Of course, some of the Muslims on Mindanao are STILL fighting the government there, but we gave the country independence and we aren’t officially the ones they are fighting anymore so we can call it a win.
I think Sam is right when he says that Bush is doing his own thing.
For example a new article on the Uranium in Niger http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1
I guess they just figured that they would attack Iraq and somehow everything would work out.
Well, yeah, but they were fighting the Spanish for hundreds of years before that (and were never fully colonized in the first place). I consider the Mindanao situation to be distinct from Aguinaldo’s campaign, but I guess you could argue it either way.
Oh, piffle. I have already expressed such doubts, and am a charter member. As to endangering American soldiers needlessly, well, after all, there they are, aren’t they? Valiantly protecting America from a threat that best evidence indicates never existed in the first place. Your loyalty would have elements of nobility if it were bestowed on a more worthy person.
As to the liberation of the Phillipines, a quibble, tiresome, perhaps, but thats the the trouble with quibbles. America stood nobly behind the Aguinaldo rebels in thier struggle against Spain, and then backstabbed the revolution at the earliest opportunity. I recommend to you In Defense of General Funston, by Mark Twain, a scathing indictment by an American heart-broken to see his beloved country turn to grasping imperialism.
Sterra, fine testimony indeed, but it is merely more damning evidence to add to the heap, it will have no more effect on friend Sam and the Bush loyalistas than rifle fire has effect on the Rock of Gibralter. Thier minds are made up, mere facts are of no consequence. More’s the pity.
Thanks for the book. Believe me, I see the US occupation of the Philippines as nothing other than naked, ugly imperialism. I was just citing it as an example of a guerrilla war that the United States won, whether or not it should have fought it in the first place.
Just so. Never doubted you. In Defense… is a rather longish essay, available online and in many collections of Mr. Clemen’s work. Mr. Clemen’s scathing indictments of American imperialism are usually passed over lightly, in favor of his image as an avuncular story-teller, but when he wanted to bite, he bit, and bit hard. America never had a better son, and he is sorely missed, even to this day. (Did you know he was the first American writer to turn in a typewritten manuscript?)
Complete indifference.
No, I don’t. This is a standard insult, which some on the Left have repeated often enough that they are beginning to believe it, and thus to underestimate the President.
The more fools they.
Your post has a lot in common with the rest of this thread. I am sure it sounded devastating when you typed it. But you have to have the automatic assumption that Bush is bad/stupid/reckless/etc. for it to appear that way.
What I am saying is that normal people do not react to the phrase “Bring 'em on!” in this context as the far left does. We think you are making yourselves look stupid. And pointing out that my reaction is just the tip of the “dumbberg” is an acknowledgement that your position is a minority one.
Apart from the petty insult, your point is correct, whether you realize it or not. Most people agree with me about Bush’s remark. The Left doesn’t, having gotten carried away with its enthusiasm for something - anything - to use in the elections. This is the best they can do, which means Bush and the Republicans are in pretty good shape.
YMMV. But so far, I expect it won’t in the general elections.
Regards,
Shodan
It is possible, of course, that the Left is fumbling patheticly looking for an election issue. A record of blatant mendacity in pursuit of ignoble ends is not sufficient, it would seem. Certainly it is not sufficient for friend Shodan, for whom war under false pretenses is a rather trivial matter. One has to wonder what would be sufficient. Plague? Pestilence? Famine?
As with Sam, his loyalty would be admirable if better invested. As it stands, it is merely tenacity.
Don’t you mean misunderestimate the President ?
Anyway, I still don’t understand your point. You seem to think that the opinions posted in this thread have the purpose of stopping Bush from getting re-elected. Well, then, I’m happy that you realize that no matter what we say in this thread, Bush’s chances will not be affected. Good for you.
I take the liberty of posting a humorous link.
It is a Flash animation portraying Rumsfeld as “Seinfeld”
I almost DIED laughing.
If you notice the URL, you can see it’s strictly for Bush bashers, but very very funny IMO
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/rumsfeld.htm
The question is not whether the President is as bright and informed as some would like. The President’s outstanding characteristic in politics has been focus and dogged determination to reach an end, not intellectual brilliance of the Adli Stevenson, John Kennedy or even, God save us all, Richard Nixon variety. The President will never impress anyone in a free form give and take of ideas and information. What the President will do is bull his way to an objective–thus (in my judgement) there was a predetermined aim to take over Iraqi oil fields, to expand drilling in the Arctic and to reduce taxes on the GOP’s funding sources. Those objectives the President was determined to reach without regard to facts, principles or opinion outside a working majority in Congress.
As far as the “bring it on” comment is concerned, as well as the speech at Wright-Patterson AFB on Friday in which the President said that the founding principle of the nation was faith in God and said precious little about the things the Deceleration of Independence says are the nations founding principles, the comments must be seen as stump speeches appealing to the Presidents non-industrial power base. A little “bring it on” for the professional ‘rassling and stock car racing types and a little Jesus for the conservative Christians. As even the usual suspects have acknowledged, Carl Rove’s fingerprints are all over this thing. This is politics. It is not civics. It is about acquiring and retaining money and power and the things that can be done with money and power. Anybody who thinks this is about historic principles and doing right is in the position of the guy who brought a knife to a gun fight.
Well, them’s the brakes.
Nah, you know the Bush administration doesn’t listen to focus groups.
Remember Saddam’s “man to man” challenge? It was the first thing to come to mind when I heard Bush’s obviously rehearsed comment.
Bush is not a warrior. His handlers should give up trying to make him look like one. Surely he could’ve used the “resolve” word just one more time.
Peace,
mangeorge
I disagree, surprisingly. Sure, the invitation was facetious, meant in braggartly jest, but it was an invitation nonetheless. Or would you rather me call it a “command” to attack, as it, strictly speaking, was?
Let’s not quibble over the technicalities of the language. If Bush didn’t want his invitation, his command, to be called such, he shouldn’t have issued it.
(And yes, Sam: it’s not a terribly big deal. It’s nowhere near as big a deal as lying to the world about your reasons for going to war was. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t stupid and ill-considered; it just means that this complaint about our twit of a president is pettier than some other complaints).
Daniel
Dictionary of Southern Phrases –>Bring 'em on.<–
Usually said in responce to a physical threat by an outside group to indicate that if they come to fight the ingroup will not back down.
Tell me, goodbuddy posters, what would you say, and whose side are you on?
Look Martha! A tempest in a teapot. Wow! 
The thing is, Millum, usually the phrase is uttered by someone who is actually in the fight. It’s extremely uncool to encourage attacks on other people. It’s beyond uncool to try to goad an enemy into launching guerilla attacks on US troops. When Shrub wants to put on a uniform and go get shot at himself, then he has the right to say “Bring 'em on.” Until then he needs to keep his mouth shut.
Diogenes -
The President is Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. As such, if there is anyone on earth who should NOT “keep his mouth shut” on matters pertaining to them, it is the President.
This is rather like the carrier landing. You folks apparently really don’t see how ridiculous you are making yourselves appear.
Do any of you seriously believe that the Iraqis are awaiting Bush’s go-ahead before they attack US troops? Do you really think that, if Bush had not said what he did, they would disarm peaceably?
To react as you seem to be doing when Bush rallies the troops is, in a word, stupid.
Carry on as much as you like. The more you can convince yourselves that this is evidence of a real issue, the more divorced the Left in America shows itself to be from reality. And the wider the margin grows by which the Democrats will lose in 2004.
Regards,
Shodan
The fact that someone is a CiC does not make everything he says ok. It’s extremely irresponsible for a CiC to solicit terrorist attacks on his own troops…especially when that CiC:
a.) was dubiously “elected” to begin with
b.) is a wartime deserter
c.) is not in any personal danger of his own
Keep fantasizing Shodan. I can’t wait to gloat about the election of Howard Dean in about 16 months. 