Grade the Prez: Heres your chance

[Bunz]

That's not true. There are, or have been, a few democrats I would have supported. The problem is, they never run for president. The only democrats that seem to run for president support socialist policies. Socialism, or course, always fails. So I generally don't support democrats.

Fair enough, I shouldnt have made that assumption.

I was under the impression that NKorea finely shut down their reactor, and destroyed most of the facility? Otherwise, I could possibly be convinced military action against NKorea would be required. I well placed cruise missile should be sufficient.

I think the latest assumption is that the reactor is down for now, but that does not change the fact they have a nuclear arsenal, and have successfully tested a nuclear weapon. But what I find hard to digest is the statement in bold.
You are highly critical of Clinton for going in half cocked etc etc etc...now you claim that 1 well placed cruise missle will do the job. Andy, at least be consistent in your argument.

That quote didn't apply to the topic at hand. I don't remember being in all sorts of twists. In fact I remember a number of popular conservatives being for it, provided that Clinton didn't just lamely fire a few missiles, and think that was going to stop Saddam.

Well you seem to think that 1 missile will do the trick in NK, but Clinton was criticised on two fronts by the GOP, one faction said that it wasnt enough ,the other part said it was nothing but a distraction from the Lewinsky scandal.

Clinton wasn't criticized for simply getting out, he was criticized for going in half-***ed, and then running at the first sign of trouble. It reminds me of the bully on the playground that acts all tough till someone stands up to him, and then he runs squealing.

That's what Clinton was criticized for. He wouldn't go all out, but he also wouldn't stay in the fight. He made America look weak.

Clinton didnt go in, Daddy Bush did. In regards to America looking weak, not sure how you come to that conclusion. But I guess it is a matter of perception.

No.

Yes.

I see. So any time there's a humanitarian issue, we should invade? All humanitarian issues are America's business to be involved in?
If that's our requirements for going into another country, we should occupy half of Africa, most of Asia, and a good deal of the former soviet bloc countries, not to mention a good chunk of south America.

No, I am not saying that. You asked why we were in Somalia, and I said the justification for that action was humanitarian, but really you would need to talk to Daddy Bush, because he sent the troops there to start, under the guise of humanitarian efforts. I think our military should be deployed to friendly nations who need protection, and to fight countries who have attacked us or our allies. Humanitarian efforts, and nation building are not the role of the military.

I don't know about the Reagan 1983 thing. Perhaps I'll learn about it later.
However, two wrongs don't make a right. Assuming Reagan did the same thing, that doesn't in any way make Clinton's actions "better". That's a straw-man to me. Almost like you admit Clinton was lame... but but.... Reagan was lame too!! Moving on...

Reagan, 1983, in Beruit Lebanon, a terrorist exploded a truck bomb at the base of the Marine barracks killing over 200, I think you know about this. The fact of the matter is that Reagan didnt do squat to deal with the terrorists who committed the attack including Hezbollah. Less than 4 months later US forces were out. Reagan did nothing but cut and run in the face of Islamic terrorists after they killed hundreds of American Marines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Barracks_Bombing

It wasn't Clinton's fault the troops were in Somalia. He should have pulled them out, or kept them to the original mission. Bush Sr. only used them to deploy food relief, as far as I know. Now given that mission, the few scant troops were more than enough.

What was Clinton's fault was the change in mission, without a change in equipment. They were not given the support they needed, the equipment they needed, the troops they needed, and the hardware they needed. Clinton just sort of ordered them to go do this, and then rejected all requests for the proper weapons, equipment and personnel to accomplish the task given. Again, naturally we ended up with Black Hawk down.

OK Andy, so everything Bush did was inoccuous and Clinton was the one who bungled badly by not providing the heavy armor necessary and shifted the mission. I see, thanks for the clarification. That damn Clinton, he cut and run from places we should be able to easily control militarily, he didnt provide the resources necessary to catch OBL, didnt finish the job with Saddam, and was getting BJs from an ugly intern the whole time in the oval office, the lied about it.

In regards to what is underlined above a few paragraphs...
The same could be said in the opposite direction. What bugs me is two fold...
firstly, I dont really care for Bill Clinton, and it bugs me having to defend him.
Secondly is the overall hypocrisy of the GOP in thier criticism of him. While plenty of it is deserved, it needs to be directed at the individuals who are of the other party who do the same actions. You cant have it both ways.

 

[Andy]

I think the latest assumption is that the reactor is down for now, but that does not change the fact they have a nuclear arsenal, and have successfully tested a nuclear weapon. But what I find hard to digest is the statement in bold.
You are highly critical of Clinton for going in half cocked etc etc etc...now you claim that 1 well placed cruise missle will do the job. Andy, at least be consistent in your argument.

A fair statement. Let's consider the goals. With Clinton when dealing with a massive terrorist network, a single cruise missile is going to be useless.

However, in this case, if the goal is simply to wipe out a nuclear facility, a missile will be more than enough to destroy nuclear power plant.

Well you seem to think that 1 missile will do the trick in NK, but Clinton was criticised on two fronts by the GOP, one faction said that it wasnt enough ,the other part said it was nothing but a distraction from the Lewinsky scandal.

It wasn't for the job he was attempting to do. You seem to be operating from the perspective that there is a catch-all solution. For the things Clinton was trying to do, his solutions didn't work. That doesn't mean for our goal which is totally different, the solution Clinton choose wouldn't work. It didn't work for the goal he was going for, nor ours.

The problem with the distraction from Lewinsky, was the timing. Clinton had the information weeks, sometimes months, before he sprang into action. Then when he "sprang into action" happened to be politically convientent.

Clinton didnt go in, Daddy Bush did. In regards to America looking weak, not sure how you come to that conclusion. But I guess it is a matter of perception.

Bush Sr, did not put our troops into combat situations in Somalia, Clinton did. Jumping in, getting shot up, and running with our tail between our legs, looks weak.

No, I am not saying that. You asked why we were in Somalia, and I said the justification for that action was humanitarian, but really you would need to talk to Daddy Bush, because he sent the troops there to start, under the guise of humanitarian efforts. I think our military should be deployed to friendly nations who need protection, and to fight countries who have attacked us or our allies. Humanitarian efforts, and nation building are not the role of the military.

I disagree on nation building. If we take it upon ourselves to defeat a hostile nation, such as Iraq, we have a responsibilty to rebuild it, or add it to the Union. Since option 2 is not going to happen, option 1 it is.

 

[top gun]

I must say as I study at the grades Bush is getting in this HOP survey... the F is looking VERY STRONG!

 

[Andy]

Reagan, 1983, in Beruit Lebanon, a terrorist exploded a truck bomb at the base of the Marine barracks killing over 200, I think you know about this. The fact of the matter is that Reagan didnt do squat to deal with the terrorists who committed the attack including Hezbollah. Less than 4 months later US forces were out. Reagan did nothing but cut and run in the face of Islamic terrorists after they killed hundreds of American Marines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Barracks_Bombing

I agree. We should have had a large scale response.

OK Andy, so everything Bush did was inoccuous and Clinton was the one who bungled badly by not providing the heavy armor necessary and shifted the mission. I see, thanks for the clarification. That damn Clinton, he cut and run from places we should be able to easily control militarily, he didnt provide the resources necessary to catch OBL, didnt finish the job with Saddam, and was getting BJs from an ugly intern the whole time in the oval office, the lied about it.

Actually, he didn't even try to catch OBL. He even let a open door opportunity to get him, be allowed to pass by. What he lied about is less important than the fact he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. The fact he was getting BJs while the leader in the middle east peace process was waiting outside, is just an example of his pathetic leadership.

As far as Bush Sr... well you tell me. If he deploys troops in an effort to pass out food, and all they do is pass out food, does that cause them to get killed?

On the other hand, if you deploy troops to pass out food, then send them on a mission to capture a supposed warlord, that they are not manned, not equipped, and not supported enough to do, does that get them killed?

So yes, to me I don't agree with Bush Sr, but what he did was harmless. What Clinton did was harmful.

Just curious, if you want to prove me wrong, show me how many of our troops died in Mogadishu under Bush Sr? If can show me what military action they were required to do under Bush Sr, that they were denied the necessary equipment to do, then I'll agree both were bad.

In regards to what is underlined above a few paragraphs...
The same could be said in the opposite direction. What bugs me is two fold...
firstly, I dont really care for Bill Clinton, and it bugs me having to defend him.
Secondly is the overall hypocrisy of the GOP in thier criticism of him. While plenty of it is deserved, it needs to be directed at the individuals who are of the other party who do the same actions. You cant have it both ways.

Funny, I never defended Reagan pulling out of Lebanon. You on the other hand, have defended Clinton. Which one of us is trying to have it both ways? It isn't me.

 

[Bunz]

A fair statement. Let's consider the goals. With Clinton when dealing with a massive terrorist network, a single cruise missile is going to be useless.

However, in this case, if the goal is simply to wipe out a nuclear facility, a missile will be more than enough to destroy nuclear power plant.

I disagree with your assessment that a single cruise missle will destroy a nuke plant, short of a tactical nuclear warhead. The Tomahawk only has a 1,000 pound conventional warhead. Certainly enough to destroy a good sized building, but it would take a few dozen at minimum to get the job even partially done. The NKoreans might be a lot of things, but dumb isnt one of them. I would be amazed to find that thier important nuclear installations are spread out, and very hardened. The lessons of the Osirak strike by Israel have been learned.
Also, this would do zero to deal with the overall dictatorial government the NKoreans are held under.

It wasn't for the job he was attempting to do. You seem to be operating from the perspective that there is a catch-all solution. For the things Clinton was trying to do, his solutions didn't work. That doesn't mean for our goal which is totally different, the solution Clinton choose wouldn't work. It didn't work for the goal he was going for, nor ours.

The problem with the distraction from Lewinsky, was the timing. Clinton had the information weeks, sometimes months, before he sprang into action. Then when he "sprang into action" happened to be politically convientent.

I dont think there is a catch all solution. These are highly complicated issues, there is no question about that, if they werent, they would have been easily dealt with, and there are many other important factors that are considered that you and I, being regular guys dont know the full depth of.

Bush Sr, did not put our troops into combat situations in Somalia, Clinton did. Jumping in, getting shot up, and running with our tail between our legs, looks weak.

I am not sure when the mission changed, but either way, we can agree that it started off as a humanitarian mission and at some point, it became necessary to the troops to undertake a few raids. It is likely Clinton, but it makes me wonder if another President while provided the same information would act differently.

I disagree on nation building. If we take it upon ourselves to defeat a hostile nation, such as Iraq, we have a responsibilty to rebuild it, or add it to the Union. Since option 2 is not going to happen, option 1 it is.

Funny, that Sonny Bush said he wouldnt commit our forces towards nation buildings in the first place. But either way I do buy into the you break it you buy it concept, but I am convinced at this point that the military is the wrong government department to undertake those tasks. The military is best at breaking things, not putting them back together. We cant expect them to do both.

 

[Bunz]

Actually, he didn't even try to catch OBL. He even let a open door opportunity to get him, be allowed to pass by.

I would like to see some evidence of this. Please provide something that would indicate it. While I would tend to agree that he probably didnt do enough to catch OBL, I have a tough time believing he basically let him go.

What he lied about is less important than the fact he committed perjury and obstruction of justice.

Fair enough, I shouldnt have even brought that into the fold, it is another topic for another thread.

The fact he was getting BJs while the leader in the middle east peace process was waiting outside, is just an example of his pathetic leadership.

Well without questioning just what Hillary does for Bubba, I do get a chuckle out of this one...look on the bright side at least she wasnt under the desk doing the deed while the discussion was going on in the room.
As a side note, that is only loosely connected to this subject that shouldnt even be apart of this topic
Dont you think if there were more BJs going on in the war torn middle eastern countries and a lot more pork being served, with alcohol, that peace could be foreseeable. When people deny themselves the three of those basic desires, bacon, beer and BJs, only bad things can happen...I hope we can agree on this here Andy.

As far as Bush Sr... well you tell me. If he deploys troops in an effort to pass out food, and all they do is pass out food, does that cause them to get killed?
On the other hand, if you deploy troops to pass out food, then send them on a mission to capture a supposed warlord, that they are not manned, not equipped, and not supported enough to do, does that get them killed?

Well I doubt that Delta Force was spending much time passing out rice, and the fiasco that the blackhawks down situation turned into was one of just a few circumstances of the mission going wrong. Namely the Private failing to execute the proper quick rope deployment and the mission went downhill from there.
But I think more important is the cause of raid in the first place, which was Aidid, and his underminding the mission that was at hand.

So yes, to me I don't agree with Bush Sr, but what he did was harmless. What Clinton did was harmful.
Just curious, if you want to prove me wrong, show me how many of our troops died in Mogadishu under Bush Sr? If can show me what military action they were required to do under Bush Sr, that they were denied the necessary equipment to do, then I'll agree both were bad.

I dont know how many died, but there is no question that there was an increase in the personell involved to be killed or wounded. I dont know where you come to the conclusion that there were denied the equipment they needed, but hey I cant expect us to agree on much here.

Funny, I never defended Reagan pulling out of Lebanon. You on the other hand, have defended Clinton. Which one of us is trying to have it both ways? It isn't me.

Not asking you to defend Reagan, just be as critical of him as you would be of Clinton. If you blame Clinton for making America look weak, Reagan did this much moreso, especially considering the situation and the players involved.

 

[Andy]

I would like to see some evidence of this. Please provide something that would indicate it. While I would tend to agree that he probably didnt do enough to catch OBL, I have a tough time believing he basically let him go.

The Sunday Times [U.K.]
01/06/2002

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

Note that this was the UK edition. The US Times, didn't even cover the story. Imagine that, the biggest terrorist of our time, and the US media didn't cover a story on chances blown by a former president. Another example of Media bias.

Further, Dick Morris who was an advisory to Clinton, talked of conversations about terrorism specifically. Clinton responded to prompts to take action with "let the sleeping dogs lie", and said we should not stir up something that isn't an issue.

Well I doubt that Delta Force was spending much time passing out rice, and the fiasco that the blackhawks down situation turned into was one of just a few circumstances of the mission going wrong. Namely the Private failing to execute the proper quick rope deployment and the mission went downhill from there.
But I think more important is the cause of raid in the first place, which was Aidid, and his underminding the mission that was at hand.

From my understanding, our troops were successful at distributing food. It was the unprotected U.N. distributions that were confiscated by Aidid, for the purpose of reselling the food, or exchanging the food for weapons. A common practice in countries where international aid shows up.

Again, the main problem isn't what Aidid did, since that was expected. The problem was Clintons response. If Clinton has said "This isn't our fight, we need to pull out. The food give away, isn't working, we tried our best, let's go." I would have not had a problem with his leadership. Some might disagree with his choice, but at least he made a choice.

If on the other hand he had said "That's it, this guys going down. I'm sending in two more battalions of troops, a bunch of heavy armor APCs. Some large attack helicopters, and all the weapons they could possibly need, and we're going to wipe this doofus out.". Again I personally might disagree, but I would have not had a problem with his leadership here.

Instead of either of those, he said um... well... let's not get too high profile, but let's try and capture Aidid, but let's not go overboard and launch a full scale attack, but let's try and just sorta wing-it, and kinda sorta take out the head guy without actually having a massive military thing going on... Sort do it, but not really do it well, but not just pull out, but not really take them head on....

Do you get my point? He tried to go middle of the road. He tried to half-*** it. He went in half cocked. Then when some people got shot up because of his lame leadership, he pulled out. He was weak, and made us look weak. Oh, so America is so pathetic we show up with just a few unsupported troops, who at the first punch, run with their tails between their legs.

I dont know how many died, but there is no question that there was an increase in the personell involved to be killed or wounded. I dont know where you come to the conclusion that there were denied the equipment they needed, but hey I cant expect us to agree on much here.

That's interesting... didn't you read your own link? It was in the wiki page you posted. I actually knew it long before, but it's well documented there.
From the Wiki page:

A key moment in the operation was when the Clinton Administration shifted the mission from delivering food supplies to nation-building.

And for the denied equipment:

Service analyses of the action later identified three factors in the failure of the raid to achieve its objectives without serious casualties on both sides:

* A failure of intelligence gathering, particularly in relying on local intelligence sources only and failing to recognize Aidid's capability in urban guerilla warfare;
* A lack of political support for the Task Force Ranger mission, reflected in denial or removal of military support assets that would have aided the force, such as M1 Abrams tanks , AC-130 Spectre gunships, and M2 Bradley IFVs.
* A lack of decisive force by Task Force Ranger, including insufficient troops, equipment, and weaponry.

Not asking you to defend Reagan, just be as critical of him as you would be of Clinton. If you blame Clinton for making America look weak, Reagan did this much moreso, especially considering the situation and the players involved.

More so? This was one single action, that Reagan did not facilitate. Further, it was a multinational force, not just US. Is this to example Reagan from not responding? No. But it was hardly the same situation Clinton had. Not to mention that Reagan later redeemed himself of this a dozen times over. Clinton, on the other hand, never did. I can't hardly think of a situation in which Clinton didn't make us look weak.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

He's GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

​

 

[top gun]

He's GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

​

Sing with me...

5 - 6 - 7 - 8 ... He ain't in the office, he ain't in the office!

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

They hould have had split screens showing the arrival of Bush and the arrival of Obama to show what a massive contrast in support there is.

There were more people in Washington to see Obama sworn in than voted for Bush in 2000.

Go Bush

For ever

 

[BigRob]

Bunz, I just want to point out that North Korea claimed last week and has been supported in this claim by various sources that they have weaponized plutonium and are capable or have made 4-5 warheads.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And?

The US has had nuclear weapons for decades.

And used them in anger on a country that was suing for peace killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

And the US has had to be persuaded not to nuke several other countries since then.

Hypocrisy or what?

The US will do nothing about WMD in Korea though. They and their allies might fight back.

 

[BigRob]

And?

The US has had nuclear weapons for decades.

And used them in anger on a country that was suing for peace killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

And the US has had to be persuaded not to nuke several other countries since then.

Hypocrisy or what?

The US will do nothing about WMD in Korea though. They and their allies might fight back.

Any basic understanding of international relations and foreign affairs would mean you would not seriously need to ask the "and" question.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

That kind of response is commonly used by those bereft of a credible answer

 

[BigRob]

That kind of response is commonly used by those bereft of a credible answer

Or by those who care to little to give someone like you an answer knowing you won't get it. I do not need your support to back up my foreign policy credentials.