And I want to ask another question...
When most conservative pundits refer to America's past encounters with terror, they usually only go back as far as the Clinton Administration, and when they do venture back further than that, it is to visit the Carter Administrations trials and tribulations during the Iranian hostage crisis.
Why does no one discuss the fact that Reagan reneged on his promise of justice and retribution for those that killed 241 US Marines in 1983? What was the reasoning behind the removal of all American forces from Lebanon, if it wasn't because of the bombing? If it was because of the bombing, then isn't that allowing terrorists to dictate policy and action?
If I'm wrong or out-of-line, please let me know... I'm genuinely asking this question.
What prompted this was the repeated criticism I heard about the President's inability to use terms like "terror" or "attacks on America" or "radical Islam" during his speech yesterday at the Pentagon. All anyone could do was point to the history of mounting terror attacks against America and her interests and say "Even Clinton did more than Obama is doing..." meaning that as bad as Clinton was, Obama is worse. I can agree with that... 100% in fact, but does ALL the blame lay with Clinton? Or with any Democratic, liberal or progressive President that ever sat in the Oval Office? Can someone explain to me why Reagan did what he did, and how I shouldn't see it as exactly what I have described above?
If we can find fault with the manner in which George Bush conducted the war in Iraq (and we all agree that mistakes were made), why should it be wrong to question Reagan's methods in conducting his war with terror?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment