Comments on: Helicopter Crash Kills 14 GIs In Iraq

Suicide Truck Bombing Separately Kills 19 People; Iraqi PM Lashes Out At U.S.

[iceman_1960]

Black Hawk Down: 19 American servicemen killed
Haiti: no Americans killed in combat
Balkans: no Americans killed in combat
USS Cole: 17 American servicemen killed

I''m not even getting close to 4,400 killed under Clinton.

[iceman_1960]

Of course people die in accidents, or from disease, or from natural causes.

Where did 4400 American servicemen lose their lives as a result of any of Bill Clinton''s military actions ?

Battle of Mogadishu ?
SS. Cole ?
Haiti ?
The Balkans ?

Where ?

[radiob-2009]

Ice besides you and I what "discussion" everything else is from the tail of the "golden elephant".

[iceman_1960]

"during [Clinton''s] tenure of ''peacetime'' only 4400 or so military personnel died..."
- Posted by badaxmofo at 07:12 PM : Aug 22, 2007

Where did this figure come from ?

"Only" 19 dies in "Black Hawk Down" -- Battle of Mogadishu -- what did he lose the others to ? Old age ?

[radiob-2009]

But a more likely excuse is: Bill would rather fight with words than with ''''defense articles''''...although ol''''Bill did use the military in more situations that any other President, oh and not to mention, during his tenure of ''''peacetime'''' only 4400 or so military personnel died...
Posted by badaxmofo


Not in combat and you cannot prove it.No 4400 soldiers died in combat during Clintons term.Sheesh you are not only praying at the "golden elephant" you are drinking from its trunk maybe its tail.

[iceman_1960]

OK, badaxmofo, your Clintonesque "meaning of is" argument made me so angry that I have once again descended into vulgar personal abuse.

I apologize.

I think I''ll take a little time away from this discussion.

[radiob-2009]

Ice

Badaxmofo comes on here and spews his "religion" only intending to pick a fight. Where was he over "amnesty" for the illegals that Bush supported?

[iceman_1960]

"Articles" in the military are a reference to equipment and rules not personel.
Posted by radiob at 06:53 PM : Aug 22, 2007

That should be obvious to everyone but a r*etard.

And he still hasn''t explained why there was no invasion of Iraq in 1998, after both Congress and Bill Clinton had allegedly "signed off" on it.

[radiob-2009]

Maybe they will make a "golden elephant" for all that are like Badaxmofo and a "golden donkey" for the democrats to "pray" to. Not realizing they are the ones being "preyed" upon.

[iceman_1960]

badaxmofo and his ilk are so desperate to involve Bill Clinton in this fiasco, that they are playing with the words of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

So why, I ask again, why, if Clinton and Congress BOTH wanted an invasion force of "DOD articles" to storm Baghdad in 1998...

I ask again...

If they both wanted an invasion by U.S. troops in 1998...

Then why....

I ask again , why...

Why WASN''T there an invasion by heavily armed Department of Defense articles (aka U.S. soldiers and Marines) in 1998 ????????

[radiob-2009]

It is the "religion" of the partys that is destroying America. To make this perfectly clear to you Badaxmofo it is not about GOD, it is about yours and the democrats obsession with your partys. You have "faith" in it, are "loyal" to it, have a "zeal" for it, pay "ties" to it etc. and cannot see that NEITHER party is representing AMERICA. We have the democratic religion, the republican religion and the conspiratorist religion and NONE represent AMERICA.

[iceman_1960]

Never in American history, NEVER, has a U.S. invasion force been described as "a drawdown of Defense Department articles."

[radiob-2009]

Posted by badaxmofo

You go and vote your religion on election day and all the democrats will go and vote their religion on election day and I will vote for a candiate that represents America and is not tied to either party or corporations.

[iceman_1960]

"Keep trying Ice - tell me again how the Iraq Liberation Act signed into law by Bill Clintoon doesn''''t authorize the use of force in Iraq?"
- Posted by badaxmofo at 06:50 PM : Aug 22, 2007

I already have. Repeatedly.

Not to mention the fact that if Bill Clinton and Congress had both wanted an invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces in 1998, there would have been one.

That should be obvious to everyone but a ***.

For the rest of the readers:

Here again is the full document. You can see for yourselves that it does NOT authroize anything but a drawdown of materials for SUPPORT and TRAINING of IRAQIS and SPECIFICALLY DISAVOWS ANYTHING ELSE:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

[radiob-2009]

I do not believe in my service was I ever referred to as a article. I am certain I never heard my uncle a retired Air Force general ever refer to "military personel" as a article.


"Articles" in the military are a reference to equipment and rules not personel.

[iceman_1960]

RE: Post by badaxmofo at 06:46 PM : Aug 22, 2007

Paying Bill Clinton the most sincere compliment of them all: imitation.

Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of the word ''is'' is."

badaxmofo: "It depends on what the meanings of the words ''article'' and ''drawdown'' are."

There''s only one difference between Clinton and badaxmofo:

Monica Lewinsky wouldn''t have given badaxmofo the time of day, even when she was fat and ugly.

[radiob-2009]

Drawdown means a reduction, regardless.

[iceman_1960]

Perhaps badaxmofo can quote some other document or some other public statement or speech, in which America''s servicemen are referred to as "articles of the Defense Department", and their deaths in combat are referred to as "a drawdown of Defense Department articles."

Maybe Lincoln''s Gettysburg Address referred to the dead that way ?

"We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for various drawdowns of Defense Department articles. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this..."

No, I don''t recall Lincoln using those words.

[iceman_1960]

''drawdown of defense articles'' MEANS

use the military!"
- Posted by badaxmofo at 06:34 PM : Aug 22, 2007

Why don''t you go to a military funeral and say that.

"Gee, I''m sorry your loved one died, but he was just an article of the Defense Department, like apaper clip or a rubber band, and we have to draw down those articles now and then, ya know ?"

And those will be the last words you utter for quite some time.

[iceman_1960]

Here''s the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 as summarized in Section 3: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Support efforts -- EFFORTS BY IRAQIS.

Not "do it ourselves" like idiot Dubya tried to do.

Bill Clinton understood what George H. W. Bush (the Elder Bush) understood:

"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we''re going to show our macho? We''re going into Baghdad. We''re going to be an occupying power - America in an Arab land - with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."
- George H. W. Bush, in a statement to a reunion of Gulf War veterans, February 28, 1999