And They Say America Isn't Kind

For all the liberal talk of George Bush and America not being kind, let this be a lesson for you. We're even obliging terrorists these days. Here, here!

"Our brother martyr Aden Hashi, has received what he was looking for — death for the sake of Allah — at the hands of the United States," Robow told The Associated Press by phone.

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

Another al-Qaida #2?
Yes yes, this categorically proves we're winning the war on terror. We know, Dan.

Of course, Clinton ordered air strikes like this against al-Qaida back in '98 and the GOP practically shat its pants over a waste of cruise missiles and a distraction from Blowjob-gate. So I'm assuming fighting terrorism is something only Republicans are allowed to do, and only when they're good and ready - this Somalia issue going back to freak'n Black Hawk Down (another instance where the GOP wanted us all to cut and run over a single helicopter of marines whose funerals wouldn't be given five minutes of media coverage had they died in Iraq today).

[tally]

his 2007 speech greeting bin laden and stating that he was going to behead all the women and children, when he reached the capital of ethiopia, was particularly unnerving. glad that nasty is rotting in hell.

[Gmax]

Oh no who can Jimmy Carter and Obama meet with now Somalia? Its just not fair I tell you.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"The U.S. missiles left a smoldering hole where Ayro's home had stood in Dusamareeb."

That sent a shiver up my leg (or whatever Obie does to Chris Matthews)

As usual Pookie the LLama is right: "Black Hawk Down (another instance where the GOP wanted us all to cut and run." Just think if Bush had let those kids partners respond to rescue them (as they literally begged to do) then more may have lived and a stronger message sent. Coming so close to the time that Bushes Marines were run off teh beaches of Haiti and his blowing up of aspirin factories & Chinese embassies, Bush could not take another such strong stance. Then came that first bombing of the WTC which the GOP also did nothing about. I believe it was at this time that gay GOP Ninjas began sneaking tennis shoes full of explosives into the WTC. The plan would take many years to implement shortly after Bush's tenth election. This would be their greattst coup since their attack on Pearl Harbor which forced a dem president to declare war on Germany.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- his 2007 speech greeting bin laden --"

Bin who?

"-- This would be their greattst coup since their attack on Pearl Harbor which forced a dem president to declare war on Germany. --"

Speling falure.

But seriously, if you want to compare Bush to Clinton, you're going to have to match the successes up as well. Clinton's Bosnia and Kosovo campaigns (another set of wars the GOP aggressively opposed) were a marked success. Milosovich was stopped, the genocide was ended, and the area - while not exactly overflowing with goodwill - is at peace. Clinton's Desert Fox campaign cost us a few million dollars and incurred no US casualties. Then, of course, there's the little White House briefing "Bin Laden determined to Strike America" that was compiled on Clinton's watch and handed off to a negligent Bush administration.

Either way, the Dem position on confronting militants and terrorists has been fairly consistent. Diplomacy, sanctions, and military force are used in a progressive showing of force. The GOP position is downright schizophrenic, jumping from isolationist penny-pinching in Africa and Eastern Europe to reckless unplanned invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq that have no foreseeable conclusion. And in the last eight years, bombings have moved from Tanzania and Egypt to London and Madrid. I hardly call that progress.

The GOP has been an absolute disaster for national security. They've been an even worse force on the US Military itself - wasting hundreds of billions on private contracts while they allow military bases like Fort Bragg in NC and the VA military hospital system to completely fall apart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36544-2005Jan25.html
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1111
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/02/army.secretary/index.html

Seriously, though. There's absolutely no comparison between the quagmire of Iraq and anything previous to Vietnam. Even WWII doesn't begin to compare. Had this been WWII, we'd be mopping up the Germans this time last year.

[crawlspace]

Uh, genius calling himself a Llama, in WWII we had 12 million men in arms, 50,000 tanks, 100,000 aircraft, and 50,000 artillery pieces brought to bear on the enemy. And carte blanche to kill all the civilians neccessary to end the war. Is this in any way comparable to what is going on in Iraq? You're a fucking retard for even drawing such a comparison.

[Fred Beloit]

Moe says: "Had this been WWII, we'd be mopping up the Germans this time last year."

Had this been WWII, Moe, we would have a much higher body count on both sides and Gitmo would be overflowing with POWs.

Not only that, but people like you and your friends would be on our side rather than the side of the Islamoterrorists.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Pookie Sed: "But seriously, if you want to compare Bush to Clinton, you're going to have to match the successes up as well."
Unlike my left leaning friends, I've no problem giving credit where due..
Clinton's Bosnia and Kosovo campaigns (another set of wars the GOP aggressively opposed) were a marked success. Milosovich was stopped, the genocide was ended, and the area - while not exactly overflowing with goodwill - is at peace." Yes, at peace now. But what happens when the 'peace keepers' leave? I never speed when there's a cop on my tail......

"Clinton's Desert Fox campaign cost us a few million dollars and incurred no US casualties." True and allowed Saddam to bar UN inspectors as he chided the world with his non-existant nuke program.

Then, of course, there's the little White House briefing "Bin Laden determined to Strike America" that was compiled on Clinton's watch and handed off to a negligent Bush administration." So by your own admission, Clinton was well aware of OBL's plans. Yet when (after the WTC bombing of 1993) handed OBL on a silver platter, chose to ignore the gift. Of course, Bush should have done something during his less than eight months in office...................

"Either way, the Dem position on confronting militants and terrorists has been fairly consistent." And, somehow, still lead up to TWO WTC bombings and I wont bother with any other events.....

"reckless unplanned invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq that have no foreseeable conclusion." My thoughts on the present ill advised campaign are on record.....

"And in the last eight years, bombings have moved from Tanzania and Egypt to London and Madrid. I hardly call that progress. The GOP has been an absolute disaster for national security." ABsolutely, what with all the hijackings and bombings that have gone on in the US..........

"They've been an even worse force on the US Military itself - wasting hundreds of billions on private contracts while they allow military bases like Fort Bragg in NC and the VA military hospital system to completely fall apart." Uh, it IS contractors who have stolen government money rather than maintain government buildings.......This bright idea was brought to us by Jimmah the C. A shell game to convince the masses that we were spending less on the military by getting rid of civil service employees and hiring contractors.And kiddies, you dont know the half of that travesty! You are correct though in blaming the repugnicans for it.........they should not have continued failed demonrat policies.....I'm in total agreement there.

[seekeronos]

"--- Either way, the Dem position on confronting militants and terrorists has been fairly consistent. Diplomacy, sanctions, and military force are used in a progressive showing of force. ---"

And where the Dems and the Reps both go wrong is the presumption of power by a president to launch the nation into war unconstitutionally by acting upon UN resolutions, or equally bad, by unilaterally circumventing the constitutional restraints of seeking a *congressional* declaration of war.

There has not been a constitutionally declared war fought since 1941, when Truman decided that UN fiat was sufficient to use the lives of America's young men as his playthings to push back the Maoists and Communist Koreans led by Kim Il Sung (where the threat of detonation of several atom bombs over Pyongyang and Beijing may have well done the deed).

That North Korean and Red China (as well as the USSR) were a menace is well known; but it would have been far more beneficial to the preservation of this Republic had Truman gone through the appropriate, Constitutional channels to determine whether or not intervention was worth the hardship to be endured.

And an even worse and far greater sin, is Congress forfeiting its constitutional obligation to decide whether or not to declare war to the Executive Branch, thus enabling the sorts of encroachments upon civil liberties and the treacherous expansion of federal government on a scale unimaginable even by Lincoln or FDR's wildest dreams.

Behold, this nation is at a point where the Constitution is but a "scrap of paper" fit only to be trodden underfoot -- through the complicit arrogation of power by wicked men who have crept in unawares to seize our liberty, and worse, willful ignorance by the average citizen. And both Democrat and Republican are equally blood-guilty in the demise of our nation, which is gradually is metastasizing into that worst and most dreadful forms of state, the empire: which seldom outlives the principle nation(s) from which it arose.