Skip to main content

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!?

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

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site