Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GraniteStateConservative
She stated: "We didn't respond to the USS coal because we thought it would embolden the terrorist"

They bomb a ship of ours or bomb two ships of ours-

Wouldn't attacking one of our warships be an act of war?

2,787 posted on 04/08/2004 9:04:29 AM PDT by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2701 | View Replies ]


To: Joe Hadenuf
Yes and she said they had done several acts of war..but did not believe a tit for tat response was working.They were working on a broader plan to remove the threat of AlQueda.
2,821 posted on 04/08/2004 9:07:05 AM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2787 | View Replies ]

To: Joe Hadenuf
She didn't say what you said she said. If you want to respond to what she actually said, look me up.
2,850 posted on 04/08/2004 9:10:00 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2787 | View Replies ]

To: Joe Hadenuf
Wouldn't attacking one of our warships be an act of war?

Yes but it occurred under Clinton.
And when Bush took office Condi seemed to be saying they were focusing on an overall war on terrorism, not simply responding to single incidents.

3,004 posted on 04/08/2004 9:26:55 AM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2787 | View Replies ]

To: Joe Hadenuf
She stated: "We didn't respond to the USS coal because we thought it would embolden the terrorist"

No, she didn't. But thanks for playing.

3,010 posted on 04/08/2004 9:27:37 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2787 | View Replies ]

To: Joe Hadenuf
It's USS Cole, kinda like the USS Arizona it deserves to be correctly identified and treated as a proper noun.
3,090 posted on 04/08/2004 9:40:33 AM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2787 | View Replies ]

To: Joe Hadenuf
She stated: " THOMPSON: The Cole - why didn't the Bush administration respond to the Cole? RICE: I think Secretary Rumsfeld has perhaps said it best. We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didn't want to respond tit-for-tat. As I've said, there is strategic response and tactical response. And just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists. They had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them. And that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them. I still believe to this day that the al-Qaida were prepared for a response to the Cole and that, as some of the intelligence suggested, bin Laden was intending to show that he yet survived another one, and that it might have been counterproductive. THOMPSON: I've got to say that answer bothers me a little bit because of where it logically leads, and that is - and I don't like what if questions, but this is a what if question. What if, in March of 2001, under your administration, al-Qaida had blown up another U.S. destroyer? What would you have done and what - would that have been tit-for-tat? RICE: I don't know what we would have done, but I do think that we were moving to a different concept that said that you had to hold at risk what they cared about, not just try and punish them, not just try to go after bin Laden. I would like to think that we might have come to an effective response. I think that in the context of war, when you're at war with somebody, it's not an issue of every battle or every skirmish; it's an issue of, can you do strategic damage to this organization? And we were thinking much more along the lines of strategic damage. THOMPSON: Well, I'm going to sound like my brother Kerrey, which terrifies me somewhat. (LAUGHTER) But blowing up our destroyers is an act of war against us, is it not? " You can get transcripts from the Drudge Report. What a chicken S*** policy. It is funny that the most powerful nation on earth is afraid of attacking terrorist because we might "EMBOLDEN THEM", but it seems the terrorist never have a fear on "EMBOLDENING" AMERICA!
When you are attacked by terrorist you embolden them by not making them pay an unacceptable price.
RICE AND BEANS = HOT AIR.

She blew it. Another reason to dislike affirmative action. "The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that then you will lose every battle you are ever in engaged in..."
She should have, again and again, attacked Clark and the democrats. It was the Clarke and the Dumbocrats who did nothing for 8 long stinking years AFTER THE FIRST WTC ATTACK. It was the Republican reaction which has started to carry the fight to the terrorists. If Democrats had responded the way Pres. Bush has we would have stopped 911.

And yet we see today a statement like,"We didn't respond to the USS Coal because we thought it would embolden the terrorist".

This type of mindset is what prevented US from winning Korea and Vietnam. Fear, the fear of this and that and them and those. This is the same mindset that is killing our Soldiers and Marines in Iraq. Fear of emboldening the Islamic World. Fear on the Arabic Street. But no fear of wasting the lives of our young heroes on the front lines!

Well I tell you what. If we did to them what they did to US on 911 - ...... It would be the Islamic World that would fear "EMBOLDENING" US.
3,126 posted on 04/08/2004 9:46:41 AM PDT by TomasUSMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2787 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson