Clinton Interview on Fox

[Sarge]

Well, like I said, maybe you should take it up with the Senate Intel Committee and the Washington Times, because they were the ones who reported it. . .

So there you have it. . . Powell, Hoar and Downing made the discussion and Powell made the call. I guess you need to revisit your idea of how the military makes decisions then huh?

So now you're saying Powell, the author of the Powell Doctrine, which advocates using overwhelming force, was saying "We have to keep the numbers down"?

I wonder who was telling him to do that?

[Sarge]

Sarge, you always continue to sprout off the same old talking points day in and say out, when we've been down this road 100 times.

It's called "History". You should read it sometime instead of trying to re-write it

[Sarge]

And yet you don't hold Bush to the same fire when we went into a MUCH MUCH larger endeavour without giving the commanders what they needed huh :doh: What a glaring hypocritical joke.

That was a doctrine shift, something completely different. Rummy was trying out a new way of doing business, which was marginal at best. That shift was basically an experiment to see if we could "go light".

A the time of Somalia, we had plenty of equipment to send in, we just lacked the balls.

Well, I won't say "We"

I'll say the adminstration

[chomerics]

So now you're saying Powell, the author of the Powell Doctrine, which advocates using overwhelming force, was saying "We have to keep the numbers down"?

I wonder who was telling him to do that?

Gee Sarge, it is in the Senate intel report, try and read it, maybe you'll actually learn something that is not completely full of right wing spin.

[Redskins Diehard]

Well, like I said, maybe you should take it up with the Senate Intel Committee and the Washington Times, because they were the ones who reported it. . .

So there you have it. . . Powell, Hoar and Downing made the discussion and Powell made the call. I guess you need to revisit your idea of how the military makes decisions then huh?

You REALLY don't get it do you. Powell does not MAKE the call. Powell ADVISES the NCA(I realize now that you may not know that means the National Command Authority). The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. Your article does nothing to dispute this fact.

Funny how the oppostion was based on the fact that CNN footage would eff up what the military was doing...somethings never change huh.

[chomerics]

It's called "History". You should read it sometime instead of trying to re-write it

Actually Sarge, it is YOU who continues to spurt out these lies on almost a daily basis. When you are called out on it, instead of debating the facts you come up with lines like this. . . why am I not surprised you ignored everything posted? It is the only way you know how to debate, if you can't give an answer without making yourself look bad, you ignore, deny and ignore. . . well it is not just YOUR way, but also the NEOCON's way.

[Sarge]

Actually Sarge, it is YOU who continues to spurt out these lies on almost a daily basis. When you are called out on it, instead of debating the facts you come up with lines like this. . . why am I not surprised you ignored everything posted? It is the only way you know how to debate, if you can't give an answer without making yourself look bad, you ignore, deny and ignore. . . well it is not just YOUR way, but also the NEOCON's way.

Sorry, it's YOU who run the numbers through the computer on the Mothership and determine that all was good with the military in the 90's under Klinton

Go here.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/may2006/0506structure.pdf

The numbers are indisputable

And maybe you could actually listen to a few of us that had to live through the cluster**** known as the Klinton "downsizing"

This pretty well sums it up as well

http://www.afa.org/magazine/May2002/05edit02.asp

Rumsfeld's List

The Pentagon has three difficult tasks. All must be done at once.

It's a good thing that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is forceful. He has a staggering job on his hands, and a leader with less steel in his spine would have little chance of success.

As Rumsfeld describes it, the challenge for the Department of Defense is to accomplish three difficult objectives at once:

Win the war on terrorism.

Restore the vitality of the armed forces, worn thin by a decade of neglect.

"Transform" the services to prepare for the future.

"Each of these tasks must be done," Rumsfeld told Congress in February. "None can be put off."

The situation was bad, even before Sept. 11. By the turn of the century, the defense program had been cut 15 years in a row. The force was a third smaller than it had been during the Cold War, but it was employed and operating at a rate four times greater.

The services were stretched and threadbare. Their readiness and mission capable rates were down. Facilities were dilapidated and deteriorating. Spare parts and munitions were in short supply.

Equipment was not replaced as it wore out. Force modernization was postponed. The depots filled up with aging airplanes in need of extensive maintenance and demanding considerable time.

Against that backdrop, the Bush Administration had come to office pledging to "transform" the armed forces to meet new threats of the future.

Rumsfeld and his team spent several months studying how to approach transformation, but they were hampered by a fundamental problem: They started in a deep hole because of the requirements backlog left over from the 1990s.

The Congressional Budget Office had reported earlier that it would take about $50 billion a year in new funding to keep the armed forces from slipping any further behind. The cost of transformation would be extra.

Then came the war on terror, with an additional expense of $30 million a day. Overnight, a big job became an enormous one.

Lately, Rumsfeld has been taking flak for the proposed 2003 defense budget, which incorporates the largest increase since the Reagan Administration.

However, a large portion of the increase goes for the war on terror. Most of the budget is allocated to current programs and to keeping the force from sliding deeper into the hole. The amount available for new ventures, including transformation, is not that much.

Eventually, as Rumsfeld proceeds with the objectives he has assigned himself, he will encounter both financial and ideological resistance. So far, he is holding his own.

Of the three tasks on his list, popular support is strongest for the war on terror, where President Bush's personal commitment is highly visible. Opinion polls find consistently that 90 percent of the American public are in favor of military action abroad to fight terrorism.

There is an undercurrent of anti-war sentiment from the political left, but these views have not spread to the mainstream. The issue, in the near term at least, is mostly financial.

The armed forces have an excellent chance of winning the military part of the war on terrorism if the nation is willing to sustain the effort. Any question of that would disappear in a flash if the United States is attacked again. Otherwise, it will take some work by Bush and Rumsfeld to hold the consensus.

The odds are longer on the other two goals--recovering from the decade of neglect and moving on to transformation--and on these, Rumsfeld will have to carry more of the load himself.

Last summer, before the war on terror began, the White House backed the Office of Management and Budget in cutting Rumsfeld's funding request for 2002. The constituency for more military spending was pretty slim.

Much has happened since then, of course. Opinion polls find strong endorsement, 76 percent of the public supporting a general increase in defense spending.

All three of the tasks on Rumsfeld's list are imperative.

We did not start the war with terrorism, but we cannot call it off. The only way out of it is through it. Losing is not an option.

In Afghanistan, the inventory of precision guided munitions fell to dangerously low levels. This is the kind of thing that happens when the provisions for readiness are insufficient.

The war on terror will be fought with the weapons and forces we have today. Transformation will develop capabilities for use by another president and another secretary of defense, just as the successes in conflicts of the past 10 years were attributable to investments made in the 1970s and 1980s.

Transformation is not a simple matter of dumping traditional military forces and adding futuristic ones, though.

Unmanned Predator drones were useful in Afghanistan, but so were bombers, tankers, airlifters, and spotters on the ground. Air superiority and long-range precision strike forces will be as important in the future as they are today.

Transformation must be in addition to, not instead of, current capabilities. In some cases, such as leading edge global strike systems, there is considerable overlap.

Counting the Bush increase, we will be spending 3.3 percent of the Gross Domestic Product for defense. That is less than half the average percentage of GDP allocated to defense over the past 50 years.

Rumsfeld's list is difficult. It is far from impossible.

[Redskins Diehard]

Sarge, apparently you don't need to live it...you can google it.

Clinton was great for the military and the intelligence community which is why we were postured for 9-11. He would have caught Bin Laden by now but could not manage to capture a two bit warlord in Somalia. Nobody could accuse him of staying the course thats for sure

[ChiefBigMeat]

Just for the record. The troops had body armor, every one of them. They didn't, and still don't, have top of the line, state of the art. Never been the case before, and won't be the case in the future. And you can't put everyone in an armored vehicle, just not feasible or practical.

It would be nice if we could keep all our troops shielded from every bullet in bomb wouldn't it.

Typical Republican thinking here.

"Doing the right thing is just too hard. It would be nice if we could really fix things, but everyone knows it's all just pie-in-the-sky ... Nothing will ever be perfect, so we should just give up."

More than $450 billion spend on defense and we just can't afford to get the best armor for our troops? :doh:

It sure can be done, all we have to do is turn off the corporate welfare programs to Halliburton, LM, etc ...

[Sarge]

Sarge, apparently you don't need to live it...you can google it.

Clinton was great for the military and the intelligence community which is why we were postured for 9-11. He would have caught Bin Laden by now but could not manage to capture a two bit warlord in Somalia. Nobody could accuse him of staying the course thats for sure

Yeah, I don't even know why I spent 22 years in. All I needed was to look on Google for awhile, get myself a computer and spend the night in a Holiday Inn Express

[Redskins Diehard]

Typical Republican thinking here.

"Doing the right thing is just too hard. It would be nice if we could really fix things, but everyone knows it's all just pie-in-the-sky ... Nothing will ever be perfect, so we should just give up."

More than $450 billion spend on defense and we just can't afford to get the best armor for our troops? :doh:

It sure can be done, all we have to do is turn off the corporate welfare programs to Halliburton, LM, etc ...

Typical numbnuts response.

I like your second paragraph, sounds like what the anti administration crowd belts out about Iraq on an almost daily basis.

The "no body armor" argument is one of those great sound bite points. Tell me what the difference is between the "insufficient" and the "acceptable". Since you undoubtedly have no clue I'll tell you. The SAPI, or small arms protective insert. A great piece of gear no doubt, and would most likely save the life of anyone shot in the chest or back by a 7.62mm or smaller round. The fact is you can't put troops in a bubble...sometimes the work gets a little dangerous.

[twa]

Oh yeah? When?

Ask nicely,next time

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040328-secdef0568.html

MR. WALLACE: But looking back, sir, and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it's more than an individual manhunt. I mean -- what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Which is the only way to do it, in my view. I think you simply have to go out --

MR. WALLACE: -- pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, we were thinking about what to do about al Qaeda. Any suggestion that the administration was not would just be incorrect. Now, as I think it was Rich Armitage said, were we able to stop that attack? The answer is no. Were we ahead of those particular terrorists and what they were doing? Obviously not. George Tenet put it well, I thought, when he said, "Look" -- they said, "Why did it happen?" He said, "Because we didn't have a source inside that particular terrorist cell." That would have enabled it to being stopped.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

So about his points?

A. The republicans wanted to pull out of Somalia after the first day

B. The same repubs said he was "obsessed" with Bin Laden

C. He did a lot to get Bin Laden, not enough but Bush did nothing and dismantled the counterterrorism office

D. Bush placed only 20,000 troops in Afghanistan compared to 140K in Iraq

E. Fox News has never asked Bush Administration personel why they did nothing for 8 months

F. The CIA and FBI would not acknowledge Bin Laden was behing the Cole before he left office

G. The Republicans who screamed "Wag the Dog" and wanted him to get out of Somalia are the same ones who say he did nothing to get Bin Laden

H. He was the only president to have a counterterrorism office in the White House, and Bush dismantled this office before 9-11.

Any comment on this interview? Or I can just assume you have nothing to add except for "He's acting crazy" while dismissing everything he had to say?

I guess ignorance is bliss. Allow me to shed a little light on some of the points above.

A: That's a big negative, Clinton was the reason behind the failure in Somalia. He refused to listen to his troops and generals on the ground over there and the request for more support and armor. Instead Clinton rushed in to try to get his target, with total disregard for troop safety. Clinton pulled out after we got some of are finest men killed over there. This in turn led to the increase in terrorism, if you do a little research you will find that Islamic extremist saw the retreat in Somalia as a HUGE sign of weakness. Imagine if we pulled out of Iraq, in the eyes of Muslims we would look like cowards, only feeding them more energy to continue in their ultimate goal "to end western civilization".

B and C: You would like to think Clinton was doing something but in fact he was doing NOTHING. UBL had been a problem during Clintons entire 8 year tenure. While UBL was not really worried about being caught becuase he really didn't do anything real catastrophic. Then 9/11 hit and of course UBL went into hiding. Pre 9/11 UBL was a soft target just walking around in the open, so if Clinton really wanted to get him he could. Instead he wanted to "diplomatic" with him and basically try to sit down around a table while drinking coffee and "work things out".

D: Take a look at the sizes of the countries, how poress the borders of Iraq is, the population and the simple fact that we were fighting an entire government and somewhat structured army when entering and occuping Iraq.

E and F: I'm going to leave these two points alone, not that I can't argue and explain them but that they a pretty self-explanatory to anyone who has come sense in regards to safe guarding information.

G: Rehash on answers to A, B and C.

H: Let's not forget of all the CT offices Bush stood up after he got into office. The republicans and especially the Bush administration does not downgrade the CT, Intelligence and Military community. Bush did not dismantle CT offices, he only made them bigger, better and much more managable. TRUST ME!!!!!

You wanted answers to the interview, now you've got them.

[Midnight Judges]

I guess ignorance is bliss. Allow me to shed a little light on some of the points above.

A: That's a big negative, Clinton was the reason behind the failure in Somalia. He refused to listen to his troops and generals on the ground over there and the request for more support and armor. Instead Clinton rushed in to try to get his target, with total disregard for troop safety. Clinton pulled out after we got some of are finest men killed over there. This in turn led to the increase in terrorism, if you do a little research you will find that Islamic extremist saw the retreat in Somalia as a HUGE sign of weakness. Imagine if we pulled out of Iraq, in the eyes of Muslims we would look like cowards, only feeding them more energy to continue in their ultimate goal "to end western civilization".

B and C: You would like to think Clinton was doing something but in fact he was doing NOTHING. UBL had been a problem during Clintons entire 8 year tenure. While UBL was not really worried about being caught becuase he really didn't do anything real catastrophic. Then 9/11 hit and of course UBL went into hiding. Pre 9/11 UBL was a soft target just walking around in the open, so if Clinton really wanted to get him he could. Instead he wanted to "diplomatic" with him and basically try to sit down around a table while drinking coffee and "work things out".

D: Take a look at the sizes of the countries, how poress the borders of Iraq is, the population and the simple fact that we were fighting an entire government and somewhat structured army when entering and occuping Iraq.

E and F: I'm going to leave these two points alone, not that I can't argue and explain them but that they a pretty self-explanatory to anyone who has come sense in regards to safe guarding information.

G: Rehash on answers to A, B and C.

H: Let's not forget of all the CT offices Bush stood up after he got into office. The republicans and especially the Bush administration does not downgrade the CT, Intelligence and Military community. Bush did not dismantle CT offices, he only made them bigger, better and much more managable. TRUST ME!!!!!

You wanted answers to the interview, now you've got them.

You don't have a shred of credibility. You said "Clinton did nothing" in the very thread where Clinton's anti-terrorism actions are listed, referenced, and documented.

Now, I am going to provide you with a link, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton did at least take one action against terrorists, and thus, you will never agains be able to honestly say "Clinton did nothing" and you will from this point forwrard, know that that statement is simply and utterly false.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7.

"Let our actions today send this message loud and clear -- there are no expendable American targets," U.S. President Clinton said in a televised address to the American people Thursday evening. "There will be no sanctuary for terrorists. We will defend our people, our interests and our values."

U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of millionaire Osama bin Laden.

An official of the Taliban, Afgahanistan's Islamic rulers, reported 21 were killed and 30 were injured in the missile strikes in eastern Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/

So mikeinalexandria, the next time you or anyone else on this board attempts to revise history and say "Clinton did nothing" you will feel something in the pit of your stomach-that's you conscience calling you a liar. I suggest you listen.

[Sarge]

Well, like I said, maybe you should take it up with the Senate Intel Committee and the Washington Times, because they were the ones who reported it. . .

So there you have it. . . Powell, Hoar and Downing made the discussion and Powell made the call. I guess you need to revisit your idea of how the military makes decisions then huh?

Now let's see the source.

More "Thinkprogress"?

Here are excerpts fromt the Senate report

http://www.netnomad.com/powell.html

Aspin's decision on tanks was political ; Report says he gave in to U.N.

Bill Gertz; THE WASHINGTON TIMES

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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

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.

The pressure was put on the administration by U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali; his deputy in Somalia, retired U. S. Adm. Jonathan Howe; and the deputy U.N. military commander in Somalia, Army Maj. Gen. Thomas Montgomery, who told congressional investigators he favored sending British special forces soldiers, not U.S. Rangers.

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 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, who died of a stroke earlier this year, 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Powell pressed for Somalia policy change report

Retired Gen. Colin Powell said he pressed President Clinton's top aides a week before the fatal 1993 U.S. commando raid in Somalia either to beef up U.S. forces or change his policy, according to a Senate report released Monday.

"The overall policy for Somalia should have been reviewed long before October 3rd," the report quotes Powell as telling Senate Armed Services Committee investigators.

The commando raid killed 18 U.S. soldiers between Oct. 3 and 4. One American's body was dragged through streets, drawing an outcry in Congress that forced Clinton eventually to withdraw U.S. forces from Somalia.

The Senate report said the dual U.S. policy in 1993 of keeping forces in Somalia small but sending them on military raids to prevent failure of the U.N. mission "stretched the capabilities of U.S. forces."

It quoted Powell, who was chairman of the U.S. military joint chiefs of staff at the time of the raid, as saying he pushed for a U.S. policy review for weeks.

"I aggressively pushed Secretary (of Defense Les) Aspin for such a review and on Saturday, September 25th, when we had a meeting at the White House on Bosnia, I said at the end of the meeting that we need to do something about Somalia- either reinforce our forces or change our policy."

The report quoted Powell as saying he recommended Aspin support a request from U.S. commanders weeks before the raid that tanks and armored personnel carriers be sent to Somalia.

Criticism in Congress of Aspin's decision not to send the armor, on the grounds U.S. policy was to reduce American forces in Somalia rather than build them up, has been cited as one reason for Clinton's replacement of him with Defense Secretary William Perry. Aspin died this year.

The report quoted former U.S. commanders in Somalia as backing Aspin's contention that he was not told the armor was needed for the U.S. raids in Somalia but was told it was needed to escort convoys and for general force protection.

Although he backed commanders' request for the armor, the report said Powell did not back an earlier request that AC-130 Spectre gunships be sent to Somalia with the special forces. It quoted special forces commanders as saying the AC-130s frightened Somali militia so they would have had psychological impact in the October raid.

But it said Powell and another senior commander rejected the request, saying as few new U.S. forces as possible should be sent to Somalia and the Spectres were not useful because they should not fire in Mogodishu itself.

It quoted Powell as saying he did not remember the AC-130 decision but that when Spectres had been in Somalia earlier "they wrecked a few buildings and it wasn't the greatest imagery on CNN."

Powell is now touring the United States promoting his book on his experiences and says in response to repeated questions that he has not decided whether to run for president.

The Senate report also criticized the use of U.S. special forces in a series of raids in Mogadishu, saying each revealed tactics to the Somali militia and increasingly cut the element of surprise and the safety of the special troops.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Report Criticizes Powell's Staff on Somalia Raid

October 1, 1995

A Senate report into a disastrous 1993 Army raid in Somalia portrays Gen. Colin Powell bending to pressure to keep U.S. involvement to a minimum when field commanders sought greater firepower.

The report criticizes a decision by Powell's staff - one that Powell says he does not recall making - against sending AC-130 gunships along with Task Force Ranger, a force of 460 Army troops assigned to capture a Somali clan leader, Mohammed Farah Aidid.

The report by two senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Oct. 3, 1993, raid in Mogadishu that left 18 U.S. soldiers dead criticizes the omission of the AC-130s. It also provides a window into the thinking of a general now considered a possible presidential candidate.

"It is difficult to understand the decision to omit the AC-130 gunships from the Joint Task Force Ranger force package," concludes the report written by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich. "The AC-130s were part of all the force package options and were included in all of the training exercises. This decision is inconsistent with the principle that you fight as you train."

Top generals interviewed for the report - even those who requested the ponderous, heavily armed, propeller-driven aircraft - indicated that the AC-130s probably would not have changed the raid's outcome. But they make clear that political pressure drove the decision against sending them.

Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, apparently agreed with Clinton administration concerns about avoiding escalation of the Somali conflict.

The report quotes Gen. Wayne Downing, head of the United States Special Forces, as saying "we were under incredible pressure" from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"I advised that I would like to have the AC-130s," he said. "Gen. Powell advised that we needed to keep the numbers down."

Downing goes on to say that the AC-130s "would not have prevented" the casualties in Mogadishu but "would have been useful once the battle started."

Powell told the senators preparing the report that he could not recall the AC-130s being part of the original requested force package. But he noted that the warplanes had been used earlier in the conflict. "They wrecked a few buildings and it wasn't the greatest imagery on CNN," he said.

Gen. Joseph Hoar, head of the United States Central Command and the top-ranking officer on Somalia, said he opposed using the AC-130s in a three-way discussion with Powell and Downing.

"This weapon system was never designed to fire into civilian populated areas," Hoar said.

In another indication of the Pentagon's sensitivity about the Somali mission, Downing recalls that Powell's staff vigorously opposed various proposals from the commander of Task Force Ranger, Gen. William Garrison, to conduct ambushes and patrol areas adjacent to the Mogadishu airport.

"This provoked a firestorm - it was not a minor issue. It was not a negotiable issue," Downing told the senators. "Powell was concerned about mission creep. People were very emotional during this time."

Another aspect of the Somali mission that drew criticism after the fact was the decision by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin to refuse a request for tanks as part of the overall U.S. force in Mogadishu. Powell indicates that, like Aspin, he had reservations about sending tanks but decided reluctantly to support the request from a field commander.

"In my talks with Gen. Hoar, I kept asking for the justification," Powell told the senators. "I didn't want M1A1 tanks to blast buildings in Mogadishu."

Powell was similarly dubious about other aspects of the U.S. strategy in Somalia, but apparently unable to sway that strategy.

On the dangerous work of trying to collect arms from various Somali factions, Powell said, "I always said that disarming the factions was stupid. ... Disarmament is not possible in a country where everyone has a weapon." He said he had no role in the United Nations Security Council decision of May 26, 1993, supported by the United States, that called for disarming the factions.

Similarly, Powell said he was concerned about sending Task Force Ranger to Mogadishu with a mandate to "get Aidid."

"We sent Task Force Ranger with the greatest reluctance," Powell told the senators. But because the top officers in Mogadishu supported the mission, he said, "I will go along since as a general principle I believe in supporting the commander in the field."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Report Raps Administration's Plan to Capture Warlord

September 30, 1995

The Clinton administration failed to see the risks of the U.S. effort to capture a Somali warlord, a shortcoming that contributed to a disastrous 1993 raid that left 18 U.S. soldiers dead, a Senate review concludes.

The report, released late Friday, went to lengths to avoid placing specific blame on President Clinton. But it made clear that Clinton and his top advisers supported the United Nations' request to capture Mohammed Farrah Aidid, the Somali faction leader, despite the reservations of U.S. military commanders. When difficulties emerged, it said, these officials failed to change course.

"It is clear that both civilian officials and military leaders should have been carefully and continually re-evaluating the Task Force Ranger mission and tactics after each raid, with an eye toward recommending that the operation be terminated if the risks were deemed to have risen too high," the report concluded.

Written by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., two senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the report focuses on the fatal Oct. 3, 1993, firefight in Mogadishu that precipitated a hasty American withdrawal from what began as a famine-relief effort.

"U.S. foreign policy was and will be affected for years as a result of the raid," according to the report.

A sharp, partisan debate over how much blame should be placed on Clinton delayed the release of the report for months.

Warner argued in a separate preface that Clinton and then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin should have provided armor and other equipment requested by military commanders in Somalia. Levin contended in his own preface that Maj. Gen. William Garrison, commander of Task Force Ranger "stated that he had all the equipment he needed."

Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, pressed for the report's release before the second anniversary of the raid in response to requests by relatives of those killed in action.

The report makes clear that Army Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, then the U.S. commander overseeing Somalia, voiced reservations about the Ranger mission to "get Aidid."

It quoted Hoar as saying: "I told the policy guys that it was a bad thing to do. I thought there was a 50 percent chance of getting the required intelligence, and, once gotten, only a 50 percent chance that we would get Aidid. So it was a 25 percent chance of success"

Powell was similarly dubious.

"We sent Task Force Ranger with the greatest reluctance," he was quoted in the report. But because the top officers in Mogadishu supported the mission, he said, "I will go along since as a general principle I believe in supporting the commander in the field."

The aggressive pursuit of Aidid amid a broader policy of U.S. force reductions in Somalia reflected the "uncoordinated and unclear" U.S. policies, according to the report.

"It was a mistake to seek to marginalize the (Somali) warlords," it contended. "More emphasis should have been placed on political negotiations prior to deciding to use military force."

The military did not escape criticism in the report. It said the Army Ranger unit that conducted the Oct. 3 raid was hampered by an overzealous, "can-do" attitude typical of special forces.

Moreover, it said, Gen. Garrison established a predictable pattern in the Rangers' pursuit of Aidid that "served to announce the presence and mission of his task force, if they were not already known, and to reveal some of the tactics that the task force would use."

[Burgold]

One of the most interesting things about this thread is the ongoing philosophical issue going on--

Chomerics: Sarge, you can't see the forest for the trees.

Sarge: Chom, you can't understand a forest because you've never seen a tree.

Om: If a tree falls down in this metaphorical forest and there's nobody to write about it...

[chomerics]

Ask nicely,next time

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040328-secdef0568.html

MR. WALLACE: But looking back, sir, and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it's more than an individual manhunt. I mean -- what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Which is the only way to do it, in my view. I think you simply have to go out --

MR. WALLACE: -- pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

.

So in your eyes asking Rumsfeld pre 9/11 should you have been thinking more about what you just gave as an answer is equal to what he asked Clinton?

You can't be serious. . .

[Redskins Diehard]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/

So mikeinalexandria, the next time you or anyone else on this board attempts to revise history and say "Clinton did nothing" you will feel something in the pit of your stomach-that's you conscience calling you a liar. I suggest you listen.

Just add "effective" in there right after "nothing" and you will be fine. Then you won't have the pit in your stomach. Or "of substance"...that works also

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

You don't have a shred of credibility. You said "Clinton did nothing" in the very thread where Clinton's anti-terrorism actions are listed, referenced, and documented.

Now, I am going to provide you with a link, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton did at least take one action against terrorists, and thus, you will never agains be able to honestly say "Clinton did nothing" and you will from this point forwrard, know that that statement is simply and utterly false.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/

So mikeinalexandria, the next time you or anyone else on this board attempts to revise history and say "Clinton did nothing" you will feel something in the pit of your stomach-that's you conscience calling you a liar. I suggest you listen.

I take it you have never been in the military or maybe you have just never in the Army or the Marines where you would quickly realize that by sending just cruise missiles and bombing the crap out of a place isn't going to take care of your problem. Sure, bomb first, soften the target then go in with ground troops to make sure the job was accomplished. That was never done, I guess I really can't blame Clinton for not doing that because in order to run a military effectively you got to at least know a little bit about being in the military and not fleeing the country in a time of war to avoid the draft.

Truth of the matter is that no one like to send ground troops in but it has to be done. Clinton was to much of ***** and thought "well if I can just drop some bombs on a country and get my wang sucked at the same time everything will be cool and all the Americans will like me because they THOUGHT I did something". In reality he did jack sh##.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

Just add "effective" in there right after "nothing" and you will be fine. Then you won't have the pit in your stomach. Or "of substance"...that works also

Yes my apologies I think I clarified myself a little better in my post above.

[chomerics]

Now let's see the source.

More "Thinkprogress"?

Here are excerpts fromt the Senate report

http://www.netnomad.com/powell.html

Sarge, in your post from teh Washington Times, did you ever bother to realize it contradicts what YOU and RD stated not ME???

Not his call (Powells), at all.

From the piece. . .

Powell told the senators preparing the report that he could not recall the AC-130s being part of the original requested force package. But he noted that the warplanes had been used earlier in the conflict. "They wrecked a few buildings and it wasn't the greatest imagery on CNN," he said.

Gen. Joseph Hoar, head of the United States Central Command and the top-ranking officer on Somalia, said he opposed using the AC-130s in a three-way discussion with Powell and Downing.

"This weapon system was never designed to fire into civilian populated areas," Hoar said.

Sarge. . . But Clinton, But Clinton, But Clinton. . .

"We sent Task Force Ranger with the greatest reluctance," he was quoted in the report. But because the top officers in Mogadishu supported the mission, he said, "I will go along since as a general principle I believe in supporting the commander in the field."

now go back to listening to Savage tell you how everyone who doesn;t have your perverted and distorted view of reality is the terrorist, and clean some more guns to get ready for the revolution :doh:

[Burgold]

Without 9/11 though, I think there is only so far Clinton could have gone. Would a pre-emptive military invasion of Afghanistan have been tolerated by the Congress or the people? No. Clinton owned up that he failed, but in a pre-9/11 mindset I'm not sure how much more he really could have done.

[Redskins Diehard]

Sarge, in your post from teh Washington Times, did you ever bother to realize it contradicts what YOU and RD stated not ME???

From the piece. . .

Sarge. . . But Clinton, But Clinton, But Clinton. . .

now go back to listening to Savage tell you how everyone who doesn;t have your perverted and distorted view of reality is the terrorist, and clean some more guns to get ready for the revolution :doh:

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHAT FORCES ARE COMMITTED AND WHAT FORCES ARE NOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff

"

After the 1986 reorganization of the military undertaken by the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not have operational command of U.S. military forces. Responsibility for conducting military operations goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the heads of the Unified Combatant Commands and thus bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely."

I have honestly never seen someone so ignorant on a subject be so sure of himself.

[Sarge]

Sarge, in your post from teh Washington Times, did you ever bother to realize it contradicts what YOU and RD stated not ME???

From the piece. . .

Sarge. . . But Clinton, But Clinton, But Clinton. . .

now go back to listening to Savage tell you how everyone who doesn;t have your perverted and distorted view of reality is the terrorist, and clean some more guns to get ready for the revolution :doh:

Powell was talking about the AC-130 gunships

Montgomery wanted the tanks

Two different things

Good try though

And we can't have AC-130 Spectre's looking deadly on CNN. Why that would make us look bad

[Redskins Diehard]

Without 9/11 though, I think there is only so far Clinton could have gone. Would a pre-emptive military invasion of Afghanistan have been tolerated by the Congress or the people? No. Clinton owned up that he failed, but in a pre-9/11 mindset I'm not sure how much more he really could have done.

He couldn't get Aidid in Somalia. He flat out didn't have the stomach to do it, or the spine to stand up for what he believed in. Plain and simple.