What happens to US when a Democrat is President.

[mobster]

This is why I don't want Kerry, if it was Wes Clarke, then yeah but he's a 4 star General. Kerry is a pussy and will be too scared to get our military hands dirty. Here's his buddy Clinton.



Too busy getting his **** sucked by a young intern to worry about national security.

"Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we;d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."-Bill Clinton

1993
Osama bin Laden sets up militant training camps in Sudan and begins searching for nuclear material and weapons.

Feb. 26, 1993
A 500-kilogram bomb explodes in a garage under World Trade Center in New York, killing six and injuring 1,042. Bin Laden associate Ramzi Yousef is sentenced to life without parole in February 1998 for orchestrating the bombing.

Oct. 8, 1993
Al-Qaeda supporters attack UN troops in Somalia, killing 18 U.S. servicemen

June 26, 1995
Al-Qaeda tries, unsuccessfully, to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Nov. 13, 1995
Seven people, including five Americans, are killed when two bombs explode at a U.S.-Saudi military facility in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden is blamed for the attack.

June 25, 1996
Bin Laden followers bomb U.S. military base near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American soldiers and wounding hundreds of Americans and Saudi Arabians.

[duck]

They will turn swords into ploughs? ;)

[n4292936]

Im sorry, you seem to have ommitted the long list of terrorist incidents that effectivley went unpunished during the Reagan years.... though Im sure your ommission was unintentional ;)

[mobster]

Post them if you could find them by all means, but also show what action Reagan took. Clinton launched 5 cruise missles. Reagan was the first to say we won't negotiate with terrorists and bomb the **** out of Libya, take care of Panama as well as Grenada. Kerry will do nothing in an attack except respond with "diplomatic" means. Again, it's not the party per se, just the ones who think this is the ultimate popularity contest and not a country at war. I really wish Clarke was in and not the current runner.

[gaz]

Oct. 8, 1993
Al-Qaeda supporters attack UN troops in Somalia, killing 18 U.S. servicemen


Was it ever conclusively proved there was a link between Al-Qaeda and the Somali clans? Also I'm assuming this is referring to the Battle of the Black Sea which happened on 3 October, not 8 October.

[gaz]

Answered my own question. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG1526.cfm)

[mobster]

from Nova:

On August 29 Task Force Ranger flew into Mogadishu. They were led by General William Garrison and consisted of 440 elite troops from Delta Force. Their mission was to capture Aidid. But, at the same time, in September 1993 the Clinton Administration began a secret plan to negotiate with Aidid. U.S. military commanders within Somalia were not apprised of this. U.S. Defense Secretary Les Aspin denied a request for armored reinforcements made by General Montgomery.

On October 3, 1993 Task Force Ranger raided the Olympic Hotel in Mogadishu to search for Aidid. This led to a seventeen-hour battle in which eighteen U.S. soldiers were killed and eighty-four were wounded. Bodies of dead American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, shown on international news reports. Hundreds of Somalis also died, although the official number has never been released. This was the longest, most bloody battle for U.S troops since the Vietnam War. On October 7 President Clinton responded by withdrawing U.S. troops from Somalia. The hunt for Aidid was abandoned, although U.S. representatives were sent to resume negotiations with clan leaders.

Two weeks after the Battle of Mogadishu General Garrison officially accepted responsibility. In a handwritten letter to President Clinton, Garrison took full responsibility for the outcome of the battle. He wrote that the Task Force Ranger had adequate intelligence for the mission and that their objective (capturing targets from the Olympic Hotel) was met.

What began as a peacekeeping mission to provide relief to the starving people of Somalia essentially ended with a firefight during the Battle of Mogadishu. After all of the U.S. troops were withdrawn in March 1994, 20,000 U.N. troops were still in Somalia. By the late Spring of 1994 all of the remaining U.N. troops were withdrawn, ending UNOSOM-II.

[mobster]

Here's a brief summation of Reagans Presidency.

President Reagan.

On March 30, 1981, just 69 days into his Presidency, while leaving the Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC, President Reagan, Press Secretary James Brady, a Secret Service agent, and District of Columbia police officer Thomas Delanty were shot by John Hinckley, Jr. Shortly before surgery to remove the bullet from his chest (which barely missed his heart) he remarked to his surgeons, "I hope you're all Republicans," [2] (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa120197b.htm) and to his wife Nancy he jokingly commented, "Honey, I forgot to duck." Apparently he was quoting a remark made by boxer Jack Dempsey in 1926 explaining his loss of his heavyweight championship. After Dempsey lost to Gene Tunney, his wife Estelle Taylor asked him "What happened?" His reply was "Honey, I forgot to duck." Reagan often creatively quoted such witticisms.

As a politician and as President, he portrayed himself as being:

* conservative
* anti-communist
* in favor of tax cuts
* in favor of smaller government (with the exclusion of the military)
* in favor of removing regulations on corporations
* in favor of the use of force to protect U.S. interests
* supportive of business interests, both large and small
* tough on crime

He is credited with:

* increasing spending on national defense and pursuing other policies which contributed to the end of the Cold War
* deploying U.S. Pershing II missiles in West Germany in response to the Soviet stationing of SS-20 missiles near Europe
* negotiating the INF Treaty and initiating negotiations for the START Treaty with the Soviet Union
* proposing the Strategic Defense Initiative, a controversial plan derided by critics.
* re-appointing the monetarists Paul Volker and later appointing Alan Greenspan to be chairmen of the Federal Reserve, ending the high inflation that damaged the economy under his predecessors Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.
* lowering taxes significantly (under Reagan, the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years [3] (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.html)) and leading a major reform of the tax system
* providing arms and other support to anti-communist groups such as the Contras and the mujahideen
* selling arms to foeign allies such as Taiwan, Israel, Saudi Arabia.
* greatly escalating the "war on drugs"
* ordering the April 14, 1986 bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in retaliation for an April 5 bombing of a West German nightclub frequented by U.S. servicemen, in which the Libyan government was deemed complicit
* signing the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which compensated victims of the Japanese American Internment during World War II
* firing air traffic controllers when they went on strike

[Tane Angle]

Are you kidding me? President Reagan was the worst President regarding terrorism ever, and yes, I mean at least as bad if not worse than President Clinton. He bombed Libya? Whoopdeedoo! Does he want a medal for that one? The Marine Barracks is bombed, and he invaded Grenada? Better give him the Medal of Honor for that one! Cause the people who killed 241 US Marines were there, right?

Moreover, Panama was in 1989, not during President Reagan's time in office.

In my humble experience, political party has about squat to do with a President's stance on terrorism. I'm all for pinning blame on President Clinton. I just hope that we pin blame on Presidents Reagan and Bush (Sr.) as well. Of course, eight months was enough time for President Bush (Jr.) to order a strike also.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Mark Sman]

Also left out the 1998 Al Qaida bombings of US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and and Dar es-Salaam, Tanzania.
About 250 dead and 5,000 injured.

And the Al Qaida attack on the USS Cole, October 12, 2000.
17 killed, 39 injured.

Hell of a presidency. Hope she was worth it Willy.

[Kilgor]

Reagan had to deal with communism aswell. Clinton didnt.

[Flagg]

What happens to US when a Democrat is President.

It's not the Party, it's the Man.

One only has to look to FDR to see an effective wartime leader and to prove the title of this thread is inaccurate....with few exceptions, he did a bloody good job.


Mobster wrote:

Post them if you could find them by all means, but also show what action Reagan took. Clinton launched 5 cruise missles. Reagan was the first to say we won't negotiate with terrorists and bomb the **** out of Libya, take care of Panama as well as Grenada. Kerry will do nothing in an attack except respond with "diplomatic" means. Again, it's not the party per se, just the ones who think this is the ultimate popularity contest and not a country at war. I really wish Clarke was in and not the current runner.

Reagan didn't "take care of" Panama...that was his VP and successor Bush Senior in 1989.

I also think if you were to ask anyone serving around 1983 you'll likely find Grenada was completely unnecessary.

It was a piece of showboat diplomacy/militancy performed to restore America's "self-respect" at the incalcuable cost of American lives.

As far as Wesley Clarke goes......according to many his judgement was questionable regarding his order to block Russian access to Pristina airport in Kosovo.. his order was refused(rightfully refused, according to most) by the British commander tasked with the responsiblity.

Although I do think having a national leader with prior military/operational service can be an advantage, especially when considering military deployments that consist of men and women, not game pieces......a leader with prior service isn't essential.....just a nice bit of experience to better represent a couple million of his/her constituants.

In closing, I have to disagree with the perceived purpose of this thread.

People's unfounded fear of JKF being Catholic and actually believing it would negatively affect his Presidency were unfounded.

Just as the devisive gulf that exists today in the US branding everyone either Democrat(far left) or Republican(far right)...is completely unfounded.

It's not the party....it's the man....and someday woman that matters.

[Hydro]

Reagan had to deal with communism aswell. Clinton didnt.

Aye, but communists didn't kill 241 US Marines.

[SpazzMunky]

Here's a brief summation of Reagans Presidency.

President Reagan.

On March 30, 1981, just 69 days into his Presidency, while leaving the Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC, President Reagan, Press Secretary James Brady, a Secret Service agent, and District of Columbia police officer Thomas Delanty were shot by John Hinckley, Jr. Shortly before surgery to remove the bullet from his chest (which barely missed his heart) he remarked to his surgeons, "I hope you're all Republicans," [2] (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa120197b.htm) and to his wife Nancy he jokingly commented, "Honey, I forgot to duck." Apparently he was quoting a remark made by boxer Jack Dempsey in 1926 explaining his loss of his heavyweight championship. After Dempsey lost to Gene Tunney, his wife Estelle Taylor asked him "What happened?" His reply was "Honey, I forgot to duck." Reagan often creatively quoted such witticisms.

As a politician and as President, he portrayed himself as being:

* conservative
* anti-communist
* in favor of tax cuts
* in favor of smaller government (with the exclusion of the military)
* in favor of removing regulations on corporations
* in favor of the use of force to protect U.S. interests
* supportive of business interests, both large and small
* tough on crime

He is credited with:

* increasing spending on national defense and pursuing other policies which contributed to the end of the Cold War
* deploying U.S. Pershing II missiles in West Germany in response to the Soviet stationing of SS-20 missiles near Europe
* negotiating the INF Treaty and initiating negotiations for the START Treaty with the Soviet Union
* proposing the Strategic Defense Initiative, a controversial plan derided by critics.
* re-appointing the monetarists Paul Volker and later appointing Alan Greenspan to be chairmen of the Federal Reserve, ending the high inflation that damaged the economy under his predecessors Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.
* lowering taxes significantly (under Reagan, the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years [3] (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.html)) and leading a major reform of the tax system
* providing arms and other support to anti-communist groups such as the Contras and the mujahideen
* selling arms to foeign allies such as Taiwan, Israel, Saudi Arabia.
* greatly escalating the "war on drugs"
* ordering the April 14, 1986 bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in retaliation for an April 5 bombing of a West German nightclub frequented by U.S. servicemen, in which the Libyan government was deemed complicit
* signing the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which compensated victims of the Japanese American Internment during World War II
* firing air traffic controllers when they went on strike
Mobster, these statements are all irrelevent to your point.

[Tane Angle]

How many Americans were taken hostage or killed by the Soviet Union during President Reagan's time in office?

[Kilgor]

Reagan had to deal with communism aswell. Clinton didnt.

Aye, but communists didn't kill 241 US Marines.

But how much were we spending on defence ?
How much man power was sitting around in europe making sure no red hordes run across germany ?

[mobster]

Okay, first and foremost, thanks to you all for keeping this civil, all points thus far have been relevant and poignant so word.
Second, let's reel this back to my original concern.
Do you (anyone) really believe that Kerry would be a better Commander In Chief than Bush? I don't, he seems too much like Clinton and that bugs me immensely. He just seems like slick willy version 2.0, I mean come on...Botox!?!?!?!? Continue please.

[Hydro]

Reagan had to deal with communism aswell. Clinton didnt.

Aye, but communists didn't kill 241 US Marines.

But how much were we spending on defence ?
How much man power was sitting around in europe making sure no red hordes run across germany ?

It may just be the fact I'm tired, but I can't quite see what you're getting at? (Not in a derogatory sense, I really can't, it's half past midnight here!)

[Kilgor]

Its really simple :(

although fighting the cold war didnt cost many lives *, it required a huge amount of money and military investment. When this threat disapeared, forces and money could be moved elsewhere. Of course soldiers dying on battlefields is a terrible thing, but a long war of attrition like the cold war is hugely expensive !

* except nam, korea. etc.

[Hydro]

Ah yes, I ought to slap myself for not getting it. However, there were enough troops to invade Grenada, why not enough troops to add more to the manpower in the Middle East? As I see it, the M.E was a bigger threat to US personnel (civvies and mil alike) than Grenada.

At the time, the "red horde" was pretty bogged down in Afghanistan. Reagan could probably have easily dealt with any terrorist problems without having to worry too much with the USSR turning it's attention to World War Three.

[Kilgor]

ah.. no problem

im not really a reagan fan.. despite the avatar :P , just saying slick willy did have alot more to play with when the soviet union came undone .

[mobster]

Kerry on real issues:

View Of War On Terror

Kerry Said War On Terror Is “Basically A Manhunt.” “Kerry was asked about Bush’s weekend appearance on ‘Meet the Press’ when he called himself a ‘war president.’ The senator, who watched the session, remarked: ‘The war on terrorism is a very different war from the way the president is trying to sell it to us. It’s a serious challenge, and it is a war of sorts, but it is not the kind of war they’re trying to market to America.’ Kerry characterized the war on terror as predominantly an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation. ‘It’s basically a manhunt,’ he said. ‘You gotta know who they are, where they are, what they’re planning, and you gotta be able to go get ‘em before they get us.’” (Katherine M. Skiba, “Bush, Kerry Turn Focus To Each Other,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/13/04)

Two Weeks Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped, Saying War On Terror Is More Than “A Manhunt”. “This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At University Of California At Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 2/27/04)
Funding For Our Troops In Iraq

Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With “Whatever Number” Of Dollars It Took. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)

Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package. “Passage of the bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in fiscal 2004 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It also would provide $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by other countries. Separate provisions limit reconstruction aid to $18.4 billion. It also would provide approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care.” (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

I mean the dude has no backbone.

[Tane Angle]

I don't know many people who are expecting Senator Kerry to be much better a President than President Bush; I think they're just hoping for someone who won't be as bad (in their opinions). I haven't really heard of anyone who holds hopes all that high for Senator Kerry's possible Presidency.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[mobster]

No **** Tane, couldn't have put it better myself. Okay, one of our asses is going to have to run as an independent. ;)

[Tane Angle]

;) How sad is it that American politics has come to this? I know that there are people in American who are much more qualified and smarter than the two candidates combined. I blame the media p-) . I'm half joking, but I'm also actually half serious. What'd Secretary Powell always say when asked about running for President? He said he didn't want his family's privacy to be invaded? I'm all for public interest and oversight of politicians and their decisions, but maybe if we tone down the invasions, then some better Presidents might show up? I don't know. :|

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[usa320]

With regards to what Tane Angel said... if people dont like either candidates...why did they vote for kerry in the primaries...

There was a chance for someone else to run against Bush other than kerry, and no one cared then, so the dems are stuck with kerry.

And im praying that Bush wins... because Kerry lacks the ********s to fight terrorism, and he knows it.

Fighting terrorism is gritty, dirty business. Its not the orderly and dignified thing war used to be, with uniformed armies fighting on outlined fields of battle.

In order to fight terrorism, you have to do rough things sometimes, associate with people you would rather not associate with, and send people into harms way when it would be much easier, and more pleasing to the public not to. But you have to do whatever is necessary to defeat terrorism, and Kerry doesnt NOT have what it takes. He wants committees and negotiatons and multilateral talks and horse****...

You cant broker peace, you cant deal, with people willing to kill themselves to killed innocent men, women and children as they go to school, or work, or vacation. You can only kill them before they kill us.

Thats the bottom line.

[mobster]

Well put usa and Tane, I'm reminded of this from one of Earths most intelligent people...ever.
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v323/viewimage/peoplewhodonothing.jpg
Like I said, there's just something about Kerry that strikes me as sinister, at lleast you know Bush is doing everything he can. And he doesn't give a f**** what anyone thinks otherwise he wouldn't have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan, he knew that alot of people would be pissed and that he could lose his job but he did it anyway. Because we have to kill them before they kill us. USA put it best saying it's gritty, mean and nasty, can you really put your life in the hands of a male leader that uses Botox?

[Tane Angle]

he doesn't give a f*** what anyone thinks otherwise he wouldn't have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan,
That's part of my concern about him. He didn't listen to the people he should have been (the Army Chief of Staff, to name just one), and was instead listening to people who are very smart about Cold War matters. However, this isn't the Cold War.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[mobster]

Again, who would you want making these choices?
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell etc.
or John Kerry and John Edwards?
I wouldn't let Edwards do my taxes.
For Gods sake he's a lawyer.

[KB]

The Ronald Reagan presidency I remember was a little less successful than others here have portrayed it.

I returned home from Lebanon in March 1984-CIA station chief William Buckley was snatched off the street a few days before I departed. I think most who participate in this forum know what happened to him, as well as LtCol Rich Higgins, and Navy diver Robert Stethem, passenger on TWA flight 847. Don't forget the two embassy bombings, the BLT 1/8 attack at BIA, and the numerous other kidnappings. We lost over 300 good soldiers, sailors, Marines, State Department and CIA staff in Lebanon. In fact, the rumor I heard was the May 17, 1983 embassy attack took out almost the entire CIA staff in the Middle East. In March 1984 the presidential campaign was in full swing...I remember one of the Reagan campaigns key mantras..."America is back and standing tall." Thinking about it today still makes me want to puke.

As a veteran who served in the early years of Reagan's presidency, I think he definitely put the US on the offensive against the Soviet Union and provided the final push end the Cold War. His efforts to rearm and re-equip the military were greatly appreciated: in particular he had the guts to attend the memorial service at Camp Lejeune for the Marines killed on 23 October 1983. However, his adminstration was a disaster when it came to fighting terrorism. As far as I know, Reagan is still the only US president who has actually bargained with terrorists-Iran-contra.

Clinton always had a problem dealing with the military due to his draft dodging in the 1960s, and candidly I think he was intimidated by the service chiefs. He obviously could have done more to fight terrorism. That having been said, I'm still waiting for the Republican "morals police" to acknowledge the distractions they created which resulted from the multi-hundred million $$$ they spent on in investigating Clinton's personal life, particularly when several of his worst accusers turned out to have been "players" themselves-Rep Gingrich, Rep Livingston, Rep Chenoweth, Rep Hyde to name four of the most prominent. As I recall, the cruise missile attack Clinton launched in '98 was criticized by some at the time as an attempt to distract attention from the Monica Lewinsky affair. Now he gets criticized for not dropping in the 82nd Airborne.

KB

[mobster]

KB, first, thanks for serving. Second, best post thus far. Who would you trust the next four years to and why. I was 8 when Reagan came into office, so I obviously know nill compared to your experience. Kerry or Bush? So far Tane, USA320, myself and others have noted that there isn't a "best" candidate, but a "lesser of two evils". I'm not big into the Prez and job offers, because we shouldn't have to rely on him to pay our bills. As far as standing firm on the war on terror, I believe we truly have our guy. If I need cosmetic advice, I'll consult Kerry. Thanks again KB, your input is much appreciated by all of us.

[Tane Angle]

Again, who would you want making these choices?
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell etc.
or John Kerry and John Edwards?
I wouldn't let Edwards do my taxes.
For Gods sake he's a lawyer.

Ideally? Jeez, I don't even know, but I guess I'll start with this. There was this guy Bob Ames (I think KB might remember him, but not too many others do probably), I didn't always agree with 100% of the things he said, but he might have made a great NSA or DCI, though I like George Tenet as a DCI too. Really would have been good. For SECDEF, maybe Pete Schoomaker or a particular one or two of his cohorts; someone who's been in the fight and knows how to do things. For a Secretary of State, that's a toughie, and maybe Powell would work still. For VP, maybe someone strong on domestic policy, not sure who exactly. For President, maybe someone like John McCain, provided that there would still be a John McCain-like person (or the Senator himself) still in the Senate, keeping things ok.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[admar2]

June 25, 1996
Bin Laden followers bomb U.S. military base near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American soldiers and wounding hundreds of Americans and Saudi Arabians.

actually I believe that attack was carried out by Saudi Hezbollah with funding from Iran.

[szr]

And he doesn't give a f*** what anyone thinks otherwise he wouldn't have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan

lol is that supposed to make people want to vote for Bush? :|


can you really put your life in the hands of a male leader that uses Botox?

Bush was a mother f***ing cheerleader at Yale.

Face it. Our choices for President are crap. The extreme right and left make it impossible for us to get a quality moderate like McCain etc.

[chauncy republicans]

He didn't listen to the people he should have been (the Army Chief of Staff, to name just one), and was instead listening to people who are very smart about Cold War matters. However, this isn't the Cold War.
woot Hell yeah! I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this little known fact!

[chauncy republicans]

And he doesn't give a f*** what anyone thinks otherwise he wouldn't have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan

lol is that supposed to make people want to vote for Bush? :|
No kidding... :roll:

[mobster]

Again, look at my first post. Kerry has made it clear he wants to run his admin. like Clintons, that didn't work out that great the first time. Vote for whomever you want, just look at the facts folks.
Bush or Kerry. Post significant facts on either or and why. I don't take it personally.

[n4292936]

Again, look at my first post. Kerry has made it clear he wants to run his admin. like Clintons, that didn't work out that great the first time. Vote for whomever you want, just look at the facts folks.
Bush or Kerry. Post significant facts on either or and why. I don't take it personally. I would suggest Kerry's comment was a reference to management style, not necessarily security policy as it regards terrorism. I dont agree with Clinton's approach, but nor would I say Bush has got it right. I think the former did too little while the latter has done too much damage by going overboard - after initially also doing too little.
As has been pointed out, this isnt a party issue.

[gilgoul]

I know I don`t really have my word here, since I`m not a US citizen, but nevertheless.
The attacks on Clinton seem to me to be often unfounded, and beside his ****** behaviour and the scandal following, he`s been particulary handicapped, every single bill or decision being challenged by the congress.
Still, he showed serioussness in his diferent enterprises, promoted peace not only in the middle east but also in Ulster, balkans and Africa. Some of those efforts maybe where doomed from the beginning, but at least he didn`t show the contempt of GW Bush pre 9/11.
You have to rememeber to that the USA championed number of overseas operations, very unpopular both at home and abroad at the time.
To the credit of the US armed forces under direct presidential comand and NATO comand are :
Liberia, evacuation of US citizen and limited peace keeping.
Bombing of Sudan Chemical factory
Intervention in Somalia (don`t forget how the American public opinion, before 9/11, didn`t want to see US casualties)
Maintainng of the No fly Zone and discreet support of the kurds in Northern Irak.
SFOR and KFOR mission, effectively restoring a relative "quiet" and starting the democratic process in Serbia and Montenegro.

As of Bush, even if I respect his steadfastness after 9/11, I don`t think he is the best president you ever had.
His involvement in the ENRON scandal, the "missing" files of his military service, the troubled relation he had with Saudi Arabia and in general the contempt he showed to the rest of the world aren`t fit to a great leader.
Not that I have a hard on for Kerry either, I`d rather see someone like Clark.
At least, Kerry did fight in vietnam, even if a little, even if not as well as his file says, he did set step there in a dangerous area, while being such a high class WASP could have given him a ticket out without a problem, like Mr. Bush.

[abncougar]

from Nova:

On August 29 Task Force Ranger flew into Mogadishu. They were led by General William Garrison and consisted of 440 elite troops from Delta Force. Their mission was to capture Aidid. But, at the same time, in September 1993 the Clinton Administration began a secret plan to negotiate with Aidid. U.S. military commanders within Somalia were not apprised of this. U.S. Defense Secretary Les Aspin denied a request for armored reinforcements made by General Montgomery.

On October 3, 1993 Task Force Ranger raided the Olympic Hotel in Mogadishu to search for Aidid. This led to a seventeen-hour battle in which eighteen U.S. soldiers were killed and eighty-four were wounded. Bodies of dead American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, shown on international news reports. Hundreds of Somalis also died, although the official number has never been released. This was the longest, most bloody battle for U.S troops since the Vietnam War. On October 7 President Clinton responded by withdrawing U.S. troops from Somalia. The hunt for Aidid was abandoned, although U.S. representatives were sent to resume negotiations with clan leaders.

Two weeks after the Battle of Mogadishu General Garrison officially accepted responsibility. In a handwritten letter to President Clinton, Garrison took full responsibility for the outcome of the battle. He wrote that the Task Force Ranger had adequate intelligence for the mission and that their objective (capturing targets from the Olympic Hotel) was met.

What began as a peacekeeping mission to provide relief to the starving people of Somalia essentially ended with a firefight during the Battle of Mogadishu. After all of the U.S. troops were withdrawn in March 1994, 20,000 U.N. troops were still in Somalia. By the late Spring of 1994 all of the remaining U.N. troops were withdrawn, ending UNOSOM-II.


they did not raid the olympic hotel

[OldRecon]

As for democrat vs. republican presidents, was FDR a pussy?
(In my opinion he's the best president the US has ever had).
US economy was pretty shaky when he took office, and at his death the nation had been transformed into a truly dominant world power.
Not bad for a guy with polio and some mistresses on the side.

[Milkman]

Bush was good as govener of my state, but I think he less sucess in the oval office. The only reason I think he should be re-elected is because Kerry is such a goddamn pussy and would destroy all the progress we have made.(Not to metion he would have to deal with a republican majority in congress, and that makes any and every decision harder to execute.) I have not seen a strong democratic canidate in very a long time that would be worth voting for, hell I think FDR was the last good Democrat president.

[hank]

As for democrat vs. republican presidents, was FDR a pussy?
(In my opinion he's the best president the US has ever had).
US economy was pretty shaky when he took office, and at his death the nation had been transformed into a truly dominant world power.
Not bad for a guy with polio and some mistresses on the side.

FDR was certainly not a pussy. In some ways he was very good, in other ways very bad. Our country has never really recovered fro mmuch of the damage that he created to try and stop a Depression that only a war's increased production or a global economic climate change would help.

But certainly a man of conviction and deciveness who should be respected.

Well, about the mistresses, I think we'd all have to agree that after Willie America simply does not have the moral authority to blame politicians for "discreet" liasons. We certainly didn't do anything about a President perjuring himself about *** in the oval orifice!

hank

[Sayeret]

Are you kidding me? President Reagan was the worst President regarding terrorism ever, and yes, I mean at least as bad if not worse than President Clinton. He bombed Libya? Whoopdeedoo! Does he want a medal for that one? The Marine Barracks is bombed, and he invaded Grenada? Better give him the Medal of Honor for that one! Cause the people who killed 241 US Marines were there, right?

Even though I think he should of done more Reagan started giving aid to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war as a result of the bombing because Iran supported Hezbollah which carried out the bombing.

[Sayeret]

I don't not support Kerry because he is a democrat but rather his view on terrorism. He seems to have more of a view that the US should deal with terrorists through police and with the UN.

[MEGR]

If the Democrat becomes prez!! Oh no, the world will end.. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

[mobster]

Letter from Senator/Admiral Jeremiah Denton on Kerry



Russ Vaughn

Opinion: Who's Kerry?By JEREMIAH DENTON
Special to the Register 03/07/04

Knowing that I served in the U.S. Senate with John Kerry and that, like him, I am a veteran of the Vietnam War, many people have asked me what I think of him, particularly now that he's the apparent presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.

When Kerry joined me in the Senate, I already knew about his record of defamatory remarks and behavior criticizing U.S. policy in Vietnam and the conduct of our military personnel there. I had learned in North Vietnamese prisons how much harm such statements caused.

To me, his remarks and behavior amounted to giving aid and comfort to our Vietnamese and Soviet enemies. So I was not surprised when his subsequent overall voting pattern in the Senate was consistently detrimental to our national security.

Considering his demonstrated popularity during the Democratic primaries, I earnestly hope the American people will soberly consider Kerry's qualifications for the presidency in light of his position and record on both our cultural war at home and on national security issues.

To put it bluntly, John Kerry exemplifies the very reasons that I switched to the Republican Party. Like the majority in his political party, he has proven by his words and actions that his list of priorities -- his ideas on what most needs to be done to improve this country -- are almost opposite to my own.

Here are two issue areas that I consider top priorities: the war over the soul of America, and national security.

Top priority should be placed on an effort to recover our most fundamental founding belief that our national objectives, policies and laws should reflect obedience to the will of Almighty God. Our Declaration of Independence, our national Constitution and each of the states' constitutions stress that basic American national principle.

For about 200 years, the entire country, both parties and all branches of government understood that principle and tried to follow it, if imperfectly.

For some 50 years, our nation's opinion-makers, our courts and, gradually, our politicians have been abandoning our historical effort to be "one nation under God" in favor of becoming "one nation without God," with glaringly unfavorable results.

I believe our political leaders, educational system, parents and opinion-makers must all return to teaching the truth most emphasized by our Founding Fathers.

George Washington called religious belief indispensable to the prosperity of our democracy. William Penn said, "Men must choose to be governed by God or condemn themselves to be ruled by tyrants." And when asked what caused the Civil War, President Lincoln said, "We have forgotten God."

In these days we have not only forgotten God, we are by our new standards of government and culture rejecting him as the acknowledged creator and as the endower of our rights. As a result, we are suffering cultural decay and human unhappiness. The decline of the institution of the family is the most obvious result.

Perhaps the current movie, "The Passion of the Christ," will help many to come to realize the cost of the redemption of our sins, and the destructiveness of sin. Let's remember that over 95 percent of Americans during our founding days were Christians, and though our Founding Fathers stipulated that no one was to be compelled to believe in any religion, and also stipulated that there would be no single Christian denomination installed as a national religion, there was no question that our laws were to be firmly based on the Judean Ten Commandments and on Christ's mandate to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

That setup brought us amazing success as a nation, lifting us from our humble beginnings, through crisis after crisis, to become the leading nation of the world.

Now, though, we are throwing away the very source of our strength and greatness. Yet I am not giving up on our country. I am encouraged at the stand and the attitude of our president, and inspired by his courage. There are many more of his stripe in Washington now.

Though Rome and other empires have decayed and fallen, the cultural war in the United States can and should be won by the majority of Americans -- a majority to whom Kerry and the Democrats disdainfully refer to as the "far right." They are people who believe in God and in the original concept of "one nation under God."

As a nation, we are now at the point of no return. The good guys are finally angry enough to join the fray, and I pray we are not too late.

John Kerry is not among the good guys. The Democratic Party isn't, either.

Indeed, on the subject of national security, John Kerry epitomizes a fatal weakness in the Democratic Party.
During the decisive days of the Cold War, after the Democratic Party changed during the mid-1960s, the party was on the wrong side of every strategic debate on policy regarding Vietnam and the USSR, and is now generally on the wrong side in the war on terrorism.

The truth is that the Cold War was barely won by a narrow margin -- a victory and a margin determined by the political choices made by our government regarding suitable steps to deter Soviet attack and finally win the Cold War.

If the U.S. had followed the Democratic Party line, the Cold War would have concluded with the U.S. having to surrender without a fight, or the U.S. would have been defeated in a nuclear war with acceptable losses to the USSR.
It was not Johnson and Carter and the Democrats; it was Nixon, Reagan, George Bush and the Republicans who led us to victory in the Cold War.
And George W. Bush and the Republican majority --not John Kerry and the Democrats -- can lead us to victory in the war on terrorism.

Jeremiah Denton is a retired Navy admiral who served in the U.S. Senate from 1981 to 1987.

[cut]

stop preaching to the converted most yanks on here are republican, you should post articles like that on a democrat forum, unless of course you're scared of the challenge?

[admar2]

They will turn swords into ploughs? ;)


and then plow for those that still have swords.

[KML]

How can you people critisize Kerry's War time service when Bush, who claims he was for the war didn't even fight!

[martinexsquaddie]

from the uk probably anyone could be better than Bush :roll:
A lot of people think he's a puppet thats not birght enough to follow the script :(
Clinton pulled off some dodgy stuff and the rest of the world loved him
George could try turn water into wine and people would complain its not vintage rofl

[Nizark]

This is why I don't want Kerry, if it was Wes Clarke, then yeah but he's a 4 star General. Kerry is a pussy and will be too scared to get our military hands dirty. Here's his buddy Clinton.



Too busy getting his **** sucked by a young intern to worry about national security.

"Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we;d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."-Bill Clinton

1993
Osama bin Laden sets up militant training camps in Sudan and begins searching for nuclear material and weapons.

Feb. 26, 1993
A 500-kilogram bomb explodes in a garage under World Trade Center in New York, killing six and injuring 1,042. Bin Laden associate Ramzi Yousef is sentenced to life without parole in February 1998 for orchestrating the bombing.

Oct. 8, 1993
Al-Qaeda supporters attack UN troops in Somalia, killing 18 U.S. servicemen

June 26, 1995
Al-Qaeda tries, unsuccessfully, to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Nov. 13, 1995
Seven people, including five Americans, are killed when two bombs explode at a U.S.-Saudi military facility in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden is blamed for the attack.

June 25, 1996
Bin Laden followers bomb U.S. military base near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American soldiers and wounding hundreds of Americans and Saudi Arabians.


REPUBS in office:
2003 George W Bush Launches an unneeded war in Iraq with next to no real support, and lies to the American public about the reasoning behind the war. As a result, 900, and the number is still growing, US soldiers killed in action, countless others suffer from PTSD and other injuries in combat. Along with at least an equal amount of civi casualties, tens of billions of US tax payer dollars wasted and the US military being overstretched.

Don't give me that party is tougher/weaker bull****. Its the man in the oval office and the people around him that makes up what the US foreign policy is, and how the implementation of that policy will be carried out.

Have a nice day