Doesn’t really serve to deflect any of the criticism directed at it, but thanX though.
bring it on? indeed!
All they have to do to “bring it on” is sneak up to any group of US troops with a grenade bought in the local flea market.
It’s easy to talk tough from behind a pulpit, thousands of miles away.
I think that what he really meant was:
“We’re willing to sacrifice quite a few of our boys. So you guys might just as well stop trying”
Which doesn’t make it any better though.
…
There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. …
My answer is bring them on. …
Not to mention more US deaths and injuries. But those seem inconsiquential to you.
translation:
“There are some who feel that if they kill off some of my grunts, I’ll get all squeamish and pull them out. Oh boy are they wrong!”
The reaction to this statement is a perfect reason why the Democrats might as well save their money and not run a candidate this time out.
There is not a single Iraqi (or ally) who heard that statement and concluded that while he wasn’t originally going to attack American troops, he is now because the President egged him on – not a single one.
The danger to U.S. troops has increased not a single bit.
And not a single American believes otherwise – not a single one.
All the President did is try to improve the troop morale by supporting them and assure the world that we wouldn’t be scared out of Iraq the way we were out of Lebanon, Somalia and so many other places. And he said it unambiguously, in a way that people might actually understand
And yet we’ve got how many of the dwarves out bleating about how “irresponsible” it all is and like crap, and how many of the reflexive anti-Bushies in this forum parroting the very same crap.
Keep bleating, if that’s what makes you happy. But that’s what it is.
Let’s try to be rational here, while retaining a leavening of skepticism. President Bush and his people have carefully calculated that the American electorate, or at least a fair hunk of it, want the President to be Dirty Harry and want the nation’s foreign policy to reflect the Hollywood macho hero who is dangerous and arrogant. The “bring it on” line sells just as well with the electorate as Mr. Eastwood’s “make my day” line sold with adolescent boys. It is part of the act.
Regrettably, it confirms the view of people who are inclined to think that way that the President is either a take-no-prisoners-tough-guy or a barking idiot. It also serves to confirm European opinion that the United States is in the control of a wild and reckless cowboy.
It serves everybody’s purposes. It reinforces the fervor of people who love the President and whose allegiance he has to keep if he is to win the next election. It further alienates people who would not vote for him if Jesus Christ came down from heaven and gave him a campaign endorsement. It makes Europe even more anxious. It’s a good deal for everyone.
What the President says is not policy. What the President says is theater. Policy is set by the Heritage Foundation, the United States Chamber of Commerce and by the Annual Convention of the Southern Baptist Church and the like. The President is just the midway barker for the people who are calling the shots and running the country. What the President says means nothing—what the president is told to say means every thing.
Not to ruin your fun, Manhattan, but mostly what I’ve seen is people complaining that it’s stupid, blustery posturing, which it undeniably is. Not that it’s putting anyone in danger.
I have to agree. If after stuff like the forged African nuclear materials documents, they pick this to make a big deal out of… Sweet Christ.
Actually, I agree with that statement, not least because who the hell over there would be familiar with such a colloquialism anyway? But whatever; doesn’t make it any less silly a statement, IMO.
Oh, well, that’s it then. Apparently, I can infer that I am a ‘reflexive anti-Bushie’ and a ‘dwarf’, whatever the hell that means, by having the temerity to post a negative comment to this thread, which, last I checked, invited commentary. Nice.
Funny, I could have sworn ad hominems were out of bounds here (shrug).
Clearly, you hang with a better class of people than I do. 
Here’s some of what I heard:
Dick Gephardt: “We should be focused on a long-term security plan that reduces the danger to our military personnel.”
Which is either the non-sequiter of the century (a possibility, I admit) or an implication that the statement increases the danger.
Frank Lautenberg: “irresponsible and inciteful.”
Inciteful to what?
John Kerry “unwise, unworthy of the office and his role as commander in chief, and unhelpful to American soldiers under fire.”
Unhelpful how?
Howard Dean: “These men and women are risking their lives every day, and the president who sent them on this mission showed tremendous insensitivity to the dangers they face.”
Oh, please. I bet half the installations in Iraq have a “bring them on” banner up by now.
What exactly SHOULD he have said? Something like:
“I just want all you terrorists and Baathists to know that if you keep attacking us this way we will have no choice but to run away and cower in fear. So please, I beg you, don’t attack our troops!”
How exactly is it stupid posturing to state that you can attack us, but we aren’t leaving any time soon? That if you want to fight us, we’re more than willing to fight you?
How is it stupid? I still don’t understand exactly what is stupid about it. How is it posturing? How (or why) does it alienate people? Of course what the president says is political theater. And?
Everyone knows that nothing is non-negotiable. Of course if things get really bad we might decide to pull out of Iraq and betray the Iraqi people to the Islamists or the Baathists, or whoever eventually would take over there.
But should the president make a speach saying that we are resolute and are ready to fight anyone who tries to get us to leave, or should he state that we are keeping an eye out for the bottom line and are ready to pull out at a moment’s notice if things get too rough?
Like it or not, pulling out now would be a disaster. Even if you think the war was a collossal blunder sold to the American people by tricks and lies, you have to agree that pulling our troops out now would be the worst possible move. So the president has to indicate that we are not going to pull our troops out, no matter what. Even if we eventually are forced to pull out, it is still the only thing any president could do right now, given the situation we are in.
Part of the job of the president is to go on TV and be a cheerleader for our troops and for our country. Why is that so wrong? I understand that the propaganda doesn’t affect you, it doesn’t affect me either.
Dwarf: Democrat running for President – from the seven candidates vying to run against GHW Bush. Yes, I’m aware one of them won.
I implied nothing regarding any specific poster. You can infer what you choose.
Correction: The seven dwarves were from 1998. They (or he, Dukakis) lost. Sorry for the brain fart.
Please. If you can find any evidence that I find american casualties inconsequential, please show it. Otherwise, retract your statement.
I want our soldiers to fight where they have the most advantages and the fewest disadvantages. Guerillas taking occasional pot-shots at our troops plays to their strength and our weakness. If they try to attack us openly, that plays to our strength and their weakness.
I’m not naive enough to believe that the guerillas will just go away if we pretend hard enough. We have to fight them, there is no getting around it. So, given that we have to fight them, let us fight them where our strength is matched against their weakness, not the other way around.
I can’t imagine how or why an intelligent person could fail (or pretend to fail) to understand that.
I had an awful thought last night – what if Bush is right? What if it’s true, what I’ve read, that the Arab culture respects only force. So the war on Iraq will enhance respect for the USA in the Arab world, and a strong, confident statement like ‘Bring it On’ will have a positive effect.
Please, tell me I’m wrong, tell me how I’m wrong.
The remark was false macho bravado by a man who has never demonstrated any personal courage in his life. It is one thing to invite attacks on yourself, but truly pathetic to invite attacks on those who are under your overall command.
manhattan, not everyone is familiar with the ‘dwarf’ moniker as you used it, and you did seem to be referring to posters in this thread with that ‘parroting’ crack in the same sentence.
OK, so anyway we all seem to be pretty much in agreement that this was done mainly to juice up the troops, will have no particular political benefit otherwise, and might piss off some Iraqis, but who cares because we’re running the show until we say otherwise and they can’t mount any seriously organized resistance anyway. Got it. Feel free to correct me if I got it wrong, which is always possible.
Oh, but I have do to reject the implication by another poster that objection to Bush’s statement somehow means advocating an early withdrawal from Iraq.
For someone who deserted his own unit during Vietman Shrubbie sure is brave with other people’s lives. It’s easy to say “bring 'em on” when his own soft, pampered ass is safe in sound in a cushy White House couch while he munches on pretzels and watches Blac Hawk Down for the 73rd time om DVD.
“Our enemies may believe that American forces are now vulnerable, that if they continue to attack us, we will lose our will and withdraw from Iraq. To them I say, do not underestimate the resolve of the American people.”
Same point, same support-the-troops machismo, but without the bad action-movie dialog.
The idea that “Arab culture” only understands macho posturing is so much nonsense.