Actually, without mentioning him by name, Rumsfeld and Condi have openly labeled him as such. That was the first action that emboldened Islamic terrorism, according to them. At this point, it's gospel, mainly because they need a longer track record on incompetence on the parts of others to excuse their own.

Can you give me any citations on that?

I think condi said it last nite on 60m. I'll check the transcript.

i could be wrong on this, but as i recall the marines in beirut weren't actually doing much of anything anyway. they hadn't even been isuued ammunition i don't think. reagan got a lot of criticism for even putting them in that situation, and probably deserved it. anyway, someone with a better memory than me can probably either correct me or find some documentation.

Condi on 60 Minutes last night, Rumsfeld's 9/11 commission testimony.

Condi:

"We were not aggressively going after them. They believed that they were going to win. They saw us cut and run in Somalia. They go all the way back to the fact that the Marines left Beirut after the bombing of the - barracks."

Here you go, from last nite....

Condi on 60 Minutes

BRADLEY::
But here – here - here's what I'm saying. You- you have a 30-month period leading up to 9 /11 in which you have fewer attacks than the 30 months after, is when you had this war.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
Ed, I think that's the wrong way to look at it, with - with all due respect. I think you have to look back to - the '80s, and most certainly the '90s, when what was happening was that the terrorist attacks were getting bolder. They were getting more imaginative. They were getting more daring. These attacks were getting bolder and they were getting more daring. And that's because the terrorists were getting a sense of inevitability of their victory. We were not aggressively going after them. They believed that they were going to win. They saw us cut and run in Somalia. They go all the way back to the fact that the Marines left Beirut after the bombing of the - barracks. They believed that if we took - casualties, we would not respond. And what they've been surprised by is the fact that this has, this time, been a - a launching of an all-out war on them. And yet, they're going to continue to try to attack. They're going to succeed sometimes. But they are going to be defeated.

jesse

sorry I guess I was doubling you....

Eh, no problem - it was within a minute. ;)

Interesting...I hadn't heard that connection. My point has more to do with the warbloggers than the administration, but it's heartening to hear that sort of intellectual honesty in relation to their venerated icon. Good for them.

Bin Laden wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia.
After invading Iraq, Bush took US troops out of Saudi Arabia.

He gave bin Laden what he wanted. Connect the dots.

Guys, you can go back at least as far as Bush's "$87 billion" televised speech from last September:

The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken.

Here's one other thing that bothers me.

By pulling out in situations like Lebanon, we encourage the terrorists to believe that terrorism works. So it emboldens them and they attack us more.

Yet when things like the extrajudicial killing of Yassin happen, it doesn't lead to more violence, because the terrorists are already attacking us with all of their might.

Reconcile that.

Ezra, you've openly suggested that St. Ron was, well, less than saintly. I hope you're prepared for all the wingnuts who are going to want to separate you from very delicate and very sensitive portions of your anatomy!

For that matter, wasn't the 2000 election a victory for the 'appeasers'? The Cole attack was just 3 weeks before the election; wasn't that obviously intended to influence the result?

"We have struggled with terrorism for a long time. In the Reagan administration, I was a hawk on the subject. I said terrorism is a big problem, a different problem, and we have to take forceful action against it. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan agreed with me, but not many others did. (Don Rumsfeld was an outspoken exception.)"

-- George Schulz at OpinionJournal

I'd love to ask Schulz who in that Administration overrode him, Rumsfeld, and the Gipper in Lebanon. James Watt, perhaps?

And let;s not forget the monumental act of appeasement, when Ronnie and the lads sold missiles to the people who'd sponsored that bombing in the first place, including one delivery that took place only a short while after the barracks blew up.
To say nothing of unfreezing the assets to get the hostages back on his watch and not Carter's.
Why did Ronnie hate America?

Is there a single solitary scrap of evidence anywhere that the "terrorists" have been mightily impressed by our show of "resolve" in Iraq? There didn't used to be terrorists in Iraq, and now there are lots of them.

Also, this idea that we have to stay in whatever place the terrorists wanted us to leave is kind of stupid. Fifteen terrorists can thus theoretically tie down entire US divisions in Iraq for as long as they like.

He also secretly sent arms to Iran, to get their clients to release hostages, while publicly stating, "No arms for hostages."

"Spain doubles troops in Afghanistan, the place where the terrorists actually are" (Fark loves a snarky headline)

Ezra, damned good post.

And damned right. The wingnuts (and the establishment conservatives who grow daily more indistinguishable from the wingers) behaved about as despicably over the Spanish elections as anything since a lot of them got their cookies by trashing Rachel Corrie.

And remember how Reagan got elected? The Iranian terrorists took Americans hostage, said they would only release them if the Great Satan Carter was voted out of office. And America appeased them by electing Reagan, exactly as in Spain. Appeased!

Is withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia appeasing terrorists? Then put George Bush's name on the list of appeasers. That was a demand of Osama bin suddenly Remembered.

Another interesting parallel between Reagan and the Spanish elections: Were American voters appeasing the Iranian hostage-takers by electing Reagan over Carter in 1980?