Bush to angry Iraqis: "Just bring it!"

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_go_pr_wh/bush

 

"There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

 

Man, it must be easier to say "Come on, and try to take us down" when you're not the one in danger.

 

'"Saddam Hussein had a weapons program," Bush said. "Remember he used them — he used chemical weapons on his own people."'

 

(yeah, in 1988. Even then, certain American administrations were more willing to think the Iranians were behind those attacks.)

 

'"We're exploring all options as to how to keep the situation peaceful and stable," he said. "One thing has to happen: Mr. Taylor needs to leave the country. ... In order for there to be peace and stability in Liberia, Charles Taylor needs to leave now."'

 

Don't worry Charles, the last guy he told to leave is still in his country and he's still alive. Somewhere. It's not like Bush is goin to unleash the US military on Liberia too.

 

--

 

It sure it encouraging that we have Clint Eastwood as the President. "Do yuh feel lucky Saddam? Do yuh?"

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Yeah, this is brilliant. ENCOURAGE the rebels to attack American troops.

 

Very easy to say from behind twenty layers of Secret Service agents.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I guess he should have said, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist. We'll be good. I promise..."

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Stupid humans.

[Guest redbaron51]

....

 

....

 

....

 

 

dumbass

[Guest Ripper]

I guess he should have said, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist. We'll be good. I promise..."

Well, there are better ways to say something than "Run up if ya want to, bitch...see what we got for ya."

 

I'm pretty sure the last thing that the soldiers out there want is Bush suppling a sound bite to put all over the news telling their enemies to bring it on.

 

Although there has been attacks on the soldiers recently, it hasn't been a all out balls to the walls battle and shit like that can make it one.

 

I'm not one of those, "Bash and pick at every thing Bush says and does" people, but that was just plain stupid...and not in the "He, Haw, bush made C's at Yale even though I probably would flunk out" stupid that most people label him with. It was I got abigger dick than you, wild, wild west rootin, tootin cowboy stupid.

Edited July 2, 2003 by Ripper

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

No, but he shouldn't have goaded the Iraqis into attacking our troops, especially considering this, this, this, and this.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

 

"Ahahaha, I got them now! Once they fall for my plan! I will be the king of summertime!"

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I wish Bush would have as much respect for the troops in Iraq as he tells his opponents in Congress to.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Speaking of showing respect to the soldiers...

 

This displays what they're starting to think of ol' Gee Dub.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

"Story not found or not available currently. Please check back later."

 

They're deleting stories to show their opinion!

 

 

(nah)

 

EDIT: ok..

it works now

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I know, I fucked up the link. It's fixed now.

[Guest Powerplay]

Yeah, this is brilliant. ENCOURAGE the rebels to attack American troops.

 

Very easy to say from behind twenty layers of Secret Service agents.

Point in case: Do you think the rebels were going to suddenly turn pacifist anyways? The statement does absolutely jack to the security statement since the rebels are going to attack US Troops with the same force no matter what they say and if they suddenly get the urge up go out and make some rage-caused response attack as soon as possible with far less planning than would normally go into one of their guerilla operations, then go ahead because that's only more casualties on their side. It's not directed at the Iraqi public in general, so it isn't turning anyone towards the resisitance's side. Christ, talk about over-analyzation...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I know, I fucked up the link. It's fixed now.

As usual, the article to which you've linked is complete bullshit. Here are the facts.

 

Rejecting a plan by his Office of Management and Budget to cap the 2004 military pay raise at two percent, President Bush instead will propose a "targeted" increase that would boost pay an average of 4.1 percent, almost a full percent higher than wage growth in the private sector.

 

If approved by Congress, next January’s military raise will be capped at two percent only for new recruits. For all other service members, the pay increase will range from 3.2 percent to more than 6 percent. The biggest raises would go to senior enlisted. Most officers would receive a 3.7 percent, which would still be a half percentage point above private sector wage growth as measured by the government’s Employment Cost Index (ECI).

 

Administration sources said Bush made the pay raise decision personally, resolving a disagreement between OMB Director Mitchell Daniels and senior Defense officials. The outcome was even better for service members than expected.

And on a personal note, I run into active members of practically every service on a daily basis. Not one has ever had anything but the highest praise for our Commander in Chief.

 

As for the "Bring them on" comment: every soldier in Iraq I've ever spoken to feels exactly the same way. So do I. And the President of the United States prima facie faces more threats every second of every day than anyone else in the world. He had every right to say what he did.

 

Personal courage? The man walked into the middle of Yankee Stadium one and a half months after 9/11 to throw the first pitch of the third game of the World Series. You want to tell me how many Secret Service agents he had around him on the pitcher's mound? He personally refused to allow the kind of intrusive security checks many people were trying to set up. Someone asked him why, and without batting an eyelid, without even breaking stride, he answered: "This is America."

The President has more courage than anyone else I've ever met in my life.

Edited July 2, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

My Fellow Americans,

 

I have a very large penis. Wanna see it? No? Maybe later.

 

Your President,

 

George W. Bush.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

All the President was saying is the U.S. won't be discouraged by attacks, and won't be afraid to deal with them.

[Guest Vyce]

One day, I shall come to this board, and I will see a post by one of the Usual Gang of......ahem, and that post will be to PRAISE George W. Bush about something.

 

And I will subsequently keel over dead of shock.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

George Bush tells the members of a country he just invaded to "bring on" their resistance.

And people wonder why the rest of the world hates Americans.

[Guest Powerplay]

George Bush tells the members of a country he just invaded to "bring on" their resistance.

And people wonder why the rest of the world hates Americans.

...

 

He told members of a resistance that will never accept democratic rule to bring it. Not the Iraqis. What is the damn problem with that? Oh, and I love how you used the word "invade" to try and make the war seem that much more imperialistic. Props.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Wow, you found an article disputing one whole point of that editorial from the ARMY TIMES. It's not as if I'm going off the cuff and citing some ultra-communist rag, you freaking loon.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

As for the "Bring them on" comment: every soldier in Iraq I've ever spoken to feels exactly the same way. So do I. And the President of the United States prima facie faces more threats every second of every day than anyone else in the world. He had every right to say what he did.

 

Pardon me if I don't agree with his cowboy attitude. People are being killed every day (and another today, an Unnamed US marine), and Bush is taunting them. Judge makes a decent point in that they'll probably do it anyway, but Jesus, taunting them is the dumbest thing one could possibly do. It doesn't show balls, it shows utter stupidity.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I guess he should have said, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist. We'll be good. I promise..."

He could have said "We take this as a serious issue," or if he really wanted to demoralize them, "We consider these attackers to be a minor threat."

 

There is a fine line between downplaying a threat and goading a threat. I remember when tech columnist Bob Metcalfe talked about Microsoft flagrantly violating the Justice Department's requests. He refered to it as "mooning the ogre."

 

 

So to say "this situation is under control" is one thing. To say "hey, do your worst guys" is mooning the ogre.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Personal courage? The man walked into the middle of Yankee Stadium one and a half months after 9/11 to throw the first pitch of the third game of the World Series.

Whooooo! By god, he'll be personally leading the troops into battle next! Hopefully he can throw grenades as well as he does baseballs!

 

The President has more courage than anyone else I've ever met in my life.

 

Then please go meet a REAL war veteran and someone who has put their life on the line in hostile territory (emphasis added.) Meet some people who have seen the tracking sights searching for them, who's heard the shots being fired from the trees, who's wondered to themselves if this battlefield is where they're going to die.

 

Mr. Bush may have a lot of heart, but if he is truly the most courageous man you have met, then you need to take advantage of your locale and meet some honest-to-God war heroes in the most real sense.

[Guest Powerplay]

The Ogre? Please. Again, I ask you: Goading them into making a hasty and probably badly planned attack that will cause more casualties does what wrong? We WANT them to make futile gestures like that.

 

Demoralize them with WORDS? The people we are fighting against aren't going to be demoralized. Do you see who they are supporting? Nothing we say will affect their morale in the slightest. Only what we do, and if that happens to be kicking their asses in a poorly planned response attack, then fine.

 

They are going to do their worst ANYWAYS, Jobber. It's not like they were holding back before. They want total and utter victory as quick as possible, and if they had the means to do so they would have used them by now.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

This John Wayne tough talk is, at it's best, a cheap way to get some votes, and at worst, going to get soldier(s) killed.

 

Demoralize them with WORDS? The people we are fighting against aren't going to be demoralized.

 

Your tone makes it sound as though you believe them to have some kind of bloodlust that makes it unable to affect their morale, but really what you're seeing is a reflection of ourselves. When we read in a newspaper that some Muslim cleric issues a fatwa to smite the infidels, does this effect our morale? No. Does it affect the troop's morale? Probably not. Probably why we haven't seen reports of such things lately.

 

So if acting like a big shot unnecessarily does nothing to the enemy, why cop this attitude? The only way I can explain it is to say that the man is not the best speaker we've ever had, and when shot this question out of the blue, made a flippant "bring it on" response instead of something more becoming of the President, such as "we're bringing that situation under control and believe it is not a strong threat."

 

Some people find his inability to make traditional Presidential-style statements to be charming. I personally find it to be somewhere at the half point between dim-witted and arrogant.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

This would have been funnier had he actually said "Just Bring It!" and used the Rock's bring it hand motion. Maybe Ari Fleischer's replacement was Vince Russo?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If it's not a big threat, why are Americans still dying?

 

It's not as if we can protect isolated troops from ambushes; this is obviously the case, with another Marine dying today. We're not worried about some amazing rove of bandits killing all the troops and destroying AMERICA OMG BUSH WILL SAVE US~!~!~!~!! We're worried about these little attacks on our troops, which is claiming lives and giving moral victory to the dissidents.

 

The point is that the Iraqi citizens are not going to take to our government, and they're rising up against us. These guys aren't random Saddam loyalists killing us, they're Shiites who are enraged by our ineptitude in running postwar Iraq. Saying "Bring it on!" shouldn't be our priority; it simply makes us look like a bunch of incomprehensible, blithering idiots. What we need to be focusing on is getting Iraq back up and running -- after all, we took it offline in the first place -- and somehow convincing the public that we're the fucking good guys. Saying "BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!" isn't doing that.

[Guest JMA]

Isn't this just pandering to rednecks and angry blue-collar guys?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

If it's not a big threat, why are Americans still dying?

Americans have been dying in conflicts overseas before that a good majority of the populace are unaware of. I keep tabs on the news now and then, but all I know is that some people died in some place called Kosovo. I could not locate Kosovo on a map and I do not know why these people died, just that they did.

 

If I'm that uninformed, then I imagine that a good percentage of John Q Publics out there think Saddam Hussein plotted 9/11.

 

Anyway, it is clear he is producing spin here, downplaying the threat of these attacks. The problem is that his spin doesn't sound like Presidential spin. It sounds like a piece of "DC 9/11" that hit the cutting room floor. Again, I don't doubt that this gets him popularity from some people. But it is still rhetoric from a man on a different continent from conflict, and when you finally recognize that and let it sink in, you realize that it is rather empty.

 

These guys aren't random Saddam loyalists killing us, they're Shiites who are enraged by our ineptitude in running postwar Iraq.

 

Correction: What they view as ineptitude. I admit I've been less than interested in what's been going on in Baghdad the past few months since the embedded reporters went home and the looting has generally stopped, but remember if many of these people had their way we would install an Islamic theocracy, which I'm sure both you and I will agree is a bad idea.

 

What we need to be focusing on is getting Iraq back up and running -- after all, we took it offline in the first place -- and somehow convincing the public that we're the fucking good guys. Saying "BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!" isn't doing that.

 

Correct. You do realize that our efforts to restore Iraq to what it should be are being stalled by Iraqis themselves, though.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Correction: What they view as ineptitude. I admit I've been less than interested in what's been going on in Baghdad the past few months since the embedded reporters went home and the looting has generally stopped, but remember if many of these people had their way we would install an Islamic theocracy, which I'm sure both you and I will agree is a bad idea.

 

Of course, but I'm sure the people are less concerned about their theocratic government than they are about having such luxuries as water, electricity, and a somewhat competent economy. We destroyed it, now it's our job to fix it.

 

Correct. You do realize that our efforts to restore Iraq to what it should be are being stalled by Iraqis themselves, though.

 

It's obvious that rebels within Iraq are trying to sabatoge our efforts to rebuild Iraq, and I don't deny that. However, it's our job... as the occupying power... to police this state. So, instead, we're telling them to "BRING IT ON"? Wonderful.