Ten years later, all the Republicans and the media (same thing)
want to talk about is "Clinton's Somalia,"
and the tragedy of losing 18 young men in the sands of some foreign country.
Yet in the last 60 days, Bush has thrown away 160 lives for no goddamn reason at all.
Why are the 18 lost lives so hard to accept,
but the 160 Bush threw away are accepted and dismissed as "the cost of doing (oil) business?"
When a president loses a serviceman, it's always a tragedy, but let's look at the numbers:
Lives lost on Reagan's watch: 450 (Reagan caused the Lebanon massacre)
Lives lost on Bush's watch: 250 (Bush gave Saddam written permission to invade Kuwait)
Lives lost on Clinton's watch: 18 (Clinton didn't send those men to Somalia, unprotected. Bush did.)
Lives lost on Bush's watch: 200+ (Bush started a war for no reason, and the press forgave him)
Granted, these number are wild guesses, but I don't have the time
or a staff.
But no matter how you slice it, our men were safer under Clinton than any other president,
and Clinton didn't screw up Somalia, that was Mr CIA Bush who sent them there with no armor,
and the idiot is part owner of the company that makes Bradley Fighting vehicles..
But the last three Republicans lost about 800 brave men under
and Clinton lost about three percent of that -
...yet all the media can talk about is Somalia, again and again.
back to bartcop.com