Bush to angry Iraqis: "Just bring it!"

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

Yeah, because all of that is common knowledge and the best qualifier to determine idiocy.

"Common knowledge" is irrelevant. You're pontificating about the likelihood of an attempt on the life of the President, which is something you have no knowledge of. None. Same goes for Vietnam.

The al Qaeda sleeper cells we found in the following months were quite capable of carrying out an attack at Yankee Stadium. That is a fact. "Undeniably unlikely?" No more unlikely than airliners being converted into impromptu missiles a month and a half earlier. You're an ignorant inexperienced little twerp carping from the sidelines about things way over your head.

Granted, it would be possible to have killed Bush that day, but it was no more likely than any other day of the week. He's the fucking President of the biggest country in the world, a country that is disliked (or at least is not liked) by the majority of people in the world. He's gotta accept that every day of the week, theres a chance he's gonna be killed. It was no more likely than before 9/11. If anything, the likely hood of annotherr terrorist attack was less likely so soon after.

You don't have to be a military expert to realise that fighting a war on the front line, staking your own life, takes more courage than fighting a war from a little bunker the other side of the world, staking the lives of those you have never met.

[Guest JMA]

Maybe you'd better try to get me banned too, Sir Galahad. Here, I'll tell you to fuck off, mind your own business, and stick to the topic at hand. That should help you out.

I didn't try to get anyone banned. I just notified Tom. I didn't ask for him to banned or anything. I did nothing wrong. I follow the rules of this site. The guy was taking shots at me in his sig. He deserved what he got. He's gone for good and he's NEVER coming back. And I refuse to feel guilty over someone who was an ass to me for no FUCKING reason.

 

Besides, one could say the same about you. You reported Banky to the mods and they banned him. You're being hypocritical based on your personal feelings. You're not being consistent. And you shouldn't insult everyone who disagrees with you.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

It was admittedly dangerous to appear at the stadium, but saying that it was MORE DANGEROUS THAN VIETNAM is absolutely absurd.

I like the supersized italics, Tyler. They really add to your argument.

 

Fundamentally what you're disregarding is the fact that he is the President. More people want to kill him than any one American GI in 'Nam. Disregard the facts if you wish, but they remain clear and incontrovertible.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I like the supersized italics, Tyler. They really add to your argument.

 

Thanks, I got the tactic from you.

 

Fundamentally what you're disregarding is the fact that he is the President. More people want to kill him than any one American GI in 'Nam. Disregard the facts if you wish, but they remain clear and incontrovertible.

 

Yes, but tracers don't tend to discriminate, either. The president wasn't in a war zone, he was in NYC. There was still a great risk in doing that, but you can't say that it's more dangerous than being planted on the front lines in 'Nam.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

The fact of the matter is that no matter how Marney argues differently, that quote by Bush was made without any thought to the men IN Iraq, or to current diplomatic relations with rank and file Iraqis. He made the US look like the belligerent bullies that the Middle East and North Africa have been claiming we are since the late 60's. Bush has shown he is totally incapable of being diplomatic with the very people he says we're there to "protect."

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

The fact of the matter is that no matter how Marney argues differently, that quote by Bush was made without any thought to the men IN Iraq, or to current diplomatic relations with rank and file Iraqis. He made the US look like the belligerent bullies that the Middle East and North Africa have been claiming we are since the late 60's. Bush has shown he is totally incapable of being diplomatic with the very people he says we're there to "protect."

And thus destroying any good work that had been done in re-building America's image in the rest of the world.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The fact of the matter is that no matter how Marney argues differently, that quote by Bush was made without any thought to the men IN Iraq, or to current diplomatic relations with rank and file Iraqis. He made the US look like the belligerent bullies that the Middle East and North Africa have been claiming we are since the late 60's. Bush has shown he is totally incapable of being diplomatic with the very people he says we're there to "protect."

We are not in Iraq to protect people who want to kill United States service personnel.

 

Next stupid argument, please.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Would that not entail the majority of the Iraqi citizenship?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No. As even a New York Times op-ed columnist admits.

 

"A thousand thanks to Bush!" he told me. "A thousand thanks to Bush's mother for giving birth to him!"

 

Hmmm. I hadn't expected a tribute to the Mother of all Bushes.

 

Then I heard about Mathem Abid Ali and tracked him down in the southern city of Nasiriya...

 

So I asked Mr. Abid Ali what he thought of the Americans.

 

He thought for a moment and said: "I'd like to make a statue in gold of President Bush."

 

So, facts got in the way of my plans for this column. But sometimes that's a good thing. I do think it's important for doves like myself to encounter Saddam's victims like Mr. Abid Ali and their joy at being freed.

(emphases added)

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

404 - Editorial Not Found

 

Edit: Never mind, fixed.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Try again. The link hasn't been edited and it works fine for me.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

That still all of two people.

 

For every two of those you find, there's at least that many stories of angry mobs opposing the US's presence there. It's not just the Baathists, it's the Shiites and the Sunnis as well.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

If we found a hundred thousand, you'd say that's just a hundred thousand out of 20 million. No evidence will satisfy you because your convictions are rooted in ideology and not proof. Frankly, I don't care whether they hate us or not. Any proof that they don't is only icing on the cake, and the fact that a self-confessed liberal is writing about just makes it that much sweeter.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If you don't care whether or not they like us or not, why are we even there?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Thanks, I have. My best man served two tours in Vietnam, received five Purple Hearts, and was decorated for exceptional valour three times. He says the same thing.

I can't figure out if I want to use or !!!

 

Ever heard of a Barrett M82A2? Can you tell me if it's commercially available, how much it costs, what its effective range is, what its penetration capabilities are, the speed of the bullet, and the average effectiveness of LFEs in mock-ups of urban deployments? No? How about the most likely places, historically and then statistically, for a President to be assassinated? The most likely days of the week? The most likely times? Situations? No?

 

Oh please. That building was under incredibly high security whether or not Bush had himself mobbed by a bunch of Secret Service guards. You want to tell me they weren't putting everyone through metal detectors and thoroughly searching bags?

 

Bush didn't need his giant protection squad, he had already inconvenienced everyone else in the building instead (not his fault, not saying it's a bad thing, just saying you BET they locked the hell down of that place while still keeping their distance around him but to give him coffee and ask him how the game is going.)

[Guest Cancer Marney]

If you don't care whether or not they like us or not, why are we even there?

To drain the swamp. Eliminating capability doesn't entail winning a popularity contest.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'm not familiar with the terminology, are you referring to the argument that Iraq was a direct threat to us?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'm not familiar with the terminology, are you referring to the argument that Iraq was a direct threat to us?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Thanks, I have. My best man served two tours in Vietnam, received five Purple Hearts, and was decorated for exceptional valour three times. He says the same thing.

I can't figure out if I want to use or !!!

<shrugs> Believe what you want. Tom was at my wedding and met him in person. I don't need to make up shit about myself or my friends.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'm not familiar with the terminology, are you referring to the argument that Iraq was a direct threat to us?

Direct and indirect.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

With no proven links to al-Queda and no WMDs, how can you say they're a direct threat to us?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

No more unlikely than airliners being converted into impromptu missiles a month and a half earlier. You're an ignorant inexperienced little twerp carping from the sidelines about things way over your head.

Actually, using an airplane as a terrorist weapon is actually pretty likely. Airport security WAS getting too lax over the years, and if you're telling me you had to be a terrorist mastermind to think up a plan like 9/11 you're kidding me.

 

 

 

Can you tell me what the series pilot to the X-Files spinoff "The Lone Gunmen" was about? Terrorists flying an airplane into the World Trade Center. Kid you not.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No more unlikely than airliners being converted into impromptu missiles a month and a half earlier. You're an ignorant inexperienced little twerp carping from the sidelines about things way over your head.

Actually, using an airplane as a terrorist weapon is actually pretty likely. Airport security WAS getting too lax over the years, and if you're telling me you had to be a terrorist mastermind to think up a plan like 9/11 you're kidding me.

Can you tell me what the series pilot to the X-Files spinoff "The Lone Gunmen" was about? Terrorists flying an airplane into the World Trade Center. Kid you not.

Yes yes yes, and China was planning 9/11 decades ago. I know all that. It still doesn't change the fact that dismissing a sitting President's words by saying he's safe and snug behind lines of Secret Service agents is simply ridiculous. The President of the United States carries a palpable zone of extreme danger around him at all times and as much as I respect and admire and yes, love the man, I'll be the first one to admit that I thank God every day I don't have to do his job. The courage it requires would be beyond me.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...ml?nav=hptop_tb

 

Bush Utters Taunt About Militants: 'Bring 'Em On'

 

By Dana Milbank and Vernon Loeb

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, July 3, 2003; Page A01

 

 

President Bush yesterday delivered a colloquial taunt to militants who have been attacking U.S. troops in Iraq, saying "bring 'em on" and asserting that the forces in Iraq are "plenty tough" to deal with the threat.

 

The colorful challenge by Bush provoked indignation from some congressional Democrats, who said the president's bravado was inviting attacks on U.S. soldiers. It came as the president continued to face questions about the chaotic postwar scene in Iraq. Some retired officers, warning of a serious shortage of military manpower, have called on Bush to take the unusual step of activating National Guard divisions to relieve overtaxed troops.

 

The Pentagon, which is studying whether it needs additional troops in Iraq, is straining to sustain more than half the Army in Iraq while maintaining other troop commitments in Afghanistan, South Korea and the Balkans. Other countries are also resisting entreaties to help in Iraq. In the latest sign of the squeeze, the foreign secretary of India, from which the administration is seeking an entire division, said yesterday that his government remains wary of sending troops to Iraq.

 

Bush's vigorous defense of his administration's decisions in Iraq -- his second defense in as many days after a period of relative silence -- came as another U.S. Marine was killed and three were injured while clearing mines in Iraq, while a soldier died from wounds suffered in an attack on Tuesday. At least 64 Americans have been killed -- 26 from hostile fire -- since Bush declared the bulk of fighting over two months ago.

 

"There are some who feel that the conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush said. Extending his right hand for emphasis, he added: "My answer is: Bring 'em on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." He promised to "deal with them harshly" if attacks continue.

 

The president, appearing in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for an event intended to announce an AIDS personnel appointment, appeared irritated as he spoke of U.S. troop strength in Iraq and the cooperation from other countries.

 

"There are some who feel like that if they attack us, that we may decide to leave prematurely," Bush said in response to a reporter's question. Shaking his head, he continued: "They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case." When a reporter tried to ask another question, Bush raised his index finger and said, "Let me finish."

 

The administration has been struggling to enlist other countries to contribute troops to the Iraqi occupation force and reduce the strain on the U.S. military. Despite vigorous appeals from the president and his senior advisers, however, foreign governments have been reluctant to provide large numbers of troops. While the administration has queried 70 countries about the possibility of contributing forces, 10 have thus far agreed to contribute about 20,000 troops by the end of the summer. Only Britain, Ukraine and Poland have provided substantial assistance so far.

 

"Anybody who wants to help, we'll welcome the help," Bush said. "But we've got plenty tough force there right now to make sure the situation is secure." The president left open the possibility of increasing U.S. troop strength, however, saying "we'll put together a force structure who meets the threats on the ground."

 

But in the latest indication of the difficulty the administration is having in recruiting other countries to help in Iraq, Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal told editors and reporters at The Washington Post that his government wants a "better understanding" of U.S. plans for the Iraqi political system and improved security, and would prefer a larger United Nations role. He said it would be a "serious, serious departure" for Indian troops to serve under U.S. command. The Bush administration is hoping India will contribute a division of troops.

 

Though Congress is in recess, some Democrats criticized Bush's "bring 'em on" statement. "I am shaking my head in disbelief," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). "When I served in the Army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander -- let alone the commander in chief -- invite enemies to attack U.S. troops." Lautenberg's statement said Bush's words were "tantamount to inciting and inviting more attacks against U.S. forces."

 

In addition, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), a presidential candidate, said he had heard "enough of the phony, macho rhetoric" from Bush. Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor also mounting a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Bush "showed tremendous insensitivity to the dangers" troops face.

 

Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said Bush was not inviting attacks. "I think what the president was expressing there is his confidence in the men and women of the military to handle the military mission that they still remain in the middle of," he said.

 

The president has often turned to folksy phrases when angered and discussing a threat to the country. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he said he wanted al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." Bush also has said that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "crawfished" to escape United Nations sanctions, and that he would "smoke" Taliban operatives "out of their caves." On the eve of the doomed effort earlier this year to win U.N. support for military action against Iraq, Bush said, "It's time for people to show their cards."

 

Many Democrats, who have been reluctant to criticize the popular president on most aspects of foreign policy, are now arguing that Bush's military strategy has been inadequate to control the violence. "I believe that the absence of a public postconflict plan has led to confusion and misperceptions among the American people regarding the magnitude of the military operations necessary in Iraq," Lautenberg wrote to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

 

With retired generals and military analysts calling for more soldiers in Iraq and leading members of Congress saying the Pentagon must sustain forces there for as long as five years, Rumsfeld has begun wrestling with a serious shortage of troops in the $3-billion-a-month occupation of Iraq.

 

Army Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid, nominated to succeed Gen. Tommy R. Franks as head of the U.S. Central Command, is conducting an internal review to determine whether the military has enough force on the ground in Iraq. He is counting on the arrival of 20,000 to 30,000 international peacekeeping forces in August or September, which could enable the United States to withdraw some of the 150,000 troops in Iraq.

 

Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, in his retirement address last month as Army chief of staff, called for "a force sized correctly to meet the strategy" and warned, in what seemed a veiled shot at Rumsfeld: "Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army."

 

The Army now has more than half of its 10-division active duty force assigned to Iraq. There is the equivalent of another division deployed in Afghanistan, and two to three are typically kept in reserve for a potential confrontation with North Korea. And, because the Army likes to keep three or four divisions training and preparing to eventually replace each division in action, the Pentagon at the moment has no troops to replace many of those on extended deployments in Iraq.

 

Retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey has called for activating three National Guard divisions to begin creating a rotational base to sustain the force in Iraq. Without it, he said, "this force is going over the cliff at the end of the year."

 

Retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew said he believes the Pentagon should send two more divisions to Iraq and begin activating National Guard divisions to create the necessary replacements. "It would be embarrassing for the president, but the consequence of not doing it may be to lose the war," Killebrew said.

[Guest DrTom]

Bush has shown he is totally incapable of being diplomatic with the very people he says we're there to "protect."

We're not in Iraq to protect loyalist cowards who snipe and take potshots at American troops. We're there to protect the people brutalized and oppressed by Saddam's regime. In fact, the loyalist cowards are exactly the "people" Bush was calling out. I hope it works, too; that way, we can kill the scum in quantity instead of a few at a time. Much more efficient.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Tom, the loyalists aren't the only ones sniping at us...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I hope it works, too; that way, we can kill the scum in quantity instead of a few at a time. Much more efficient

 

Indeed. The pathetic little worms may be able to take out one of our people here or there, but when they try to attack en masse they get slaughtered. The last major ambush they tried to organise resulted in over 30 militants dead and not one single American casualty.

 

Bring it on.

[Guest Powerplay]

The fact of the matter is that no matter how Marney argues differently, that quote by Bush was made without any thought to the men IN Iraq, or to current diplomatic relations with rank and file Iraqis. He made the US look like the belligerent bullies that the Middle East and North Africa have been claiming we are since the late 60's. Bush has shown he is totally incapable of being diplomatic with the very people he says we're there to "protect."

... Christ, you didn't notice anything I said.

 

Okay, I'm gonna say this again, because it doesn't seem like most people even acknowledged it outside of Tyler. You guys act like we were at some sort of cease-fire with these rebels, which isn't the case. If the rebels were, you know, maybe trying to get into some peace talks and then Bush said this, you might have a case. But they aren't. They've been attacking us, and they haven't been holding back. What would be the point to? So if Bush says this, nothing changes. Just like if he had said anything else. The soldiers are in danger, but they have always been. This doesn't increase it magically.

 

Secondly, (referring to Zsasz comment) who the FUCK are we bullying? Baath Party Loyalists? Islamic Extremists? Please, explain to me how Bush's comment is directed at the Iraqi public, because frankly, it doesn't seem like it is at all.

 

This is just blantant over-exaggeration of some little soundbite that HAD ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON IRAQI AGGRESSION TOWARDS UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES, which is just pathetic. GET OVER IT ALREADY.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Powerplay, you just don't get it.

 

The war on terror is not a ground war, but a war against an ideology (Islamic fundamentalism). A quote like this, placed in the hands of recruiters for terrorist organizations makes us look like bullies, and so it doesn't matter if we REALLY ARE, it's how we present ourselves.

 

We SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTING OURSELVES IN THIS MANNER.

[Guest Vyce]

We SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTING OURSELVES IN THIS MANNER.

This is EXACTLY the manner in which we should be representing ourselvess.

 

RUTHLESS AGGRESSION~! is one of the few things those people have the capacity to understand.