This is unacceptable. On December 12th(1983), our U.S. embassy in Kuwait was attacked by a suicide truck bomber. This blatant act of terror killed 5 people. Yet, the weak willed President Reagan refuses to call it an Act of Terror.
Here's what happened:
On December 12, 1983, a truck laden with 45 large cylinders of gas connected to plastic explosives broke through the front gates of the American Embassy in Kuwait City and rammed into the embassy's three-story administrative annex, demolishing half the structure. The shock blew out windows and doors in distant homes and shops.The pitifully limp response from the Reagan White House below:
First of all, he never even put out an official statement condemning the act. His first public response to the act was a MEDIA interview with the New York Daily News when asked about it. No where in that interview does he call the incident an "act of terror". Sure, he talks generically about "world wide terrorism", but it isn't clear if he's talking about Kuwait or the previous Lebanon bombings from earlier in the year.
He didn't make any more public statements until two days later he was again asked about the incident. He again refused to even mention the word "terror".
Q. Mr. President, your Secretary of Defense has said that Syria sponsored and directed the attack against the U.S. marines in October. And many officials in your administration have said privately that Iran has been behind attacks in Kuwait and in Lebanon. My question, sir, is: Are we going to retaliate against the Governments of Syria or Iran?Later that day he gave a speech and Q&A session to a group of Newspaper editors. In it, he doesn't even MENTION the incident. Obviously, there is some kind of cover-up going on. Worse, in the Q&A no one asked him about the incident. The corporate media was obviously in on the cover-up.
The President. No. We have taken a position -- and it is our policy that if this continues -- we're not there to shoot first or to enter into combat. But I'm never going to send our men anyplace where they wouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. And it's been our policy that if they are attacked, they will defend.
There was no further public statements by the president on the incident until on Dec 27th. Here, he only referred to it as an "act of violence":
The thrust of the history of this country is that we've recognized a clear distinction between being at peace with other states and being at war. We have never before faced a situation in which others routinely sponsor and facilitate acts of violence against us while hiding behind proxies and surrogates which claim -- they claim they do not fully control.Note that he called the bombing in Rangoon a "terrorist" bombing, but could only bring himself to call the Kuwait attack an "ugly manifestation". WHAT THE HELL does that mean, Mr. President!?
Now, this problem is not unique to Lebanon. We've seen the ugly manifestation in Kuwait, the terrorist bombing in Rangoon, the senseless murder of Turkish diplomats, the attack on the Pope, the bombing of our own Capitol, and on the streets of London.
I checked all of the presidents public statements for the rest of the month. He never addressed the incident again that month. I'm not sure that he EVER specifically called it an "act of terror". He called other embassy attacks as a "terrorist bombing". Why wouldn't he do it for this one?
Obviously, President Reagan has gone soft. We cannot re-elect this man. He's forgotten how to keep us safe.
Hope you enjoyed reading this parody of right-wing bullshit