The Virtue of Action

The Virtue of Action

A speech by Terry Bohannon
Delivered to HBU Toastmasters, October 8, 2002

An explosion this weekend off the Yemen port has sparked controversy again when a small speed boat rammed, into a French supertanker that was carrying 400,000 barrels of oil.

Again, because two years ago, nearly to the exact date (October 12th, 2000), the USS Cole suffered the same fate in the same port where 17 of our men died.

Then, the explosion was directly linked to al-Qaeda. In response to this attack at a memorial, Bill Clinton, our impeached former commander-in-chief, said the following: "To those who attacked them we say, 'You will not find a safe harbor. We will find you and justice will prevail. America will not stop standing guard for peace or freedom or stability in the Middle East and around the world.'"

Ironically, we did find who attacked the USS Cole, yet did nothing -- at the moment, these men are just about to stand in trial for what they did, nearly two years later. Forget diplomacy, they should have been shot, that is, tactfully assassinated, for tactfully killing 17 of our men.

We can use this case to show a difference between our impeached, former president, and Bush, the 43rd president of the United States.

Clinton was weakest on foreign policy; we can trace the incident in the Yemeni port, the terrorist attack against USS Cole, to 1993 in Mogadishu.

Back then, Clinton was continuing one of Bush 41's foreign policy stances. In Mogadishu, as a recent movie clearly points out, one of our Black Hawk helicopters was shot down in a failed mission.

Instead of doing what it took to retrieve our men and this helicopter, Bill Clinton directed the military to go into the Somali city of Mogadishu without armored vehicles, with no support, and with no clear escape plan once the Black Hawk and our men are found. He directed the military to make as little as an impact as they could, perhaps because an unequaled, overpowering force would be unfair.

So, as our men were air dropped into Mogadishu, surrounded by thousands of armed, and angry, citizens as well as organized terrorist such as al-Qaeda. Our force was directed to grab our downed men, and bring them outside of the city on their own -- an idea like this, must have been Clinton's.

Our Rangers, the elite force that they are, didn't come out of this unscathed. We did have a few causalities, and, God bless their souls, the angry Somalis who were shooting at our Rangers, drug our men that they killed in the streets, hung them up like a killed shark, and further disrespected our dead after those horrendous acts.

After this incident, and after our nose was bloodied due to Clinton's directions, we ran away from Somalia with our tail between our legs. It was decided, by Clinton, that we were not to do the proper thing and put these Somalis in their place; instead, we ran away from the conflict. We allowed thugs and terrorist to have the upper hand.

It was because of this, I argue, that al-Qaeda is such a threat today. And, it was because of this backing down that al-Qaeda attacked us on our soil on the infamous date of September 11th, 2001.

Because we ran away at Somalia, and showed weakness, they could have assumed that we would be as weak, and that we would curl up into the fetal position after they ran planes into our super-structures.

Before 1993, this terrorist organization was not a serious or arching threat to the United States. But, after we showed weakness, after we gave them the trump, the winning hand, we also gave them a backbone.

Clinton made a major mistake, and it was because of Mogadishu, that these terrorist were given the undue confidence needed to attack USS Cole.

Ironically, however, their confidence after USS Cole was justified once again by Clinton's inaction -- which, for foreign policy, he should be given a Ph.D. in field of yellowed inaction.

It could have been Clinton's inaction, his mocking of our military and the mourners at the service from which I have previously quoted, that gave al-Qaeda the confidence to attack us.

But, thank God, Bush is not an expert of inaction.

Just imagine how Gore would have reacted to the September 11th attacks. Would he, coming from the Clinton administration, have talked a lot, only to then back up his talk with nothing?

If you don't think so, remember the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Then, Clinton said "I would plead with the American people and the good people of New York to keep your courage up and go on about your lives. I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this."

Clinton assured Americans that he had put forth "the full, full resources of the federal law enforcement agencies - all kinds of agencies, all kinds of access to information - at the service of those who are trying to figure out who did this and why."

He also said the United States was "absolutely determined to oppose the cowardly cruelty of terrorists, wherever we can."

Now, with that quote, you would think that he would have done something. But, as history proves, Clinton was once again, as he was nearly consistently, all talk but no action -- except, of course, for the cases that the foreign policy would be used to distract the public from his "personal affairs" in court.

With all his talking, you would have thought more would have been done -- but no, the only action that was taken, was the wasting of our precious oxygen that allowed him, unfortunately, to speak his nothingness.

It is my hope that the American public does not make the same mistake twice and elect a president on the basis of his appeal to our wasted culture. Instead, we should elect a president that will stand up for what is right, and defend our country not only through words, but through action.