I don’t know. But I would bet that a Certain Poster would be right here, claiming that the move showed preternatural intelligence and probity.
This is a false dichotomy. The opposite of juvenile bullying isn’t grovelling supplication, but reasonable diplomacy. No one in this thread has suggested that it’s unreasonable or inappropriate for the President of the US to say, “We’re prepared, and we’re not frightened.” If he’d actually used those words, do you honestly think anyone would be objecting?
I don’t know. But I would bet that a Certain Poster would be right here, claiming that the move showed preternatural idiocy and duplicity. 
manhattan I sincerely can’t interpret that quote as an invitation to attack the soldiers.
I don’t know. But I would bet that a Certain Poster would be right here, claiming that the move showed preternatural idiocy and duplicity.
you still don’t get it ** december**
Bush says: “Bring’em on!”
Next day, a soldier is killed and 18 are injured.
A few hours later, 7 US trained Iraqis die in an explosion
Meanwhile, Bush is having his breakfast.
get it now ?
I don’t think you can go there, Chaos. I very much doubt anyone here can reliably testify to the inner workings of these guys minds. Besides which, theres the likelihood that these things are planned rather more in advance than one day.
Of course, I don’t know either. Maybe they did just jump up and say “Fok you, Gudge Booosh, we kill you very much!”
I see two basic spin themes here: one, the insurgents are to potrayed as remnants of the previous regime…Fedayeen, B’aathists, Tikriti Chamber of Commerce, pretty much anything but a nationalist anti-American movement.
Secondly, to portray the Bushista’s position as courageous and defiant. Americans are suckers for the ol’ chin-jutting posture of bold manliness. There is a growing sense of quagmire dread developing, the sense that we have attached Count Iraqula to our money vien to bleed us white, even as we lose soldiers picked off in ones and twos.
The bravado is meant to counter that dread, a sort of “Yep, that theres a quagmire all right, but we’re marching right in there and don’t nobody try and stop us!”
I’d be the last to claim that GeeDubya is a sharp cookie, but President Rove knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s getting the best out of bad cards.
you still don’t get it elucidator 
actually, what i meant was that the presidents remarks were INSENSITIVE.
(I have no idea if the attacks where spawned by Bush’s words)
Oh, well, “insensitive”. Jeez, you kidding? GeeDubya is about as sensitive as an intravenous novocaine addict.
Boys, boys, make up your minds. Do you support the president because this won’t encourage more attacks, or because this will encourage more attacks?
I too cannot see how FDR’s stirring words are the equivalent of “Bring em on!” Bush earlier gave speeches in which he told terrorists, “We’re coming for you and we’re going to kill you wherever you are.” THAT was much closer to FDR’s speech in meaning.
“Bring 'em on!” was at best fodder for foreign politicians who want to discourage cooperation with the Yeehaw S of A. At worst, it may decide some young confused Iraqi (or Saudi or Pakistani) that the US is a schoolyard bully who needs taking down a notch: it may act as further recruiting material for those people who want to kill us. And it’ll hardly be comforting words for the families of those soldiers killed in action, knowing that they were killed after their President invited our enemies to attack us.
Daniel
In the interests of fairness, I must quibble over the use of the word “invite”. (This is likely to be tiresome, but that is the trouble with quibbles…) That’s too much spin.
The “double-dog-dare-ya” is for domestic consumption, to portray Fearless Misleader as plain-spoken and Trumanesque. The term “invite” implies a callousness about the lives of our soldiers that I cannot convince myself is true.
We don’t need spin. We got facts. Let them worry about spin.
President Bush said “Bring it on”. They did. Okay, now what?
Bremer requests more troops as violence, tension escalate.
Of course:
-Surely he won’t stiff the boys on the ground for political reasons ? :dubious:
What evidence do we have that the guerrillas engaging US/UK forces in Iraq would otherwise be attacking US civilians?
Interesting! By offering this quote as a parallel to Bush’s remark, are you suggesting that when Bush used the term, “attack,” he really meant verbal attacks or insults, rather than physical attacks on U.S. troops? I honestly hadn’t even considered such an interpretation. However, this reading seems rather unlikely to me, especially since Ari Fleischer apparently didn’t bother to make a correction to that effect when commenting on the President’s statement. On the other hand, I guess it’s possible that they didn’t want to compound the damage any further… “No, he really didn’t mean to invite militants to try to kill U.S. soldiers, he was just trying to encourage Iraqis to enjoy their newfound freedom of speech.”
oh manhattan, the ‘thugs’ are indeed bringing it on.
Interesting quote to put Bush’s ‘Bring it On’ into perspective with, manhattan. I’d only point out that when FDR said it the US was in the middle of an actual war, something that apparently the US isn’t supposed to be in with Iraq anymore. Unless of course the nebulous ‘War on Terrorism’ counts. I’d also point out that it’s hardly an inspiring quote considering that the US was getting the bejeeses kicked out of it by Japan at the time. FDR had to order ‘Dugout’ Doug MacArthur (as he was known to some of his less inspired soldiers) to abandon his men in the Philippines the next month.
I have about as much evidence that the naysayers have for claiming that Bush’s words would cause more needless deaths of American soldiers. None. But I notice none of the members of the Bush haters society are being asked to provide evidence for their assertions…
Bush’s quote made me wonder - has the U.S. ever won a guerilla conflict? Not counting the war for independence, of course - I mean a conflict where conventional U.S. forces were undergoing constant unconventional attacks. I can’t think of one, offhand.
Well, I think others have called them on the non sequitur that Bush’s comments will increase guerrilla attacks against US forces. On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of people who believe that any Arab with a gun must be a al-Qaa:ada, and who would find it completely logical that they would thus otherwise be blowing up US landmarks left and right. As the guerrillas within Iraq seem to be old Ba’athists, Shi’ah radicals, or just plain old disgruntled civilians, I find this idea fairly preposterous.
To me, at least, it’s also self-evident that “bring 'em on” was a completely inappropriate choice of words for someone speaking from the safety of a stateside office, without any reason to fear “'em.”
barton, the US has actually had a pretty good track record in fighting guerrilla wars prior to Vietnam. Max Boot outlines this fairly well in his book The Savage Wars of Peace. The insurrection in the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century comes to mind as a guerrilla war won by the United States.