“That is one of my greater criticisms of Bush 41, that he played politics with soldiers’ lives to give Clinton a black eye as he entered office. Bush never would have engaging in a military action in Somalia had he won reelection.”

But wait is it not one of the major hits against Bush 43 that he didn’t get UN approval for the liberation of Iraq?
Was not Somalia a UN Humanitarian mission? Did Bush 41 go into there for those reasons?

and the second part of your statement – “Bush never would have engaging in a military action in Somalia had he won reelection.”

He was already “engaged” PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.

And please, please give us all the links and references to Clintons “bold plan to hit back at al Qaeda after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in late 2000.”

The fact is Clinton designated the Cole investigation as a criminal investigation that placed responsigility in the hands of the FBI, that limited how the CIA, and NSA could assist in the investigation.

Was not Somalia a UN Humanitarian mission? Did Bush 41 go into there for those reasons?

He was already “engaged” PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.
I hold that both of these are false. The second definitely is; Bush ordered 25,000 U.S. troops into Somalia on December 4, 1992–a full month after he became a lame duck and Clinton won. Clinton was against this, and upon coming into office, tried to disengage us as quickly as he could. By the time things started to get truly bad, Clinton had pulled 80% of our troops out. But he could not fully disengage too soon, or else Republicans would call him weak–that, in my opinion, is exactly why Bush sent them in.

Which leads to the “humanitarian” angle. The fact is, Bush Sr. has ample opportunity over several years to be a “humanitarian,” but he consistently refused to engage our troops anywhere for that reason. He stayed out of Bosnia, even though horrific atrocities were being carried out, and he did not enter Somalia until late in the game, when the U.N. affort had long been faltering. All throughout his presidency, he made it crystal clear he did not want U.S. forces in such roles. Only a month after he lost, a month and a half before handing over the office to Clinton, did Bush send in a massive deployment to the worst and most unresolvable hellhole on the planet. Sorry but no way did he do it as a U.N. mission to feed people, and no way in hell he would have started such a mission while he was still president.

“Rumsfeld said there aren’t good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.”

I am watching the 9/11 Commission testimony right now — Rumsfeld just recalled that he said Afghanistan doesn’t have a lot of lucrative targets. Hmmm….

He mentioned that Afghanistan was surrounded by countries which were “not very friendly to the US.” It got me looking at a map, at which point I realized just how strategic the two countries they invaded are.

Iraq is connected territorially to six middle eastern countries. Afghanistan is equally well-placed (6 countries). It looks like a perfect position from which to dominate and control the entire region, not to mention two more places to build military bases. I was saying before the Iraq war that they wanted to do just that. What do you think?

Sorry it was a UN sanctioned Humanitarian mission that pre-dated Bush 41 actions. And also may give an indication as to why he didn’t act prior to the time he did. Its wasn’t authorized by the UN. Which BTW is one of the biggest things the “left” is hitting Bush 43 with, he wasn’t authorized to go into Iraq without UN approval. As for Bosnia, the same holds true, there was no UN Approval for any action there until after the first bombs were dropped.

Both my original statements hold up and are fact. Bush “engaged” prior to assumeing office. And it was a UN sanctioned operation.
If you have the proof that Bush entered just because he wanted to leave a mess for Clinton I would very much like to see the ref. But it would be hard I would suspect considering its “in [your]my opinion, is exactly why Bush sent them in.”

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm

“Security Council imposes arms embargo
and calls for humanitarian assistance

Against this background, in January 1992, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 733(1992) under Chapter VII of the Charter, imposing a general and complete arms embargo on Somalia.

On 17 March 1992, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 746(1992), urging the continuation of the United Nations humanitarian work in Somalia and strongly supporting the Secretary-General’s decision to dispatch a technical team. Three days later, the Secretary-General appointed a Coordinator to oversee the effective delivery of humanitarian aid to Somalia. On 27 and 28 March, agreements were signed between the rival parties in Mogadishu resulting in the deployment of United Nations observers to monitor the cease-fire of 3 March 1992. The agreement also included deployment of United Nations security personnel to protect United Nations personnel and humanitarian assistance activities.

The Secretary-General then recommended the establishment of a United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM), comprising 50 military observers to monitor the cease-fire, and a 500-strong infantry unit to provide United Nations convoys of relief supplies with a sufficiently strong military escort to deter attack and to fire in self-defence, showed deterrence proving ineffective. The Secretary-General submitted a 90-Day Plan of Action to provide food and non-food supplies to some 1.5 million people immediately at risk and to help an additional 3.5 million people with food, seeds and basic health and water supply. On 28 April 1992, the Secretary-General appointed Mr. Mohammed Sahnoun (Algeria) as Special Representative for Somalia.

UNOSOM I established

On 24 April 1992, the Security Council adopted resolution 751(1992), establishing UNOSOM I. The Council asked the Secretary-General to deploy immediately 50 unarmed but uniformed United Nations military observers and to continue consultations with the parties in Mogadishu. These consultations took nearly two months. On 23 June, the Secretary-General informed the Security Council that both principal factions in Mogadishu had agreed to the deployment of the unarmed observers. The observers, from Austria, Bangladesh, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco and Zimbabwe, served under Chief Military Observer Brigadier-General Imtiaz Shaheen of Pakistan.

Actually, I (firmly on the left) hold many things against Bush 43. He openly admitted that the US would invade Iraq with or without UN approval. He sent Colin Powell to the Security Council and humiliated the US with the falsifications about WMD. He is in bed with the religious fundamentalists, who at this very moment are attempting to amend the constitution to take rights away from a group they don’t like. He has squandered, with the help of Republicans in Congress, a massive budget surplus and created a massive budget deficit. He signed into law a Medicare bill that specifically prohibits Congress from negotiating to lower prescription drug prices. And it’s quite possible that Bush and his staff, in pursuit of their Middle East objectives, let Al-Qaeda in the back door.

Do I even need to go on?

Justin:

I think we need to go on–primarily for the reason that there is so much noise from the right spouting pro-Bush garbage, and the media, even today, gives Bush such amazing berth on these issues. It still astounds me today that the press could go on about Clinton and the intern for so many years and with such intensity, but when Bush comes along and essentially napalms the economy, the constitution and the country as a whole, and they still lay off him.

—

Sorry, Marc, but your “facts” are fantasy, and your reference simply proves that. The U.N. was engaged before the election, not the U.S.; I can see no evidence that a single U.S. soldier was in-country before December 4th, and if there were, they were part of the U.N. force and few in number–that is not Bush being “engaged,” my friend. Sending 25,000 troops into Somalia, now that is “engaged.”

Bush’s primary involvement began December 4th, and while it closely followed a U.N. resolution calling for U.S. help, you would have to be amazingly naive to fall for the obvious post hoc ergo propter hoc. Resolution 794 was obviously crafted and passed because Bush had let the U.N. know that he wanted to send the troops in. But had Bush not decided to stick it to Clinton, 794 never would have been introduced in the first place.

So Bush was not engaged prior to the November elections, and had Bush been interested in humanitarian purposes, he would have gone into Solmalia earlier, not to mention Bosnia two years earlier.

I was saying before the Iraq war that they wanted to do just that. What do you think?
Quite a happy coincidence, isn’t it? One gets the very strong feeling that if we get four more years of Bush, then we will see more invasions and puppet states along the way. Problem is, the Middle East does not lend itself to the kind of influence that Bush & Co want to exert; it’s been tried before, and it always fails miserably.

Yeah, it seems almost too good to be true for the neocons. Actually, I notice that Iran is now sandwiched between two US-controlled countries (3 if you count Qatar), providing the basis for a three-pronged invasion. And you’re right about the middle east…plus the US military is overextended. They’re using the National Guard for active duty in Iraq, presently. Developments in Europe have been moderately uplifting — the EU constitution negotiations are going to start back up, aren’t they? I think perhaps the US could learn a lesson in humility by having a federated Europe superpower to keep it in check.

What do people in Japan think about their government’s complicity with Bush? I’ve always looked up to postwar Japanese society as something of a model in pacifism, but things look more grim every day. I know you said that the PM (Koizumi?) didn’t need encouragement, but again I can’t help but place the blame squarely on the Bush administration for this new militarism.

“as something of a model in pacifism”

Will that be the most effective method to fight the war on terrorism?

What have been Clarks two most damming “revelations” to date, at least ones that have gotten the most notice in the press? That Bush did nothing for months and when hearing the mention of al Qaeda Condi Rice looked puzzled and seemed to not know what Clark was talking about.

What has a newly released tape of a NSC briefing said? In Clarks own words, speaking his own thoughts on the new Bush admin.
He flatly states that Bush went to a “pre-emptive” strategy and the recognition of al Qeada as a prime target ONE MONTH in the Admin, in Feb 2001. How does that square with his assertions from the book?

On the UN resolution as I said the UN gave the autorization to go into Somolia, wheather engaged means a few troops or thousands it matters little. Your assertion that Bush 41 whent in just to cause problems for Clinton is only your opinion not fact. Your statement that the resolution was written only after the US whent in is again only your opinion not fact, unless you are in possession of the ability to read minds. And how, if it is fact, is that different than Clinton going into Bosnia without UN authorization? Are you against that as well?

“Problem is, the Middle East does not lend itself to the kind of influence that Bush & Co want to exert” Justin you are not watching the news. Have you taken any notice that the Kurds in Syria have started to rebel against that oppressive and terrorist shielding government? Something that has NEVER happened before.

Have you noticed the change in Iran? althought small indications of an uprising have happened in the past, in the last two months their have been widespread dominstrations and riots in country.

Have you noticed Libya has dramaticly changed their tune. afraid they might “be next”?

Have you noticed Iran nuclear program being opened up like never before?

Have you noticed attempts in Saudia Arabia to start a more representive government and even allow women into local positions?

Could any of this have happened without the US taking the actions in Iraq and Afganistan? A fair assesment would have to be most likely no, and if it did happen it would be decades from now, if ever.

This quote from your post:

“And now we hear from Clarke not only a solid confirmation that the Clinton plan was shunted aside, but that further reasons included the fact that Bush & Co. were far too busy planning an attack on Iraq to be bothered with minor-leaguers like al Qaeda.”
=======================================================

And Mr. Clark taken from a meeting with reporters on how the incoming Bush43 team acted in the first few months. Hey look at that in his own word “there was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed…”

I rest my case…Clark is a Clown wrapped in fruadulant intentions.

And there is more if you care to see Clark call himself a liar in his own words. And before you go off on some rant about this being FoxNews and being slanted I remind you this was a briefing given to a group of reporters not just Fox.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

“RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy — uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we’ve now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies ? and you had to remember, the deputies didn’t get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer ? last point ? they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

Justin you are not watching the news.

That’s something of a misnomer. Technically, yes, I do not watch much news. I usually read it. Television news often doesn’t leave room for the details that are often crucial in understanding things. But I think what you mean is I don’t watch Fox news. Every link you’ve provided is to a news organization that is so politically motivated and Bush-friendly as to be nearly unbelievable.

Read my other comment as to Clark’s job being (at that point) to put a good “spin” on things. He’s more believable now, when he can’t lose his job for misspeaking.

I still hold fast to the position that terrorism will continue indefinitely until its underlying causes are addressed. It’s been said before and I’ll say it again — you play right into bin Laden’s hands when you go off half-cocked attacking Iraq…a country which had not attacked the US and was not threatening the US. He has been saying for years that we were going to continue to do these things. Don’t you think he is vindicated when it happens?

Violence begets violence. War does not bring peace. Someone has to break the cycle of violence for it to end. I’ll give you an example…after WWII the German people realized what had happened to them, namely that they had been duped into supporting an expansionist authoritatian government. They promised themselves they would not let it happen again. To this day, Germans are extremely concerned about resurgent nationalism. Immigration policy has a salience there that it doesn’t really have elsewhere, as does war.

So to the conservatives who try to hold up WWII as an example of “peace through war” I offer the Weimar Republic as a counterexample. It was a similar situation — the Germans lost the first world war and had a harsh peace dictated to them. But it hardly stopped the cycle of violence. In fact, defeat only strengthened their desire to be victorious again. Only when there was an independent, conscious decision was there any real change. The same holds true for Japan, I would argue.

Luis: sorry for writing such an inordinate number of posts

marc: you said “What have been Clarks two most damming “revelations” to date, at least ones that have gotten the most notice in the press? That Bush did nothing for months and when hearing the mention of al Qaeda Condi Rice looked puzzled and seemed to not know what Clark was talking about.”

Well you’re making the mistake of thinking, because of the failure to post pictures of the men who had been trained in plane steering (but not landing), secure airports, etc, that I endorse wars of aggression and the curtailment of civil liberties. I don’t.

On the one hand, we have to acknowledge that there is only so much that can be done to prevent terrorist activity like this. A society that is completely secure is not a free society. On the other hand, the most damning thing about the Bush administration here is that due to their ideological “blinders” they didn’t act at all.

I think this is part of the problem with the conservative approach to terrorism: you’re unable to conceive of it as anything but a war, and therefore the only actions you’re able to contemplate are overt killing and bombs. It’s quite sad, really. What a limited point of view.

correction: “anything but a war”

Admin’s edit: I have amended your original comment to incorporate the correction.