Or is it more likely to make the Iraqis reckless? Perhaps they’ll be goaded to the point where they try more open attacks, allowing the military to cut them down.
Hey, you read that memo too? Ha! Isn’t the President brilliant? Seems just like these off the cuff thoughless remarks, but when we get a hold of them, suddenly we realize that they’re all part of whatever crafty strategy we can think ad hoc up this time. Wow.
Oh, piffle. The remark was entirely crafted for domestic consumption. It follows the given lemons/make lemonade rationale of spin control. Fearless Misleader is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, hence they emphasize his “folksiness”, a quality which would be endearing in circumstances less dire. He is inarticulate and clumsy unless carefully coached, hence they emphasize what a straight talker he his, having no other option. The favorite sound bite is delivered with a firm thrust of a defiant chin. They hope to construct the image of Teddy Roosevelt from the substance of Elmer Fudd. It is a forlorn endeavor.
Mr. Bush is up to his Naughty Bits in a tar pit. He defiantly insists that this is precisely where he wants to be, and challenges anyone from stopping him sinking up to his armpits.
Beyond whatever you think is right or wrong:
There’s obviously some sympathy for the guerrilla warriors, as can be seen in the Iraqis dancing on the burned up humvee.
There’s probably also fear of cooperating with the occupying force, due to the risk of being targeted by the resistance.
All in all, kudos to GWB for transforming a poor nation into a… war torn MISERABLE nation.
Excuse me I meant…
BRING THEM ON!
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY
:)
Not stupid, Sam, trusting of their government, indolent, gullible, and inattentive, but not stupid. Also, vengeful and unforgiving once persuaded that they have been taken advantage of by their President–remember Richard Nixon?
If any one is counting on the electorate being less than as bright as it could be it is the President and his people. Sooner or latter the electorate will see the light. When that happens there will be hell to pay. It is the job, the duty, of us fringe radical lefty pinkos to keep telling the public that it is being, and has been, suckered. Not even the evil genius that is Carl Rove can fool all the people all the time.
It’s a given that there are plenty of peoples out there who don’t particularly like the US, isn’t it? And it’s safe to assume that they aren’t all in Iraq (going by recent reports, some are in the US too), isn’t it? It’s also a given that with the world being what it is today, what Bush says, the entire world hears (heck, even what Berlusconi says, the world hears!). It’s also safe to assume that some of these people actually do read news reports, especially those regarding the US, right? And some of these people are crazed enough to ‘bring it’ if Bush invites them to, aren’t they? And importantly, no matter how hard American agencies try to prevent terrorist acts from taking place, they will continue to happen, won’t they?
Assuming that what I’ve written is not false, I believe it was indeed stupid for Bush to say what he did, whether or not it was pre-planned.
Maybe your troops in Iraq aren’t in any more danger than they were before Bush’s statement. But can anyone honestly believe that that’s the case in other parts of the world where there is a US presence?
Aside from all that, leaders of nations shouldn’t be talking like that. They just shouldn’t.
Sam, do you really think it is a good idea to encourage attacks on the women and men on duty in Iraq? When they attack, more of our soldiers and marines also die. That’s not an acceptable trade off.
No, CG, I am happy because the hard Left as exemplified on the SDMB has no clue whatever about how Bush either appears, or actually is.
If you believe that this remark of Bush’s either will, or should, lose him support from the great American middle, you belong to a political party whose chance of electing a President approaches zero.
I suspect you are beginning to believe your own propaganda about Bush is stupid, everybody - but everybody - is fed up with all his blunders, the conquest of Iraq is an unmitigated disaster, etc., etc.
This is a Good Thing. Because nobody else thinks so.
Regards,
Shodan
See? See? How many examples of the curse of Cognitive Dissonance do you need until you see the threat! Shodan is at least partly correct, there are uncounted thousands of our fellow Americans who are equally afflicted, who believe that WMD’s have been found, that Saddam bin Laden’s connection to 9/11 is a proven fact, and many other instances of babbling delusion! Don’t for a moment think that Shodan is unique, he is merely the tip of the dumbberg!
When your CD volunteer calls, give, and give generously!
Stand and be counted in the fight against Cognitive Dissonance!
Well, that’s kind of my point; I’m sure that plenty of Americans see it this way, but the important thing is how the Iraqis themselves percieve the situation. There are no doubt lots of Iraqis who are overjoyed to see Hussein gone, but there are surely also plenty who see the Americans as invaders rather than liberators. Yes, some of them are Hussein’s former thugs, while others may simply be fundamentalist Muslims who resent American presence, or relatives of the citizens killed in the bombing of Baghdad. There are probably also quite a lot of Iraqis who don’t have a strong commitment one way or another, but who now have U.S. troops to focus on as a scapegoat if their standard of living does not improve. So, yes, I can easily imagine Iraqis being provoked to attack American soldiers, if the American attitude is, “Hey, you owe us your undying gratitude for invading your country. Got a problem with that? Bring it on!”
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY to you too, Milum. Quite a manic-depressive array of smilies you’ve got going there.
I notice that no one has so far responded to the OP’s query:
I’ve been trying to think of other examples, to help put Bush’s remark in perspective, but so far no luck.
Well, the worrying thing to me is that Shodan is not ignorant. He has all the information. I mean, he reads this board and he follows what’s happening. And still it’s not registering in his brain. Somehow the info is not being processed.
He is happy to see the world go to shit as long as some political party, called The Republicans, makes a better show of it than another political party, called the Democrats.
gouda has expressed my worry about the comments better than I could. The enemy is not stuipid nor confined to Iraq. Those comments will be heard the world over and someone will rise to the challenge - but not with direct combat. “Bring It On” means terrorism. Thank you, Mr. President, for encouraging more attacks on civilian targets.
Ok, you may have a point there about nobody else (in the US) caring about how much of a bumbling fool GWB makes of himself. But I ask you this:
How would you feel if Valdimir Putin or the Chinese President started addressing his people with phrases that translate to something like “Bring’em On!” ?
Another question:
Do you acknowledge that Bush is one of the most ignorant presidents in US history?
You mean like Chirac saying to Eastern Europe, “This would be a good time to shut your mouths”? And the list of outrageous things Putin has uttered is miles long. He is famously intemporate. How about Jean Chretien? He has made a career out of saying obnoxious, insulting things about George Bush.
The thing is, when all these leaders say their outrageous things, you probably agree with them often. So to you, they’re just being forceful, or telling it like it is, or speaking truth to power, or whatever. When a Republican does it, he’s a bumbling boob.
Keep thinking it. The fact is, on paper Bush has a better education than most Presidents have had. Having been a two-time governor of one of the largest states, and spending years in business, he also has more real-world experience than people like Bill Clinton, who became a young governor of a small, corrupt state, and rode his position into the Presidency.
But because Bush doesn’t speak the language of the eastern establishment, and prefers to speak in colloquialisms, you write him off as an idiot. And time and time again, he winds up wiping the floor with the ‘intellectuals’ who dismiss him as a lightweight. So then the story changes - Bush is an idiot, but he’s just a puppet for the really smart people behind him. This ignores all the evidence which points to Bush as the real mover and shaker in the administration. I suggest you read one of the books released this year on the Bush White House. Bob Woodward’s might be a good place to start, since he’s not even a Republican and has no reason to prop up Bush’s image. He came out of the white house with a real appreciation for just how smart and focused Bush was. No one who has been around the guy has ever thought he was just a puppet who’s strings were being pulled by shadowy figures behind him.
Errr…Sam? Saying insulting things about foreign politicians isn’t quite the same as inviting someone to attack you militarily.
[QUOTE]
You mean like Chirac saying to Eastern Europe, “This would be a good time to shut your mouths”?
[QUOTE]
Ok then, we agree that we don’t like it when foreign politicians speak like teenage bullies. I also cringed when Chirac said that.
It certainly doesn’t show.
I understand GWB lost millions of dollars in the oil industry. Although I agree that this may count as a kind of… “real world experience”, I wouldn’t go around bragging about it.
I don’t know WHAT language he speaks. My english is not great, but I believe GWB is single-handedly re-inventing the english language. In fact, there are whole websites devoted to keeping up with the latest “bushisms”.
I don’t think Bush is stupid. I just think he is DANGEROUSLY ignorant. And, in my opinion, he has proved it over and over.
I’m a debater. From my knowledge of oratory and training in argumentation, I have come to conclude that Bush’s entire communications staff should go write for Disney. I watched Bush’s last state of the union with a number of pro war students who came to the same conclusion. In all seriousness, I suspect that had he made one more reference to oil fields in that speech the tv would have experienced the sudden impact of someone’s foot. If you want to know what a president should sound like hit the books and read FDR, read the Kennedys, and hell, read Nixon. Both the rhetorical skills and the policies comveyed by those skills have gone to hell ever since the SU dissolved. Maybe it is the loss of a need for moderation and a lack of a dependence on allies that allows America to be an ass. “Bring them on”? Even if the preceding lines were not barely grammatical it would still be be painful. Whether Bush’s comment will spark any more attacks I don’t know, but it will certainly make him appear foolish overseas, especially in Britain where debate is still considered something of an art form.
In responce to “i don’t remember who”
there is no reason to believe that this will encourage bombers who would have gone after nightclubs to instead target soldiers.
In responce to Sam Stone:
The Governor of Texas has very little actual power within the state.
To the extent that he can be held responcible for the progress of the state during his tenure I’m not especially impressed.
Bush’s oil companies tanked and if not for an extremely lucky buy out by friends of his father and a shady stock transaction, He’d probably be penniless.
While you rage against the Eastern establishment, you should realize that Bush’s father was a card carrying member and that Bush himself attended Yale. While GWB had absolutely terrible grades, he claims a C average and refuses to release records, I don’t see this as helping your point as this is less him disowning the establishment than the reverse.
Woodwards book was based almost entirely on interviews with Bush administration officials, not the most reliable of sources and it was also written and published in great haste. On a side note, is he a republican? He definately was during Watergate but he may have changed since.
oh, I also think Chirac’s statement was stupid as well as the more recent one by italy’s PM.
"From Berlin, Rome and Tokyo we have been described as a nation of weaklings – “playboys” – who would hire British soldiers, or Russian soldiers, or Chinese soldiers to do our fighting for us.
Let them repeat that now!
Let them tell that to General MacArthur and his men.
Let them tell that to the sailors who today are hitting hard in the far waters of the Pacific.
Let them tell that to the boys in the Flying Fortresses.
Let them tell that to the Marines! "
Franklin Roosevelt, February 23, 1942.
The people who attack us are our enemies. They don’t follow Bush’s orders. I don’t think three words will have any impact on them. However, if there is an impact, it will be to discourage attacks, because Bush’s statement says that we’re prepared and we’re not frightened.
Consider the opposite approach. Suppose the President said, “Please don’t attack us.” Would that request deter attacks?