# Bush says attack would be bad
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [January 1, 2003, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989 "2003-01-01T04:13:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Boxer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boxer)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/21 "2003-01-01T16:01:17Z")
Bush’s less than optimal use of the language is not evident in the case of his use of “surrogate”.
As Mirriam Webster puts it:
"2 entries found for surrogate.
To select an entry, click on it. (Click ‘Go’ if nothing happens.)
surrogate[noun]surrogate[adjective]
Entry Word: surrogate
Function: noun
Text: 1
Synonyms SUBSTITUTE 1, alternate, backup, fill-in, locum tenens, pinch hitter, replacement, stand-in, sub, succedaneum" (what in the world is a succedaneum? Maybe Bush could be condemned for using that word.
Now, if the guys who tried to kill Bush Sr were not surrogates for Saddam, and even more so any potential terrorists (such as Abul Nedal who was killed in _ **Bagdad** _) then perhaps we need to redefine surrogate to mean “clone”.
But, that is all to quibble.
Bush is still quilty of all the other accusations made of him in this thread.
We are going to war with Iraq and it will end only when a government friendly to the US is in power there. (my opinion)
Regarding the economy, then the strikes had no effect, or even a good effect on the US economy? I’m just wondering. I am confident of only one thing in economics; “I don’t understand it.”
---
### Author:  [@Global\_Citizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Global_Citizen)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/22 "2003-01-01T16:06:41Z")
**Scylla** , thank you for posting this. I read the same article, too, this morning and couldn’t accept what Bush said. Personally, I believe that there are times when one has to go to war, I don’t believe in “peace at any price.” But Bush’s comments were absolutely ridiculous and lend no credence for an attack. I actually feel sorry for you Americans when your leaders say stupid things like that. ☹
**Duck Duck Goose** , fantastic post! Thank you! 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/23 "2003-01-01T19:34:21Z")
You guys baffle me. You’re all praising DDG’s post… why? Because it had lots of cites? It was a classic example of trying to bury an argument in bullshit. Did any of you actually look at those cites, and see if they refuted anything I or George Bush said?
I said that 9/11 led to the bankruptcy of United. DDG responds with a half-page of cites showing that the airlines were in bad shape before (this is news?), but her own cite ends with this:
> [@](#):
>
> Then came September 11, 2001, and demand was further crimped by fears of terrorism and the perception that new security measures made air travel more of a hassle than it was worth. Almost immediately American, United and Delta cut back on capacity and jobs, while the industry secured $5 billion cash in emergency funding from the federal government.
Then I said that United was in Bankruptcy, and her response is “They’re not dead yet - they’re in Chapter 11”. Chapter 11 is a form of bankruptcy. She chose to argue my point by agreeing with it. Or something.
I say that the economy was hurt by 9/11, and she goes into a long cite-laden spiel about the dot-com bust and the slowdown of the economy before 9/11. This is news? Is there anyone who disputes that the 9/11 attacks hurt the economy? Do her cites show otherwise? Bear in mind that a lot of the ‘hurt’ came from the governmnent having to spend huge piles of cash - and the cheque for that has not come due yet.
And then she goes off to quibble about Bush’s use of the word ‘surrogate’, and coughs up a dictionary definition that describes ‘surrogate’ EXACTLY the way Bush meant it - another group, essentially acting as a proxy for Saddam. I _still_ don’t understand her insistence that the only proper use of ‘surrogate’ means a body double for Saddam. Unless she’s trying to stick to a literal interpretation of ‘Saddam’ as meaning him, personally, rather than a shorthand for the Iraqi regime, which was clearly the intention. I think everyone got the point, except perhaps Duck Duck Goose and others who choose to parse anything Bush says in the strictest terms in order to make him look ‘stupid’. Her whole criticism is disingenuous, and her cite made it worse.
Then when I pointed out that the economy is struggling, and Christmas sales were the lowest in 30 years, her ‘rebuttal’ is:
> [@](#):
>
> ## we just had the worst Christmas season in 30 years
>
> And this is related to 9/11–how? Cite?
See, I never said it was related to 9/11. I offered it as an example of how the economy is still sputtering, and why we are economically vulnerable to another attack. She chose to attack a point I never tried to make.
Then the capper - When I said that WWII might have been avoided if the free world had shown backbone against Hitler, rather than allowing him to think that he could do what he wanted and no one would come after him (not exactly a controversial point, btw), her _useless_ response was,
> [@](#):
>
> Oh boy. So Saddam Hussein = Adolf Hitler? You flatter him. He’s a tinpot dictator, just another Third World strongman.
This is the comment that really bugged me. It’s an intentional twist on what I said, and idiotic to boot. If I said, “The U.S. stopped the Soviets from putting missiles in Cuba not through diplomacy, but by building up a military blockage”, would ANYONE get from that that I was trying to say that Saddam Hussein was Kruschev? Or would that just be a deflection from the REAL point, which is that tyrants are deterred through a show of force, and tend to see negotiation as weakness or an opportunity to manipulate?
I’m sure most people got the point I was trying to make. Duck Duck Goose, on the other hand, chose to get all literal and narrow of interpretation, so she could get in a nice rolleyes smiley and be condescending.
But damn, the cites were sure pretty. Well formatted and everything.
---
### Author:  [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/24 "2003-01-01T19:39:38Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \*
> \*\* Then when I pointed out that the economy is struggling, and Christmas sales were the lowest in 30 years, her ‘rebuttal’ is:
> \*\*
Small nit. \Growth\ in Christmas sales was the lowest in 30 years.
Carry on.
---
### Author:  [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/25 "2003-01-01T19:40:11Z")
Smaller nit. VB doesn’t use these things: \<
:mad:
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/26 "2003-01-01T20:04:28Z")
Well, **Sam** , I like her style. And I frankly admire somebody who can make Google behave. I’m smart as all get out and I can’t do that.
More to the point: GeeDubya’s statement stinks on ice. It does for inanity what Stonehenge does for rocks. An attack on our country would be economically damaging? No shit, Sherlock?
Why does he feel compelled to say something like that? From here it looks like the air is leaking out of his War Balloon. And this crapola about Iraq’s “surrogates” looks to me like he’s trying to imply that Saddam bin Laden is the ringleader of the Terrists. Man says a thing like that, he should have some proof. Which he don’t.
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/27 "2003-01-01T20:08:21Z")
Really? I thought it was overall sales, in constant-dollars. So ‘growth’ was the lowest, but the overall volume of sales was still higher than last year? That’s not nearly as bad as I thought.
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/28 "2003-01-01T20:11:32Z")
Actually, I like her style too. And she’s a tough debater, and willing to do her homework. No question. But that doesn’t mean intentional misinterpretations and irrelevant cites in this case need to go unchallenged.
---
### Author:  [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/29 "2003-01-01T20:17:00Z")
Well, we’ll see. Most of the folks I talk to are saying the number will come in as the smallest growth in some time, but growth nonetheless. Some are saying there will be an actual decline, but only by a percent or two.
They’re all counting in nominal dollars, so it’s a little worse than it sounds – the retailers aren’t making back inflation (in fact, one of the “problems” is declining prices of the kinds of things people buy for the holidays – volumes were actually pretty strong ex apparel).
So yeah, not as bad as you might have though, but still pretty bad. But not nearly as bad as '03’s gonna look if the Venezualan situation and Iraq uncertainty keeps oil at around thirty bucks.
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/30 "2003-01-01T20:21:42Z")
I just did a little research, and yep, you’re right. But man, are a lot of the articles misleading. For example, have a look at this [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33964-2002Dec24.html]Washington Post article\*.
First, the headline is, “Retailers face worst holiday in 30 years.” Then the first paragraph (the ‘Money Graf’ in reporter-speak) is,
> [@](#):
>
> U.S. retailers, reeling from a lackluster holiday season that is forecast to be the weakest in more than 30 years, may ring in the new year with steep markdowns on clothing, accessories – and profit forecasts.
You have to read pretty far down to see that they are talking about the weakest GROWTH. In absolute or relative dollars, this is probably still the BEST holiday season ever, not the WORST. It’s just not as good as was expected.
---
### Author:  [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/31 "2003-01-01T20:24:26Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elucidator \*
> \*\*An attack on our country would be economically damaging? No shit, Sherlock?
>
> Why does he feel compelled to say something like that?\*\*
I’m not defending GWB’s position, but no doubt he said this to deflect criticism about the cost of the war during a bad economy.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/32 "2003-01-01T20:35:56Z")
I agree with Sam. It did seem that Duck’s cite actually supported Sam’s point about United and 9/11. The “almost immediately” seems to imply cause and effect.
I also think that the meaning of surrogate was clear; Bush meant someone acting on behalf of the Saddam regime.
---
### Author:  [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/33 "2003-01-01T20:46:19Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elucidator \*
> \*\*
> I kinda get the vision of the whole rest of the world standing there and staring at us with thier mouths agape and thinking “The most powerful country the world has ever known…and they’re crazier than a shithouse rat. Thanks, God.” \*\*
May I use this for my new sig?
---
### Author:  [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/34 "2003-01-01T21:24:09Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Revtim \*
> \*\*I’m not defending GWB’s position, but no doubt he said this to deflect criticism about the cost of the war during a bad economy. \*\*
Exactly. Bush was merely using the common sales technique of focusing on the cost of not following his recommendation. He was responding to questions about a New York Times article that predicted thd cost at $60 billion. He didn’t want to deny or confirm that figure, so he turned the question around.
I agree with the OP that Bush’s use of this sales technique was clumsy. However, it may have been politically wise not to directly answer the question of how much the war will cost, even though the evasion was clumsy.
The precise dictionary definition of “surrogate” is not relevant, because Bush’s meaning was clear in context, as **Sam Stone** pointed out.
---
### Author:  [@snermy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snermy)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/35 "2003-01-01T21:43:30Z")
[but…but…but… It’s got a good beat and you can dance to it](http://www.bananabushrepublic.com/bombiraq.htm)
---
### Author:  [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/36 "2003-01-01T21:49:27Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \*
> **You guys baffle me. You’re all praising DDG’s post… why? Because it had lots of cites? It was a classic example of trying to bury an argument in bullshit. Did any of you actually look at those cites, and see if they refuted anything I or George Bush said?**
\ I don’t have a dog in this fight, but look at your original post. Unsubstantiated claim, unsubstantiated claim, opinion, blahblahblah. I realize this isn’t GD, but I do know one thing that works for most of the history of Western Civilization: if you say something, it’s not everyone else’s job to prove you wrong. It’s YOUR job to change our minds.
So, to answer your question, I would say that yes, everyone is praising **DDG’s** post precisely because it had a lot of cites. It’s more than you were willing to pony up.
As far as the whole Bush thing… again, I can only shrug. I’m sure as shit not going to offer my mostly uninformed opinion. You might want to investigate such a position.
Quix
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/37 "2003-01-01T22:32:57Z")
Sam: What you said was:
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*United Airlines is bankrupt because of 9/11.
\*\* And the point of my cite is that it showed that United Airlines was already in deep financial trouble way before 9/11, and that in fact you cannot prove that UA is bankrupt _because_ of 9/11. If you have a cite that shows otherwise, by all means, trot it out.
My cite ended with:
> [@](#):
>
> \*Almost immediately American, United and Delta cut back on capacity and jobs, while the industry secured $5 billion cash in emergency funding from the federal government.
- Notice that this does not say, “Almost immediately United went bankrupt.” No, it says, “Almost immediately United cut back.” “Cutting back” is not the same thing as “going bankrupt”. Duh.
This cite is not irrelevant bullshit. I did not argue your point by “agreeing with it”–I refuted your point. Now, if you want, you may certainly go and find a cite that says, “United Airlines went bankrupt because of 9/11” and then we can discuss it. I don’t have a monopoly on using Google. But unless you’re willing to go to the trouble to go find some cites to back up your position, all your whining about “irrelevant bullshit” ain’t gonna get you anywhere, argument-wise.
And the intent of your remark, given its context, was clearly that United was finished, all washed up, dead in the water. Thus I felt it was important to remind you that they aren’t dead yet, that they aren’t technically “bankrupt”, that your statement that “United Airlines is bankrupt” isn’t factually true. Many people don’t understand this distinction.
You said the economy was hurt by 9/11–no, actually, what you said was that 9/11 “damaged the economy heavily”. My cites showed that this was not the case, that actually the economy _improved_ in the last quarter of 2001 and in subsequent quarters.
> [@](#):
>
> **Do her cites show otherwise?**
Yes indeedy, they sure did.
Your comment about Christmas sales was _clearly_ in relation to 9/11. The whole subject of the friggin’ thread, Sam, is “how terrorist attacks could threaten the economy”, and you were talking about how 9/11 tanked the economy, and then you went on to add, “Today the economy is barely struggling back to life, but consumer confidence is very low, and we just had the worst Christmas season in 30 years.” We were talking about “terrorist attacks and the economy” and you brought up an “economy” factoid in support of your position that “terrorist attacks threaten the economy”. Far from “choosing to attack a point you never tried to make”, I chose to attack a point you tried to make, and incidentally will never be able to make–there is no connection between 9/11 and the 2002 Christmas retail season.
I “chose to get all literal and narrow of interpretation”, as opposed to making wide, sweeping, categorical, empty statements such as, “If Europe had shown some backbone to Hitler, WWII might have been avoided”, because unlike some people I could name, I dislike wide, sweeping, categorical, empty statements. And BTW, please be so kind as to explain to me why it is somehow unfair debating tactics to address the literal meaning of a wide, sweeping, categorical, empty statement, to deconstruct it, to break it down to its lowest common denominator. I know what the answer is–the answer is that it’s unfair tactics because when you break a wide, sweeping, categorical, empty statement down into its literal components, it suddenly sounds like complete horseshit.
Which is what happened here. So you’re pissed that I didn’t automatically agree with you that Saddam Hussein is as bad as Hitler, and that if Bush doesn’t stop him now, "who knows what the grim harvest will be? :eek: " Sorry you’re pissed, Sam. Not my problem.
My point about the “surrogate” thing was that when I encountered the word in the article, I interpreted it in its most common usage, which is as “stand-in”, and thus the comment didn’t make sense. But you just couldn’t let that slide, could you? :rolleyes: You couldn’t say something like, “Um, I think maybe he means…” **Elucidator** managed it–why couldn’t you?
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Duck Duck Goose and others who choose to parse anything Bush says in the strictest terms in order to make him look ‘stupid’
\*\*I hereby challenge you, here and now, you useless whiner, to go and find three (3) cites of SDMB threads where I indulged in pointless and biased Bush-bashing. G’wan, I dare ya. Here, use [www.boardreader.com](http://www.boardreader.com) it’s faster, put in “straightdope” first and then your search string.
Betcha can’t, because contrary to your less-than-clueful opinion, I have never indulged in pointless and biased Bush-bashing.
You seem determined to interpret my criticism of Bush as coming from a member of some sort of kneejerk Anti-Bush Cabal, which is stupid, stupid, stupid, as I have NEVER contributed any pointless and biased Bush-bashing to any of the yammering, hammering Bush/Clinton/Gore-Stoid/December/Scylla & Company multi-page political threads. I don’t give a damn about Politics, and if you’d been paying attention, instead of being so anxious to rush in with your “grasping at straws” shot, you’d have known that.
---
### Author:  [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/38 "2003-01-01T22:41:37Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \*
> \*\* Thus I felt it was important to remind you that they aren’t dead yet, that they aren’t technically “bankrupt”, that your statement that “United Airlines is bankrupt” isn’t factually true. \*\*
Whilst United is indeed “not dead yet,” they are in fact technically bankrupt. That is factually true. Filing under Chapter 11 is bankruptcy. I think what you’re trying to say here is that they have not _liquidated_ (which most commonly, but not necessarily, involves a conversion to Chapter 7) and are fighting mightily to avoid doing so.
Once again, carry on.
---
### Author:  [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/39 "2003-01-01T23:36:14Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by december \*
> **Exactly. Bush was merely using the common sales technique of focusing on the cost of not following his recommendation…**
Point of order: the fact that this war is something that we can talk about being sold makes my skin crawl. Generally, when someone is trying to sell me something, I either don’t need it or can’t afford it.
Why is this ok?
---
### Author:  [@Henry\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henry_B)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/40 "2003-01-01T23:38:08Z")
**1)** I have critizised the Administration very much for the Iraqian war-plans, or maybe more about the lack of evidence.
**2)** I have critizaised the media because they can take out anything from the context and put everything in what-ever order. Just getting news, even if the news are half-truths, or twisted half-truths.
**3)** I have not critizesed Bush because:
- because maybe he is just a sly guy, pushing Saddam in a corner, never really intending to attack, just pushing, pushing…
You have to admit that Saddam is cornered or how?
The crazy thing is that Saddam’s only chance is that Bush will over-react with a very hard war.
Enough hard war and the Iraqian has no other option than to fight, whatever inner thoughts they have about Saddam. Besides, You fight for Your country, not some guy with many photographs on the wall.
- because even if Bush is a bad speaker, so what? There has been many statesmen that are not so good speakers, but can put up plans and see far into the future.
Besides Bush handled quite good the War against Terrorism **outside** his country. He got everyone on his side, even Pakistan.
OK, not NK, but did anyone think that?
And there has been good speakers as politicians, that just do that - speak. Almost every country has a populist hanging around in the parliment or whatever.
And if Bush can’t pronounce all the English words, so what? Neither can I, and I am a good guy ;).
But now I begin to wonder…, not about myself of course, but about Bush.
- Powell “knows” that North Korea has a few nukes. And we all know that the NK dictator is crazy.
- The Administration guys says they have given the intelligence info to the UN inspectors…
- The UN guys tells that they have found nothing in Iraq.
Etc. etc.
And Bush speaks about “Why we have to attack Iraq…”
The only chances I see now now is that:
**1)** Bush is just pushing Saddam more in the corner showing him that “I’ll attack anyhow, for what ever reason or without reason”, in order to get Saddam to react in a crazy way. (It takes very hard on him (Saddam) as a dictator, to obey into every detail etc. Remember that he is a big dictator, The Leader, with big pictures of himself at every square where there is place enough for his pictures.)
**2)** They are both crazy.
If You find a third reason, please tell me and I can lull myself into sleep with that.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989.md?page=3)