Subject: Clinton's "No troops died in combat" thingy

Bart, I posted on a website message board that Clinton had never sent any troops into combat that died.
I think I recall this is your position.
I know you have alot on your plate but if you get a chance can you see if this wingnut is right???


GrandyKat - always assume they are lying.
You'll never get hurt if you start with that assumption.

Let's get our facts straight people...
Willam Jefferson Clinton did send troops to die in Somalia, and here's why...

When George HW Bush sent troops to Somalia in 1992,

As far as I'm concerned, this argument is over.

Bush the Smarter got America into Somalia only after losing the 1992 election.
We're about to argue what happened next, but
(A) Why didn't Bush send troops there before losing?
(B) No troops would've died if Bush hadn't sent them to Somalia in the first place
      and fewer troops would've died if Bush had sent them with the armor they needed. was to secure roads and trade routes for the UN so they could get food to the people of Somalia
and not die trying. This was because the various warlord present in Somalia were taking it and using it
to control the people. These troops were MARINES, let me repeat MARINES. These 25,000 troops
were eventuallly scaled back by Clinton. ONCE AGAIN LET ME STRESS THESE ARE MARINES.
Eventually, all MARINES were gone from the city of MOGADISHU (where the slaughter of the

Later in 93 (the beginning of "Clinton Years", a force of Pakistani peacekeepers were attacked and a
warlord named Aibid took credit. This led to the UN creating an objective to capture this Warlord.
Clinton fully supported it.

"Clinton sent an initial contingent of 400 Army Rangers to Mogadishu on Aug. 24 in response to a series of
bloody attacks on Americans for which Aidid or his loyalists were blamed. Although the administration did not
say so publicly at the time, the Rangers' mission was to capture the elusive Aidid."

The men on the ground in Somalia in OCTOBER of 93 were these Rangers and others that CLINTON
ordered to Somalia to capture the Warlord.

Clinton sent in the RANGERS/DELTA FORCE to capture Aidid in the city of Mogadishu...There the fateful events
of "Black Hawk Down" took place. HE commanded them...HE sent them to carry out the UN's work...
HIS SECERATARY OF DEFENSE (Les Aspin) didn't supply the with the fire power they needed, which CLINTON agreed with.

Bush blundered our military into Somalia without the armor they needed, just as his idiot son would do ten years later.
Combat deaths allows the military to "get tough" which means billions in profits for the BFEE.

At the least Clinton could have done this, supply our guys with the ARMORED TANKS and VEHICLES
(Remember the LOST CONVOY...maybe it would have saved lives!), along with AC-130 gunships they needed
to get the job done safely. But no!!!!!!!!!

This guy seems to think ships loaded down with tanks and armored personnel carriers can move as fast as airplanes.
The military campaign that Bush started without proper support needed that armor before they landed.

Here is an article about this sad fact...Clinton allowed the UN to use OUR BOYS IN UNIFORM
to do THEIR DIRTY WORK...and he didn't even give them the support they needed.

Why didn't the man who planned the invasion send armor with them?
Remember the first Gulf War?  It took six months to get enough personnel and hardware to Kuwait
but the Clinton haters wanted the laws of physics bent because Bush sent them there without armor.

"Defense Secretary Les Aspin and his deputies rejected sending needed tanks and armored vehicles to
Somalia because they feared a political backlash would undermine their pro-United Nations policy,
says a Senate Armed Services Committee report.   The armor, as well as AC-130 gunships that also
were withheld, was sought by commanders to protect U.S. troops, the report stated.

He shows no evidence for this, but the evidence of 12,000 miles of ocean is obvious, but still,
you don't send a fireman into a burning building AND THEN request oxygen, axes and water hoses.
You send a fireman into a burning building with the tools he needs..

The weapons "could have been used decisively in the rescue operation of Oct. 3-4, [1993] and if available,"
could have been used by Army Rangers in a raid to capture Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid,
Sen. John Warner, Virginia Republican and report co-author, said in an introduction.

"Only compelling military - not diplomatic policy - reasons should ever be used to deny an on-scene
commander such a request," he said. "Those officials who advocated and approved this policy must bear
the ultimate responsibility for the events that followed."

I say, "those who sent men into battle without the proper tools bear responsibility."
Bush could've sent those men to their deaths before the election, but after he lost, there was no time
to ship armor so he sent the men and left it to the new Clinton Administration to protect them.

The military raid ended with the deaths of 18 U.S. soldiers who were caught in a furious firefight with Aidid
forces in Mogadishu, Somalia.    Crowds were filmed dragging the corpses of two U.S. soldiers through the streets.

Why didn't Bush, former head of the CIA, know Aidid was dangerous to our armorless troops?

Armored vehicles may have saved lives and reduced casualties during the raid and subsequent rescue, the report concluded.

This is true - so why didn't Bush send the armored vehicles?

The report was released late Friday in an apparent effort to mute its stinging critique of Clinton administration
foreign and military policy. Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, is the other co-author.

The report (Where is this report? Why wasn't a link provided? Did this Clinton-hater cherry-pick sentences that slammed Clinton?
Which sentences are the report's and which are from this Clinton-hater?)  is based on a two-year study of the firefight in
Mogadishu Oct. 3, 1993, and tells how top administration officials, including National Security Adviser Anthony Lake and
Mr. Aspin, allowed the United Nations to influence deployment of U.S. forces, with disastrous results.

Why is the Clinton-hater telling us what the report said instead of linking us to the report?

It also lays out how U.N. officials pressured the administration into sending 450 Rangers to capture Gen. Aidid,
against the advice of senior U.S. military commanders who saw little chance of success.

Where is the evidence of this?

In doing so, U.S. interest was subordinated to "the Clinton administration's desire to see this U.N. operation succeed," Mr. Warner said.

"This UN operation?"
Bush sent those men there.

Remember the Clinton-hater's first sentence - "When George HW Bush sent troops to Somalia in 1992..."

The report says Gen. Colin Powell, at the time chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was unable to resist the U.N.
pressure and then was unable to get Mr. Aspin to approve the military's request for tanks and armored vehicles and AC-130 gunships.

...Gen. Powell, now retired and contemplating a run for president, is quoted in the report as saying the pressure was
"a steady drumbeat," and ultimately he agreed to "go along, since as a general principle I believe in supporting the commander in the field."

Gen. Montgomery was acting in the dual role as deputy commander of U.N. forces and as commander of the
4,000 U.S. forces left behind after a humanitarian operation involving 25,000 U.S. troops ended.

On the request for armor, Gen. Montgomery told congressional investigators he needed tanks because of attacks
by Somali militias. "I believe that U.S. forces are at risk without it," the Sept. 14, 1993 request stated.

I agree with that - so why didn't Bush send tanks with the men he sent into harm's way?

"I would have used it on Oct. 3-4 for the rescue," he said.
"If we had it, we would have gotten there faster. We would have taken fewer casualties."

Gen. Joseph Hoar, commander of the U.S. Central Command that dispatched forces to Somalia, said he told
Gen. Montgomery, "There is no stomach in D.C. for new forces, but I think I can get something."

The Pentagon's formal answer to why Mr. Aspin...turned down the armor request was that
"U.S. policy in Somalia was to reduce its military presence . . . not to increase it."

Gen. Powell said he was "upset" when the matter was turned over to Frank Wisner, undersecretary of defense for policy,
and other Pentagon civilians. "The policy shop was a mess with all those assistant secretaries overlapping each other,"
Gen. Powell said. "Nothing happened."

"Aspin was looking at the broader implication of this decision and wasn't willing to approve it just because the
commander wanted it," Gen. Powell said. "I took Aspin's answer as being 'not now,' rather than 'never.' "

Mr. Wisner told investigators he misunderstood the purpose for the armor. He also said "there was no need to increase
the violence nor increase the aggressiveness" of the U.S. special forces.

There's Clinton and his Administration real bunch of heros, ignoring the Pentagon and the Commander in the field,
...the man who knew what our troops needed best.

As you have often heard on, the Clinton-haters love to wallow in Somalia,
while forgetting the 304 Marines who died when Reagan bungled Beruit,
while forgetting the 534 soldiers who died when Bush the Smarter bungled Iraq,
while forgetting the 1567 soldiers who died when Bush the Monkey lied about Saddam.

Bottom line - they forgive Reagan, Bush and Bush for getting 2405 soldiers killed
so they can scream about the 18 who died after Bush initiated his Somalia campaign.

 Back to

Privacy Policy
. .