Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush: Terrorists emboldened by retreat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush: Terrorists emboldened by retreat

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...track=morenews

    Pattern of Errors Emboldened Terrorists, Bush Says
    By Warren Vieth
    Times Staff Writer

    2:29 PM PDT, September 22, 2005

    WASHINGTON — President Bush said today that mistakes made by three of his predecessors, including the Reagan administration's response to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, had emboldened global terrorists and helped set the stage for the 9/11 attacks.

    Bush said he was determined not to repeat the pattern by pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq before terrorists are contained and Iraqi forces are able to provide their own security.

    "To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," Bush said in remarks at the Pentagon after a two-hour briefing by Defense Department officials on the status of the U.S. offensive in Iraq and the war on terrorism.

    He cited as examples the U.S. response to the hostage crisis in Iran during the Carter administration, the Lebanon bombing under Reagan, and four crises that occurred during the Clinton administration: the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the Cole.

    "The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves, and so they attacked us," said the president, as Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top military officials stood at his side.

    Bush did not mention any events during the first Bush administration, such as his father's decision to end the first Gulf War without sending coalition troops on to Baghdad to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.

    The president's assessment came two days before tens of thousands of antiwar activists were expected to gather in the nation's capital to demand a rapid U.S. disengagement from Iraq. One person set to participant in Saturday's events is Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq last year and who disrupted Bush's August vacation by setting up a tent camp outside his Texas ranch.

    Bush will not be in town when the antiwar demonstrators are scheduled to converge on the White House, where they hope to deliver a letter to the president. Bush was scheduled to fly to Texas and Colorado late Friday to review Hurricane Rita preparations and Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts, the White House said, and would remain overnight in Colorado.

    Bush, whose job approval ratings have fallen to new lows amid growing concern about the continuing violence in Iraq, said he understood there were "differences of opinion" about the U.S. military engagement there.

    "Some Americans want us to withdraw our troops so that we can escape the violence," he said. "I recognize their good intentions, but their position is wrong."

    Just as, in Bush's view, global terrorists interpreted the decisions of his predecessors as a signal of American ambivalence, they would view an immediate pullout from Iraq as a sign of weakness, he said.

    "The terrorists are testing our will and resolve in Iraq," he said. "If we fail that test, the consequences for the safety and security of the American people would be enormous. Our withdrawal from Iraq would allow the terrorists to claim a historic victory over the Untied States.

    "That's not going to happen on my watch," Bush said.

  • #2
    He's preaty much hit the nail on the head. The Marine barracks attack stands out in my mind as Reagan's biggest blunder. Instead of retreating the U.S should have increased its presence.
    Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

    -- Larry Elder

    Comment


    • #3
      He's preaty much hit the nail on the head. The Marine barracks attack stands out in my mind as Reagan's biggest blunder. Instead of retreating the U.S should have increased its presence.
      the problem with all this is that you're looking at it in hindsight. at the time (and same with somalia), the public was absolutely howling for the removal of US troops. in other words, both reagan and clinton would have paid a significant political price for keeping troops there; given that terrorism wasn't quite the threat then that it was now, the benefits of keeping troops there were thus limited.

      in any case, i suspect that terrorists would have taken heart. if the US had kept soldiers in lebanon, what was to keep another round of car bombings from hitting them? either way, if the US withdrew in 3 months or 3 years they'd still be yelling their 'victory' to the skies. these are the same type of people that claim that katrina is allah coming down to punish the evil americans, after all.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #4
        "the problem with all this is that you're looking at it in hindsight. at the time (and same with somalia), the public was absolutely howling for the removal of US troops. in other words, both reagan and clinton would have paid a significant political price for keeping troops there;"

        Bush has paid a significant political price for the Iraq War. Doing what it right has a cost in cash, in blood, and in political capital. I won't excuse individuals that knew or should have known what the right thing to do was but were unwilling to put forth the political capital to do it.

        "given that terrorism wasn't quite the threat then that it was now, the benefits of keeping troops there were thus limited."

        On the contrary, the benefit was much greater. They just didn't see it.

        "if the US had kept soldiers in lebanon, what was to keep another round of car bombings from hitting them?"

        Better force protection, a more proactive approach

        "either way, if the US withdrew in 3 months or 3 years they'd still be yelling their 'victory' to the skies. "

        Not if they're dead or running for there lives from local forces.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by astralis
          the problem with all this is that you're looking at it in hindsight. at the time (and same with somalia), the public was absolutely howling for the removal of US troops. in other words, both reagan and clinton would have paid a significant political price for keeping troops there; given that terrorism wasn't quite the threat then that it was now, the benefits of keeping troops there were thus limited.
          That's why leaders LEAD, and aren't led, especially by poll numbers. If a leader has the requisite vision, then he should perceive that pulling out of Lebanon and Somalia will be calamities. They were. I agree that Lebanon was Reagan's worst blunder. Somalia wasn't Clinton'sbiggest, but only by virtue of having so very many to choose from.

          Originally posted by astralis
          in any case, i suspect that terrorists would have taken heart. if the US had kept soldiers in lebanon, what was to keep another round of car bombings from hitting them?
          ARMED FORCE, I should think. Loaded rifles and the detemination to use them ruthlessly the next time friendlies are menaced. THAT would have prevented it.

          Originally posted by astralis
          either way, if the US withdrew in 3 months or 3 years they'd still be yelling their 'victory' to the skies. these are the same type of people that claim that katrina is allah coming down to punish the evil americans, after all.
          There's a difference, I think that even you can perceive. If we had remained firm and withdrawn on OUR timetable, they can make all the hollow claims they'd like. The reality would be that we were firm and withdrew when it suited our purposes, NOT because a politician got nervous about declining poll numbers.

          And I invite the members of this board to compare the current preseident's testicular fortitude with his three predecessors. Clinton failed his moment of truth in Mogadishu; Bush 41 failed his on the road to Baghdad; and reagan failed his in Beirut.

          Bush 43 is resolute and determined to win through in Iraq, and THAT, my friends, is the absolute first requirment for victory.

          Comment


          • #6
            The buck should stop there and not be passed to the predecesors!

            One's pwn failing should not make one hunt for excuses.

            If the predecessors had made the mistakes, then before emabrking on any programme, the effect of those errors of the predecessors should have been taken into account and then the strategy evolved!

            To cry and weep after the fact is a poor indicator of leadership and clear thought!


            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

            HAKUNA MATATA

            Comment


            • #7
              I wrote mine before I saw Leader's. :)

              Nice. :)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ray
                The buck should stop there and not be passed to the predecesors!

                One's pwn failing should not make one hunt for excuses.

                If the predecessors had made the mistakes, then before emabrking on any programme, the effect of those errors of the predecessors should have been taken into account and then the strategy evolved!

                To cry and weep after the fact is a poor indicator of leadership and clear thought!
                Not following you, there, Ray.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ray
                  The buck should stop there and not be passed to the predecesors!

                  One's pwn failing should not make one hunt for excuses.

                  If the predecessors had made the mistakes, then before emabrking on any programme, the effect of those errors of the predecessors should have been taken into account and then the strategy evolved!

                  To cry and weep after the fact is a poor indicator of leadership and clear thought!
                  You miss understand want he is saying. He saying the mistakes in the past should not be repeated and he's not going to repeat them.
                  Last edited by Leader; 23 Sep 05,, 07:36.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bluesman
                    I wrote mine before I saw Leader's. :)

                    Nice. :)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ray
                      The buck should stop there and not be passed to the predecesors!

                      One's pwn failing should not make one hunt for excuses.

                      If the predecessors had made the mistakes, then before emabrking on any programme, the effect of those errors of the predecessors should have been taken into account and then the strategy evolved!

                      To cry and weep after the fact is a poor indicator of leadership and clear thought!

                      No passing the buck involved, only displaying the initial falures! Bush could have continued the trend but instead decided to end the cycle at the expence of his own public support no less.

                      Yes hindsight is 20/20 but we clearly saw the effects of following the publics ever changing opinion after the first gulf war when Bush senior pulled out (OMG the highway of death! Those poor Iraqi theives, rapists and thugs!!!) and not only left Saddam in power but failed to support those attempting to bring him down in the absence of the U.S.

                      Ultimately it led to 12 years of UN resolutions and an assassination attempt against the very President who pulled the U.S. out of Iraq, not to mention the slaughter of countless Iraqi civilians, and then we had to go in again to finnish the job. Had it have been finnished the first time we could have saved countless Iraqi lives and who knows, possibly even dodged the 9/11 bullet.
                      Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                      -- Larry Elder

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Leader,

                        Then it is valid.

                        Bluesman,

                        What I meant was that if there is a rot, then as the CO I must end it and not claim that it is all because the COs before me were chumps and today because they were idiots I am holding the can or else I would have done a great job!

                        I hope the military analogy above explains.

                        Smiling,

                        As above.


                        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                        HAKUNA MATATA

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          bluesman,

                          That's why leaders LEAD, and aren't led, especially by poll numbers. If a leader has the requisite vision, then he should perceive that pulling out of Lebanon and Somalia will be calamities.
                          that is true...to a point. if a leader, however, chooses to ignore poll numbers all the time, then 1. why are we a democracy? 2. he's probably not going to get re-elected. to show how bush is led around by poll numbers, just look at how much the re-construction plan for iraq has changed since 2003. much of it is done under pressure for withdrawing troops. guess where that pressure is coming from.

                          ARMED FORCE, I should think. Loaded rifles and the detemination to use them ruthlessly the next time friendlies are menaced. THAT would have prevented it.
                          as we see in iraq, that's not preventing car bombs and IEDs altogether. it's not too hard, in the chaos that was lebanon at the time, to shove several hundred pounds of explosives into a car without people knowing it.

                          There's a difference, I think that even you can perceive. If we had remained firm and withdrawn on OUR timetable, they can make all the hollow claims they'd like. The reality would be that we were firm and withdrew when it suited our purposes, NOT because a politician got nervous about declining poll numbers.
                          actually, bluesman, my disagreement with you here is a matter of scale. of course if we withdraw now the propaganda victory for al-qaeda would be huge (as it would have been still larger just one year ago). however, what i am saying is that planned withdrawal or not, al-qaeda will still scream it to the skies. what we're doing here is lessening the propaganda "victory", not completely eliminating it.

                          let's put it this way: al-qaeda did the same thing when we withdrew from saudi arabia. we withdrew under our own timetable, with no pressure for al-qaeda terrorist activities, heck, that even fulfilled one of the "requirements" for "peace" with bin ladin. my middle-east watcher colleagues told me that al-qaeda affiliated papers and sites at that time were crowing about it 24/7. so no perfect victory for us there, unfortunately.

                          And I invite the members of this board to compare the current preseident's testicular fortitude with his three predecessors. Clinton failed his moment of truth in Mogadishu; Bush 41 failed his on the road to Baghdad; and reagan failed his in Beirut.
                          that's a poor comparison, though. the war in iraq, for better or worse, is now indeed central to our efforts in reducing terrorism. a failure here would set back our efforts very very very badly, far worse than if we had never gone into afghanistan.

                          what about the other three presidents? clinton and mogadishu, no one at the time recognized 1. the danger of al-qaeda, 2. that some of the somalis were trained by al-qaeda.

                          what was seen at the time was an interventionist mission for the UN to help feed the somali poor. noble as it was, for presidents that's usually not enough to garner public support for continuing after those 18 troops died. bush, for example, heeded this example when he steered clear of liberia in summer 2003.

                          bush 41 realized that his UN mandate didn't reach to baghdad. doing so would have most certainly ruined the coalition that was set up prior the war, for unclear gains at the time. here, take a look at this:

                          "I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

                          What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

                          I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

                          then find out which hippie liberal said that, and when! the right actions need to be done at proper times.

                          actually, i think the chance that bush 41 lost out on was in the aftermath of the war, when the kurds and shi'ites rebelled. by using very minimal force (preventing helicopter and air support by saddam, maybe with a bit of air support of our own), saddam would have been toppled, AND iraq would be the kurds and the shi'ites baby, without our having to spend hundreds of billions- and thousands of lives. and we wouldn't have ended up with a suspicious shi'ite population, angry at what they considered a US betrayal at the time by calling for an uprising and not supporting them.

                          same with reagan. him being in beirut was not absolutely necessary for US security at the time. so you can't compare 'testicular fortitude' when the stakes aren't the same.

                          for example, to dispell the myth that clinton lacked this fortitude, he was quite literally several hours away from declaring war on NK in 1998. in this case he was quite willing to risk his political life to disarm NK (a grave security risk), and it was only a last-second proposal by the frightened NKs that got negotiations back on the table.
                          Last edited by astralis; 24 Sep 05,, 19:45.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I see where your coming from Ray, but as Bush says, we have to start sucking it up and standing toe to toe with terrorists.

                            Astralis you cannot deny that Bush senior had he have continued to sock it to Saddam in the first war we would not be here now. Countless lives would have been saved. Why do you think he's so supportive of his sons commitment to finnishing the job? He knows he in small part failed to curtail islamic fundimentalism before it grew into the B movie monster flick it is now.
                            Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                            -- Larry Elder

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by smilingassassin
                              I see where your coming from Ray, but as Bush says, we have to start sucking it up and standing toe to toe with terrorists.

                              Astralis you cannot deny that Bush senior had he have continued to sock it to Saddam in the first war we would not be here now. Countless lives would have been saved. Why do you think he's so supportive of his sons commitment to finnishing the job? He knows he in small part failed to curtail islamic fundimentalism before it grew into the B movie monster flick it is now.

                              smilingass,

                              The first Iraq war was not about Islamic fundamentalism, it was about oil, US did not want Saddam to control 45% of the world oil.

                              In fact during the Bush senior presidency US was still in bed with all these terrorists ( mujahids ) in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X