Actually, it is worse than what you are presenting. The fact is that we had hundreds of thousands of Americans in the desert in a very vulnerable situation. They were in a hostile environment, even if there were no enemy troops out to kill them; and what happened, what you are talking about, the vast majority of the members of the Democratic Party who were here in this body decided and voted that they should not be permitted to conduct offensive military operations. What, in essence, that vote was all about was saying our troops, vulnerable in the middle of a hostile desert, facing a well-armed foe would not be able to conduct offensive operations but would have to sit there and fry in the desert and take hits, but were not permitted to take offensive action. This is Vietnam times 10, if they would have succeeded. Luckily a number, Democrats crossed over to join almost every Republican.
Dana Rohrabacher: “Actually, it is worse than what you are presenting. The fact is that we had hundreds of thousands of Americans in the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing military operations and troop vulnerability during a debate on military policy.
Share
More from Dana Rohrabacher
For decades it's been the policy of the United States to see the countries of Europe and Eurasia increase their liberty.
Under normal circumstances this problem would be addressed by local government.
Isn't it somewhat presumptuous of us to go in and then to actually take more of that $833 billion that we are spending in deficit to go in to try to help them--push them in certain directions, even though they already have a democratically…
let us declare that the Government of Burma is an outlaw among nations because this is not inconsistent with their behavior over the last 30 years and the military has--and we declared that the military is guilty of crimes against humanity.





