14, 2002: Infinity CBS Radio Connect, interview with Steve Kroft
“The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”
Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t11152002_t1114rum.html
December 18, 2002: CNN “Larry King Live”
“The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.”
Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2940
February 7, 2003: Town hall meeting with U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy
“And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t02072003_t0207sdtownhall.html
February 20, 2003: PBS “NewsHour”
“Lehrer: Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?
Rumsfeld: There's obviously the Shia population in Iraq and the Kurdish population in Iraq have been treated very badly by Saddam Hussein's regime, they represent a large fraction of the total. There is no question but that they would be welcomed.”
Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=1938
March 30, 2003: ABC “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”
“We know where [the WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html
February 1, 2006: Department of Defense News Briefing
“Q: One clarification on "the long war." Is Iraq going to be a long war?
SEC. RUMSFELD: No, I don't believe it is.”
Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=905
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Game, set, match. Bye, Rummy.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | August 4, 2006 6:02 PM
Good campaign move for Hillary. Unfortunately political grandstanding is not going to win this war and make a stable Iraq.
Posted by: Bill | August 4, 2006 9:36 PM
My goodness. It's hard to decide where to begin.
First, kudos to The Swamp for providing the transcript. When you see it on tv the exchange is edited to give you a false impression. Even here, though, you give us the idea that Clinton said Rumsfeld was "excessively optimistic." Rumsfeld introduced that expression, not Clinton. Thus, it is not a threshold Team Clinton has to meet.
Secondly, I'm glad Team Clinton backed up her assertion that Rumsfeld painted "rosy scenarios," which clearly he has from day one. He had to in order to sell the war and to keep selling it as we got deeper and deeper into this quagmire.
Finally, Clinton, is being manipulative. While she can criticize Rumsfeld for his execution of the war, she needs to take heat for supporting the war without being more critical of its execution sooner.
This war was a war of choice, as the ever-changing reasons for the war attest. Clinton supported this choice and, thus, must bear the burden of its existence. She may not be directly responsible for its execution. But it's not like she didn't know into whose hands she was putting its execution when she voted for the war.
Posted by: Jorge from Bloomington | August 5, 2006 4:46 AM
If there's no guidebook to tell us how many troops would be needed to invade and secure a country the size and make up Iraq, then what the heck are they doing at our military schools - just hanging out and hazing women?
Posted by: Radical Rudy | August 5, 2006 4:50 AM
To follow-up on earlier posts on this topic (see above and McCain: Whack-a-Mole), I think these Pentagon bigwigs were poorly briefed, if at all. I think this may be symptomatic of a larger problem in the Defense Department, begging the question, CAN'T THE PENTAGON PLAN FOR ANYTHING?
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE? Think it through, men!
If the grilling is to be public, the nature of the questions is likely to be different (political grandstanding, as John puts it) particularly in an election year. PREPARE ACCORDINGLY.
If a Humvee is subject to roadside "improvised explosive devices," give it some armor. If "shock and awe" doesn't finish the job, plan a ground war. How do you define success, and if you can't, what's your exit strategy?
You owe it to everyone shelling out $5,000,000,000 a month for your improvisations, to the 100 lives lost each day, and you owe it to the 130,000 men stuck in Iraq who have to listen to you.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | August 5, 2006 8:27 AM
Bill,what's it going to take to achieve winning this war and creating a stable Iraq?
Spare no details,i'm serious,i'd like to hear what you think in terms of years,cost,troop levels,death's etc.
Let's pretend your Rummy,and your obviously a lot sharper,it's your war.Do we just stay the course or we do ? The floor is yours,let's hear it.
Posted by: john scanlon | August 5, 2006 10:19 AM
Like Jorge I also thank The Swamp for the transcript, but I do not agree with Bill that Sen. Clinton was just grandstanding. What the Sen. was doing is her job, which is more than I can say for Rumsfeld, and by the way it can help end this quagmire by getting more support to force Rumsfeld to resign. The Sen. was absolutely correct in putting Rumsfeld through the wringer, if more politicians in Washington did the same we might find someone with a plan on getting us out of this mess.
Posted by: Rory M | August 5, 2006 10:26 AM
Hil was sincere -- and has from a very early stage been critical of the execution of this war. I take issue with those who have said she has not been specific about alternatives. She and many democrats have. But because Bush has ignored Democratic suggestions -- greater numbers of troops, a long-term plan for keeping the peace, more international cooperation -- the options for a solution become increasingly more limited. I did not support this war, but there were many opportunities for us to win it; the utter incompetence of Rumseld and Rice have thwarted those chance at every turn.
Posted by: dsm | August 5, 2006 1:13 PM
Well, first of all I don't think anyone can honestly say Hillary's been critical of the war all along. Particularly the many times she voted to authorize it, fund it and give a blank check to the defense department.
Scanlon, first thing I'd do is increase troop levels. McCain is right, we're playing whack a mole. We need more than one mallet and more people swinging.
I don't know that I'm sharper than Rummy and I'm not schooled in the arts of war and winning the peace. I'd leave that to the generals who know these things (which I don't think Rumsfeld is doing). We unofficially keep hearing that the commanders in the field say they need more troops but the pentagon won't increase troop levels because of Rumsfeld's "lighter, more agile military" philosophy. I think transforming the military to Rumsfeld's vision can wait until this war is over.
As for Hillary doing her job and helping to get Rumsfeld fired through her questioning: that's not realistic.
Since Rumsfeld survived Abu Ghraib he'll easily skate past this little skirmish. He's nearly an immovable object at defense now. Hil was doing her job in asking the tough questions, but putting Rummy through the thresher now rings kind of hollow because of her past voting record. It's politics, period.
Posted by: Bill | August 5, 2006 3:04 PM
Oh, and one other thing, Scanlon, just to answer your question, I think McCain is someone who knows more about military strategy than nearly anyone in the Pentagon. They should be listening to him.
Posted by: Bill | August 5, 2006 3:20 PM
mr.rumsfeld has more brains and integrity in his pinky finger than hillary clinton has in her body.both clintons are political weasels.yuk
Posted by: another american | August 5, 2006 4:10 PM
Bill,I agree,how many troops and where do they come from?
If we need as many troops as first suggested,do we need a draft?
What about funds.Will the Repulicans ask for more money from congress?
What about admin.changes.Any?
What about a time frame.How many years?
Terry and the others,help Bill out here.You guys run the show.I admit,I want to cut and run.
Stay the course or what?Sell me.
Posted by: john scanlon | August 5, 2006 5:20 PM
Hillary certainly appears out of league with her misguided questions and comments, very similiar to her incompetence with health care in the 90's. How can anyone vote for her? It is very disturbing that the liberals can even consider her as a presidential nominee anytime in the next century. I am quite certain it will be the ruin of us all if she were ever elected. I am in disbelief that she is a senator, it is comical and quite representative of the joke that politicians have become. Liberals complain about W., but Hillary is far worse. Liberals need to wake up and realize this before we are inundated with whacko far left commie pinko ideals that Hillary so freely espouses. This is not the time to even consider such a loser for a high political office. Worse yet, it would involve Bill the Perv as the first first Man, which is a BIG Loser scenario. Hill should at least divorce that Loser before even considering running. Then I may think about voting for her, but knowing her track record of supporting him, she is probably the dumbest woman I've ever known of. So we should all just dismiss her, she should be considered just a nitwit from Arkansas who was given lots of stock options (I seem to recall her chances of getting a whole bunch of money back in the 90's was akin to winning the lottery, just like the 1000's of corporations that awarded stock options to their corporate officers ... do we need people like this running our country??? Hell no!)
Posted by: Bill Hayes | August 5, 2006 10:54 PM
Reagan defeated communism,Bush 1 had his moment with desert storm putting the Clinton's 8 year presidentcy on cruise control while terrorism grew by leaps and bounds right under their noses.
We were attacked all over the world and at home and all Bill did was get on television and act tough, oh.... he did send a missle or two and hit a camel, a tent and killed a janitor...whew!
Hillary is acting tuff now too, to please the left.
Give us Americans like Rummy who really know what their doing. Hillary is a political con artist just like her husband. Wake up America!
Posted by: garry | August 5, 2006 11:20 PM
Hillary, as usual, just wants it both ways. The people of New York state should be SO proud.
Posted by: clyde | August 6, 2006 7:09 AM
John, as many troops as the commanders say they need. IF we need a draft, even though it'll be wildly unpopular, we need a draft. We need a no BS assessment from the commanders on the ground. As for money, we need to more effectively use what's already been allocated. Somehow the Iraqi government lost 8 million over there so recovering that would help out first. We realistically have two years to get Iraq on its feet.
Posted by: Bill | August 6, 2006 7:27 AM
It's obvious Sen. Clinton is trying wery hard to position herself for a run at the White House. And she certainly is a POLITICIAN first and everything else after, including a wife and mother. I doubt that there are many wives that would tolerate a lying, cheating husband who got away with perjury in a Federal Court room!
Posted by: R. J. Cusack | August 6, 2006 7:37 AM
Ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, sit back, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979... that alarm has been ringing for years
US Navy Captain Ouimette the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave in 2003. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.
AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!
That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed -AD) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.
It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.
America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism
America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.
Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued!
In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.
Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.
The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.
Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.
Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.
The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.
Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.
The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.
The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
The following month, February 199 3, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.
Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.
A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.
They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.
The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.
And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001 Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep!!!
In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.
I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough! America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep
After t he attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.
This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.
Reference:
Click here: Urban Legends Reference Pages: Politics (America Wake Up!)
Posted by: K Hammerle | August 6, 2006 9:25 AM
I've no love for Hillary, but the simple fact is that Rumsfeld is incompetent.
We've spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives on his screwups, and Bush and Cheney continue to defend him.
Rumsfeld must go.
Posted by: bb | August 6, 2006 9:39 AM
garry,
While I agree with you that Hillary is most likely a con artist, and is grandstanding for her run at the White House. I can't believe you think that Dumsfeld knows what he's doing! Please! If he knew what he was doing we would have had more troops in Iraq at the outset of the war and we wouldn't have allowed an insurgency to grow.
It's painfully obvious to those of us with a critical eye that we are playing"whack a mole" as Sen. McCain pointed out.
Now people are calling for more troops when we are mired in a near Civil War. If I recall we tried this experiment before in a little country called Vietnam and we failed miserably!
Iraq is a mess and it's all due to the fact that Cheny and his croney Bush were filled with such hubris that they couldn't see that a country with three different ethnic and religous views would likely need more work and troops to control after the invasion then it would to topple Saddam.
Bush didn't even know that there are two different sects of Islam in Iraq. When briefed on this he was claimed to have responded " I thought they were all Muslims in Iraq"!
Yeah these Americans know what they are doing......
Posted by: Scott in South Loop | August 6, 2006 10:10 AM
R.J., amen to all that, but one tiny clarification. Clinton may not have been prosecuted for perjury as he should have been when he left office, but the American Bar Association made sure that as soon as he left, he was disbarred. He still can't practice law in a federal court, because he broke the ABA's code of ethics.
It says something about politics when someone who's been banned from his own chosen profession is still allowed to run for public office and practice politics.
Posted by: Bill | August 6, 2006 11:05 AM
WOW, I don’t know where these right-wing nuts get their ideas about Sen. Clinton, must be too much Rove or Limbaugh. But give me a break, commie pinko??? People in this country must demand a stop to this kind of rhetorical slander! I don’t like the Bush Administration but I don’t call them communists, they just want run the country like a dictatorship, while flushing our Constitution down the toilet.
Posted by: Rory M | August 6, 2006 1:31 PM
FOX NEWS ALERT!!!
Republicans,please join conservative values "czar" Bill Bennett as he leads you on a tour of local gambling establishments.Bill will show you how to count cards,and how to beat the spread now that football season is around the corner.Bring your Republican friends,your money is safe with us.
Terror Alert Elevated!!
Posted by: FOX LIES!! | August 6, 2006 2:05 PM
Rory,
I call the Bush adminstration communists.If they don't like the news,they say it's not their fault,it's that "damn liberal media".Then Fox News jumps in with thier state run "good news" about Georgey boy,and Darth Cheney.You know the drill,the people in Iraq are showering us with flowers,and candy,we are listening to your phone calls for your own protection,we are monitoring your bank accounts so you don't have to.KKKarl Rove is working overtime.Sure... "the mouthpiece of the whitehouse" Fox News,is the only one that tells the truth, right Terry,Billyboy,John D.,and the rest of the "dark side"?
Posted by: John E. | August 6, 2006 4:44 PM
and Bill.....At least Hillary has the"balls" to stand up,and say that the information she was given before the war she voted for was wrong,and she,and other dems are able to adjust their thinking.Stay The Course is not a plan!!,it's a failed republican policy.George Dubya is like a quarterback who can't audible when the defense,(ie insurgents,sunni's,shites,kurd's,hezbollah,
north koreans,iranians)changes to a zone blitz.If only he had studied the playbook at Yale,instead of joining the cheerleading squad!!!
Posted by: John E. | August 6, 2006 4:57 PM
John E., can all of the world's problems be solved by comparing them to football? Man, if only this was one of those conflicts that could be solved by a double-back handspring all of Bush's study would have paid off!
Well, gee, Rory if you're only going to say they flush the constitution down the toilet, then, yes, you're really elevating the level of argument. Good show.
You can all get back to giving people names like KKKarl and overusing the exclamation point, now. I won't impede you.
p.s. The only U.S. Senator that has praised the KKK is democrat Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a proud former member.
Posted by: Bill | August 6, 2006 9:58 PM
KHammerle, that speech should be required reading at every college and university in America.
Posted by: Bill | August 6, 2006 10:00 PM
Scott, thanks for agreeing with me on Hillary. But, I have to really think about the "Dumsfeld" thing.....hows this, Dumsfeld was:
A former Navy Pilot, W.H. cheif of staff,U.S ambassodor to N.A.T.O,U.S congressman,C.E.O of 2 fortune 500 companies,attended Prindeton Univ. on an academic scholarship,was awarded the presidential medal of freedom in 1977....uh,"Dumsfeld"? Oh, I forgot....has a net worth of more than 70 million. Right, he's dumb!
Mired in a cival war?....Vietnam? Too few troops,too many troops. You forgot to add; We're fighting the wrong country,Quagmire,Halliburton and of course BIG OIL companies.
Go read a history book sometime and tell us about a perfect war where no mistakes were made.
Posted by: Garry | August 6, 2006 10:13 PM
Garry,
You're forgetting the part about how everybody on earth saw this quagmire coming in Iraq,except for your hero Rummy,and the Bushys.What a waste of a good education.
Posted by: John E. | August 7, 2006 12:10 PM
Yes Bill I’m sure you liked that KHammerle speech, it was obviously crafted by a truly partisan Republican. If you noticed that the majority of terrorist attacks on Americans were during the Reagan and Bush Sr. Administrations. Reagan was elected into office in 1980 until 1988 then Bush from 1988 to 1992. How the hell can anyone stand up and say “Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes” when the terrorist acts in question happened during the Reagan and Bush Administrations, Bill Clinton was still a Governor.
Posted by: Rory M | August 7, 2006 12:19 PM
Man, one look at the Hildebeast and I don't blame Bill for being a hound.
Posted by: Bob | August 7, 2006 1:20 PM
Afghanistan was a harboring the terrorists who attacked us and the only problem with that invasion was that we didn't commit enough troops to finish the job at Tora Bora. Wasn't Rumsfeld in charge there?
The Iraq war was and is a mistake. The British experience in their occupation of Iraq after WWI might have been instructive for Rumsfeld, if he had any interest in what to really expect when we invaded. We never should have started the Iraq war, but Rumsfeld didn't listen to the generals beforehand and once again we didn't send enough troops. Now Iraq has become the new terrorist training ground. Nice going Donnie "East, West, North or South of Bagdad" Rumsfeld.
As for Rumsfeld's Medal of Freedom, isn't that always given to the guys who really screw thing up? Remember Tenant at the CIA? George has cheapened that award so much they'll be giving them away in boxes of crackerjack soon.
Posted by: Tom O | August 7, 2006 1:36 PM
Scott in South Loop:
I can see that you have great perspective from military headquarters in the South Loop. Your experience as a military genius has obviously been overlooked by the Pentagon. The same military that fought at Antietam, the Battle of the Bulge and Hue should have known that nothing unforeseen ever happens in war. If only we had the advantage of your knowledge delivered after the fact we could have avoided all previous military blunders.
Posted by: Joel | August 7, 2006 2:16 PM
Here we get some insight into the delusional, hysterical world that is Rory M. He claims most terrorists attacks occured under Republicans.
Hmmm, I guess that means the Iranian hostage crisis happened under Reagan or Ford, and not Carter?
I guess the first attack on the WTC occurred under Bush I or Bush II, and not Clinton?
That the Khobar Towers were attacked under Bush and not Clinton?
That two U.S. embassies were blown to smithereens under Bush and not Clinton?
That the USS Cole was bombed under Bush and not Clinton?
Geez when one is that delusional like Rory and the rest of his far left looney gang, the drugs must be real good. Really, really good.
Posted by: John D | August 7, 2006 2:48 PM
Here we get some insight into the delusional, hysterical world that is Rory M. He claims most terrorists attacks occured under Republicans.
Hmmm, I guess that means the Iranian hostage crisis happened under Reagan or Ford, and not Carter?
I guess the first attack on the WTC occurred under Bush I or Bush II, and not Clinton?
That the Khobar Towers were attacked under Bush and not Clinton?
That two U.S. embassies were blown to smithereens under Bush and not Clinton?
That the USS Cole was bombed under Bush and not Clinton?
Geez when one is that delusional like Rory and the rest of his far left looney gang, the drugs must be real good. Really, really good.
Posted by: John D | August 7, 2006 2:49 PM
John D, if you had read the post I had commented on you might see (if you look real hard) that the speaker’s obvious objective was to blame Clinton for not responding to attacks on Americans during the 80’s. Just to help you out I’ll copy and paste a small portion here for you.
In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.
Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.
The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.
Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.
Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.
The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.
Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.
If this is not a blatant attempt to blame Clinton, I don’t know what is?
Posted by: Rory M | August 8, 2006 9:13 AM