Are you talking about me, El_Kabong? No, I’m not saying that just because you thought the statement was stupid that you advocate withdrawing.
I just don’t understand what you think the president SHOULD have said. Obviously, we both agree that he can’t say that we will withdraw at the slightest hint of danger. So therefore, he has to talk tough and say that we WON’T withdraw, no matter what the danger.
Given that we’ve already invaded Iraq and defeated Saddam’s regular army, obviously we can’t leave. Therefore, the only policy that makes sense is a policy of saying forcefully that we aren’t leaving until we’re ready to leave. Since you know that, and I know that, and the American people know that, and the Iraqi people know that, what exactly is the problem with what he said?
Um… that WOULD be better than “bring it on,” wouldn’t it? He doesn’t even say the comment is dangerous or whatever.
Uh, it’s unhelpful because it’s not helpful. Can you think of any way it IS helpful? It would be one thing, I agree, if they’d said it was dangerous to the troops.
Ooh, insensitive. Now that’s anti-Bush reflexivity if ever I’ve heard it.
By the way, since when do dwarves bleat? I think that might be a mixed metaphor.
So rjung, the idea he was trying to convey was completely acceptable…it just struck you as inelegant and unaesthetic and cliched. That’s your judgement call to make, but how is it therefore stupid, imoral, cowardly, or whatever other charges people are making?
I think the furor over his comment is being drastically blown far out proportion. Like what Bush says will have any effect on how many dissident Iraqi’s attack US forces anyways; if they’re going to attack, they will do it regardless of what Bush says in a speech.
Whatever his intent, however little the raids by the Iraqi guerillas are actually encouraged by this soundbite, if Americans are still dying in Iraq a year from now “Bring 'em on” will be the “Read my lips” of 2004.
So then, Bush’s next speech could start with, “Fuck all them ragheads” and all will be well?
I disagree. He’s our president. He’s addressing us, the public with statements like this. He’s not a Eisenhower rallying the troops for D-Day. It’s merely (like someone said) macho bullshit. And I for one, don’t like that sort of instability in the person leading my country.
This guy is friggin’ touched in the head, I tell ya.
[The Daily Show]We’re adopting a “Hey you, kids! Get off the lawn!” foreign policy. Rumsfeld’s sitting out on a porch with his shirt off swinging a bottle, “Hey you wanta piece? Huh, Netherlands?”[/TDS]
Um, how about the obvious choice: that Bush’s comments indicate he doesn’t seem to care about the danger our troops are in. Gephardt is saying that he (Gephardt) does care. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Given the fact that american power is what it is, GW could tell anyone he wanted to literally go f*ck themselves, without endangering american lives, but it would still be poor statemanship.
Inviting combat as if it was enjoyable, is disrepectful to human life regardless of whether or not it actually endangers them.
Don’t you think he could have found a better way to raise moral that didn’t make him look like an ignorant hick?
The trouble with Gephardt’s comments IMHO is that it focuses on the wrong end of the telescope. He’s right that we should be concerned about the danger to our troops, but only within the context of achieving our goal. If all we cared about was troop safety, we could just bring them all home.
Someone leaked to me one of GWB’s upcoming re-election speeches. I find it quite eloquent, and rather poignant:
"You talking to me? Well I dont see anyone else here!
Bring it on baby, go on attack American troops, I dare ya, in fact I double dare ya. You killed two American soldiers today? Is that all ya got? It didnt hurt a bit! Go ahead make my day… but you’ve got to ask yourself one question. Do you feel lucky Ahmed? Well do ya punk? Give it all ya got Bozo!
Mess with the best, ya die like the rest, now say hello to my little friend.
Man, the Bush carping on this board is reaching a fever pitch. You guys need to settle down.
I can think of one good way 'bring ‘em on’ can be helpful - it can help draw more fighters into Iraq and engage them with the military - which is a hell of a lot better than having them engage U.S. civilians elsewhere. It is also a morale booster for the troops, AND it is a fine, unambiguous statement of resolve.
When you’re fighting a guerilla war, the best way to win is to show that no amount of violence is going to force you out. After all, the guerilla’s can’t defeat the U.S. All they can do is try and break the will of the U.S. people. So once in a while, a forceful statement like this can be very useful.
And believe it or not, there are a lot of us who are tired of politicians who have to consult focus groups and advisors before they’re willing to say anything. I’m tired of soundbite politics and carefully crafted, measured phrases. I’d rather have a leader who talks plainly, but follows through with what he says, than one who is a brilliant orator but who’s oration can’t be trusted.
Manhattan was right. This board is moving increasingly to the fringes of the radical left of the Democratic party. The little pissing party that goes on in here every day is not reflected in the population at large - the majority of which think Bush is doing a fine job.
Now, as for the cracks about Bush being a coward… Tell you what - you log a few thousand hours in a Mach 2 fighter jet, and shoot a carrier landing. Then tell me how much courage it took. I’ve flown a number of high performance airplanes, and those old jets would scare the crap out of me. And Bush stood a much greater chance of being killed in his F-102 than the average draftee did in Vietnam. Whatever reason he had for not going to Vietnam, cowardice wasn’t it.
Arguments like this just make you look petty and strident. Keep it up. You’re helping G.W. Bush earn the nickname, “Landslide George.”
"Now, as for the cracks about Bush being a coward… Tell you what - you log a few thousand hours in a Mach 2 fighter jet, and shoot a carrier landing. Then tell me how much courage it took. "
Way less courage than real combat duty, I can tell you that.
How much courage does it take to call daddy to save yourself from combat duty? How much courage does it take to go AWOL for a year. It’s not that gutsy to take a few flying lessons. Let’s not pretend it was meaningful service.
(quote limited to Iraq. Read the article for a general view)
Bush is steadily losing ground in the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. Absent Osama, or Saddam, or the WMD’s he needs more than tough talk; especially tough talk with such a high backfire potential. Some posters have claimed that Rove et. al. put “bring it on” into the president’s mouth. IMHO they’re too smart for that. This is probably a pure virgin Bushism. Only time will tell whether it was the “right” thing for him to be saying.
Take 30 seconds to think of another statement that accomplishes the same goals yet uses complete words and doesn’t make you sound like a cowboy. I bet I’ll like your phrasing better, if you actually make a decent try.
You mean things like Iraq tried to buy Uranium? Sorry couldn’t resist.
Well whatever. CNN ran a story on it and Ari Fleischer had to publicly defend these remarks. Seems to me like this a little more than this board’s imagination.
So you consider Dick Gephardt to be in the radical left? LOL
