One of Bush's statements that drew a lot of fire from the left was 'bring it on', referring to terrorists heading to Iraq. Some from the right, including me, speculated it might have been an intentional taunt on his part, trying to draw even more jihadists into Iraq where they would come up against our military rather than innocent civilians elsewhere.

That idea met with much derision from some posters here. Read this and see if the right may have been right all along.

So, in essence, using our troops as bait?

Come on! He was pumping our boys up! What more do you want than a confident leader who thinks you can take care of business?

CP

I think Passion51's point was something along the lines of "consider the alternative". That is: better for terrorists to come up against armed, trained soilders (at a reasonably high risk to them and ther entire operation) than for terrorists to concentrate of a largely unprepared civilian populaition. I wil admit that is exactly what I thought when I heard Bush say "bring it on". The point is to take away what is largely considered the greatest advantage of terrorists. The idea of an "asymmetric threat".

The problem with that is the fact that terrorist factions, like al Qaida, know that they cannot attack our troops head on - this is why they, as well as the Taliban failed in Afghanistan. This is also why they tend to go after civilian populations (i.e. the pot shots fired at an aircraft departing Mazar-e Sharif today).

So far, I have yet to see in any way that Bush is, or has taken care of business.

Once again you display your desire for some sort of "right" victory over "left" stupidity as being more important than any real issue in the world - and use people posting at some other forum to "prove" it.

I am saddened.

Something tells me if Clinton had said this you would have jeered him. Oh well.

Now that i reflect on how many casualties on our troops have been caused by those three words, i got to admit, that it was the dumbest thing he has ever said.

As I see it, the difference is that it wasn't just some locker room speech he was giving to the troops in a private manner...that would have been one thing, definitely a motivational tool for the troops.

However, one must realize how it looks to others and it looks like "nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah, you can't get me" to me and most of the people (these are MILITARY folk I'm talking about) here. There was some discussion about this speech afterward in my dh's circle (he's AD Army) and there was only one person in the bunch who felt motivated by it. The rest saw it as a way for Bush to look "tough" and regardless of his intent, they said it sent a bad message, definitely as a taunt.

My personal opinion is that it was ridiculous and asking for violence/trouble against our military. And no, not better to provoke and lose more of our military for some stupid catch phrase to boost Bush's ego/position than to not say it at all, risking nothing. What was the point, really?

At the moment, developments in Iraq are discouraging. Another American was killed yesterday, by a rocket-propelled grenade, making him the 33rd U.S. soldier killed since Bush declared major combat over and the seventh since Bush two weeks ago said "bring 'em on" to Iraqi militants. In addition, the pro-American mayor of Hadithah was assassinated yesterday, an Iraqi boy was killed in another attack on U.S. troops, and a missile was fired at a military plane.

ABC's "Good Morning America" showed soldiers from the Third Infantry Division in Iraq criticizing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and questioning their mission. Minnesota Public Radio this week quoted Mary Kewatt, the aunt of a soldier killed in Iraq, saying: "President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said 'bring it on.' Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead."

When the President of the United States talks trash like a L.A. gang banger instead of the leader of the free world he's writing a check that some other poor SOB is going to have to cash. He dared the Iraquis to bring it and they've brought it. Too bad it's the soldiers in Iraq catching hell for Bush's macho running off at the mouth.

Bush and his neo-conservative cabal seems to think war is a video game where you have an endless amount of lives you can use up and when things get too hot and heavy you can just press "reset."

Those three little words were three of the dumbest words George W. Bush II has ever uttered and God knows he's had his fair share of stupid utterances.

War is always fun when you know you aren't the one that's going to die.

The taunt makes me think of a person teasing a feral animal before killing it.

The bulb's a bit dim over here on the left, Passion. Care to explain what from that link was supposed to in anyway suggest that you or anyone else was "right" in presuming Bush was being clever rather than belligerent with the statement? Prior to random posts providing only more speculation there is no mention of the statement, much less what its intent was.


And they sound pumped, don't they?
ABC News

Yes, that really boosted morale!


With what frequency were Iraqi militants -- those he addressed -- attacking civilians and not caravans or posted U.S. soldiers? I've heard plenty about soldiers being wounded or killed on a daily basis, but I have really heard very little about civilian targets unless they become "collateral damage" via the attacks on our soldiers. It seems to me the only alternative was not to attack our soldiers instead of civilians, but rather to attack our soldiers more than they were already facing each day.

Does anyone actually think a zealot would base his decision to kill a soldier on President Bush indicating that we wouldn't be terrorized out of Iraq?

Seems someone willing to give their life for such a cause would not be provoked any more or less by it.

I know for some of you there isn't a difference, but if there is an up rise aggression toward our soldiers while occuping Iraq then it is no longer called terrorism. It is guerilla warfare. Terrorism is an attack upon civilian populations to stimulate anxiety and fear by a party attempting to gain a political advantage. Bush wants to make us think that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq but instead we are digging ourselves into a trench not knowing who the "enemy" is or when they will strike. We are on their ground, they have been there a lot longer than we have and they can attack our soldiers for as long as they want while they are there. The Dubya "Bring it on" ego some how does not quite mesh with the bigger picture of why we say we are in Iraq.

Well I guess the opinion of one or two soldiers is the same as the rest of our armed forces then, right. One or two people does not prove a point.

CP

Well...yeah, Aquapub. That's exactly what I think.

What, you don't think Iraqui zealots can read?

Seems someone willing to give their life to repel what they consider an occupying force by an infidel would take Bush's remarks as a affront to their patriotism and religious beliefs.

Why would you think a member of the Baath party or just somebody not too geeked about the presence of Americans on their turf might not take Bush's "bring it on" remark as a challenge to be answered?

Do you have any soldiers cheering about the "Bring it on!" statement, Pat? Did it, as you say it was for, "pump them up"? Do you have anything indicating what the intent of that statement was, or are you relying solely on speculation as it would appear Passion is as well?

I think it's significant that even those few soldiers spoke up. They're trained not to complain.

The military does not have freedom of speech as we do, as was already pointed out in another thread. How do YOU know what they think about Bush saying "Bring 'em on" to fanatics who don't give a damn about their own lives let alone worry about killing as many "unbelievers" as possible?

This isn't a Rambo movie, and the good guys get killed from time to time. So having the President egg on these zealots to attack the troops probably doesn't elicit enthusiasm from these who have already seen lots of action since the President's May 1st 'victory dance' on the Lincoln.

I can't believe you're all making a big deal over this. Now, maybe in hindsight it wasn't a very compassionate thing to say when real lives are at risk, but it was obviously to "pump them up". Maybe someone here that's been in the military that can confirm this, but I know several people in the military myself and you should hear the stuff these guys say before heading into battle. "Bring it on" just so happens to be a very popular one and they do it to get themselves pumped up. I think Bush knew this and that's the reason he said it.

Maybe the Bush haters should find something less petty to argue over, like the way he brushes his teeth or something.

Well, I was in the military Ataal and I agree that there are a lot of gung-ho soldiers that doubtlessly were pumped up by Bush Jr.'s "bring it on" remark.

There are also a lot of other soldiers who just want to come home with all the same body parts they left with. They know they have a job to do and it's a dirty job but they'll do it nevertheless. However, they don't appreciate any Commander-In-Chief playing fast and loose with their lives or safety.

Just because they're soldiers doesn't mean they want to die under hostile fire while the armchair generals pay lip service to "supporting the troops" and all the while hack away at veteran benefits.

You're right Abs, what Bush was obviously doing was trying to tick the terrorist/soldiers that are killing our soldiers off, so they would kill more of our soldiers. Because Bush is an evil blood-thirsty, oil-hungry fiend. I hope that sounded ridiculous to you.

CP

All I ever said in regards to this statement was that Bush was belligerent in his speech. I don't think he took the troops into consideration at all when he told resistance fighters to "Bring it on!" and there has yet been nothing provided by you, Passion or anyone else to support this claim that Bush's intent was to rally the troops with his statement.

In the future, Conservpat, if you can't answer the question, just say so. I never said or suggested any of the junk you just rattled off, so trying to put words in my mouth isn't going to accomplish anything.

Abs, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but if those aren't your reasons for disliking this statement, what is?

CP

Because it was belligerent and displayed a lack of consideration for the troops fighting and dying in Iraq. It doesn't take any strength of character for a guy sitting in an office, who has never had to face combat, play with the lives of those who do. Telling resistance fighters to "Bring it on!" can only serve as encouragement to those attacking our soldiers, a dare to kill more if they can. People are dying in Iraq and all our president could do was dare them to kill more? The gung-ho attitude may be cute for some of his other speeches but it doesn't belong in an arena where young men and women are actually losing their lives.

This is just my two cents, but soldiers are used to hearing that kind of rhetoric and jargon from the entire chain of command from the CinC on down.
I don't think any steely eyed killers over there, after hearing that remark thought, 'oh great, now they're gonna be *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** at us.'
To pump up morale, you have to inject a macho edge to it. This kind of talk happens on a daily basis.

They may be used to hearing challenging rhetoric when they are the ones being spoken to, but how often does a General or the President of the United States go out and challenge the attackers to bring more of an attack to them?

There seems to me a difference in challenging the troops to take the war to the enemy and challenging the enemy to bring the war to us.

Well, you raise a good point. In this type of war, where there is no defined 'enemy formation' or battle lines, the appropriate tactic is to entice the bad guys out in the open, where they can be dealt with.

I honestly don't think this remark would so *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off the fedayeen that they'll step up their attacks. As you don't see soldiers cheering on the statement, I don't see hostile Iraqi's beating their fists and cursing the great satan just over his speech.

Isn't what you just said what I was accusing you of thinking when you said I was putting words in your mouth? I'm not trying to be a jerk, just asking.

CP

I can understand trying to bait the enemy, but I don't perceive that to have been the intent behind Bush yelling, "Bring it on!" I doubt seriously if he had any kind of military strategy in mind when he made the statement. I haven't seen anything to suggest that he was trying to bait the enemy as opposed to making yet another belligerent statement in a public address to display for us all his tough guy persona.

Had there been the intent to entice the enemy I could maybe understand it, though I would have expected a more tactful approach to the matter. As it stands, I think he made it simply to talk tough without any consideration that even one or two soldiers might actually have their blood spilled as a result.

Edited to add:
By all means point out to me where in my response to you do you get the same thing as:Emphasis added

I said that Bush probably didn't bother to think that there might be consequences for his actions, whereas you try to portray it as some evil plot devised to purposely kill soldiers for the sole reason that Bush is "an evil blood-thirsty, oil-hungry fiend." You completely misrepresented what I was saying and decided to add a last little bit of demonization for flair. That is not, however, what I said.

I just can't buy into the idea that this remark is going to bring about even one more attack that wasn't already going to happen.
I also don't mind having a tough guy in charge when we're at war. Other wartime presidents, PM's, etc.. have done the same thing, they may have just had more public support behind them or the cause.

I don't know how much more tactful any statement could have been.......'come out, come out, wherever you are.....'


edited spelling

Yes, the troops did cheer. Not when Bush said it, because they weren't present when Bush said it, BUT when Tommy Franks reiterated it in his retirement speech his soldiers roared.

Then in an interview with Diane Sawyer:

Sawyer: "'Bring 'em on.' Do you agree with that statement?" Gen. Franks: "Absolutely."

Sawyer: "You do?!"

Franks: "Absolutely. Bring 'em on. America is in this for the long haul. This is a global war on terrorism. We'll remain committed to do this work and so the fact is wherever we find criminals, death squads and so forth who are anxious to do damage to this country and to peace-loving countries around the world, I absolutely agree with the President of the United States. Bring 'em on.”

Just a thought, how would these terrorists/soldiers find out that Bush said this, do they have the convinience of TV right now?

CP

Whatever the intent - and let's not forget that George W Bush is a former cheerleader, which may give y'all some hint - I hardly see how anyone can equate tough talk with being a tough guy. It's very easy to sit in the Oval Office and make phrases, but we all know how Bush would react were he on the front line - probably much as he did during Vietnam: "Help me, Mommy - help me! Daddy, Daddy - buy me out of this!"

George W Bush is a big-talking coward and "Bring it on!" was the hollow rhetoric of a chicken, signifying nothing. Our men and women in uniform deserve much better.

So I guess only Presidents who have served can say bring it on? A coward, this is just name-calling, and really doesn't have much substance, didn't Clinton get out of Nam too? I guess he was a coward for sending soldiers into Serbia because he didn't know the horrors of war.

In his Pearl Harbor Speech FDR said the US will "gain inevitable triumph", now this confidence by someone safely in the oval office [who I don't believe served in the military] was so cowardly right? I mean, this outward display of confidence would no doubt anger the Japenese Military, provoking them to kill more Americans, right?

Can someone answer my question:

CP

I can barely believe you are seriously asking this question Conservpat, but as you posed it twice, I guess you are.

You may have heard of Al Jazeera? They are a satellite news network that provides a perspective a bit different than Fox News.

Iraqis do have televisions, radios, newspapers and other forms of communications and would have no problem learning that the President of the United States is calling them out.

Two more soldiers were killed last night. They're still "bringing it on."

Iraqi soldiers? With TVs? Wow, I guess we need to get tougher with these guys if they still can find the time to watch Al Jazeera.

CP

Al-Jazeera does give a new perspective.....a biased one



Well, the good thing is that there haven't been any combat deaths since Friday, which means the gureillas are slowing down because of the numerous raids

And how exactly is Al Jazeera's cheerleading any more biased than Fox News?

Both networks are pushing propaganda. Not for nothing is it said the first casualty of war is truth.

There may not have been any combat deaths since last Friday, but it seems the guerillas are going to try to make up for lost time.

"Bring it on." Yeah. Right.

Does anybody really think that comments like this are seducing Iraqi's to instigate more attacks on US soldiers???
If so, that's really not saying much for the mental prowess of middle easterners.

I don't imagine CENTCOM staff are jumping up and down in a rage every time a Saddam or OBL recording is released on Al-Jazeera.

Both the Middle East and American TV networks appear biased

An interesting insight into the media coverage of the war on terror

It has nothing to do with the mental prowess of all Middle Easterners, DTOM. The average person may not have any care in the world if Bush or another world leader tells resistance fighters to "Bring it on!" It may be helpful to remember, however, that those who have taken up arms against the United States military are composed of fanatics who have pledged blind allegiance to a cause. If their actions are anything to judge by, they are not overly rational people.

If seemingly reasonable people in the United States can be brought to demonize and boycott French products for the few comments made by their president, what would lead you to believe that daring fanatics with guns to "Bring it on!" wouldn't possibly seduce them into initiating more attacks against our soldiers in Iraq?

By the way, Conservpat, it isn't necessarily a matter of television or Al-Jazeera. I didn't see the speech first hand, but read about it in the newspaper and heard it on the radio. Both print and radio communications would be easy to come by in Iraq if not television access.

Abs, the difference is that calling french fries freedom fries, or boycotting french wine, won't put you at the business end of an infantry squad. So it's pretty easy to let words motivate you when your life isn't in danger. When it is, people usually have second thoughts.

That being said, you back up my claim unintentionally:

These knuckleheads will try and attack us whether Bush says 'bring it on' or 'can't we all just get along'.

Neither I nor anyone else, I don't believe, suggested that they would attack our soldiers on the basis of what Bush said. The argument was rather that it might encourage them to increase attacks against our soldiers.

ABS, like DTOM said, they would have attacked us no matter what was said.

The remaining Baathist and any other loyal subjects will take our guys out no matter what because they love Saddam & think he's better than a President of a democracy because of the brainwashing

I never said they wouldn't attack us, goamerica. The very quote you cited said as much, so I'm not sure why I have to say this again. The argument was not whether U.S. forces would be attacked or not, based on Bush's speech. It was whether or not such a statement as "Bring it on!" would encourage increased attacks on U.S. soldiers. Just so I can be as clear as possible: increase is the operative word there.

Unfortunately these terrorists are smart people, they won't be angered into attack because they know that angry attackers die quickly, these guys are professional killers, they know what they're doing, they don't need the president's advice when to bring it on, that didn't affect their game plan, come on.

CP

I would suggest that only presidents who haven't served would come up with such a gung-ho bit of nonsensical bravado. In military matters (as in so much else), Bush is clueless - and should never be allowed to speak off the cuff. His handlers really need to keep him on a tighter leash.


We are discussing using the phrase "Bring it on", not the sending of troops anywhere. For what it's worth, Clinton was always up-front about his evasion of the draft - which, itself, took a bit of courage. George W Bush tries to pretend that he did actually see military action and lies consistently about having been a deserter. He was a disgrace to the uniform - especially because he wore it only to get out of the active duty he now sometimes claims to have seen. I am constantly astonished that this liar can walk past enlisted men and women without having them spit in his face. Such is the power of hype (and the cooperation of the "liberal media"), I guess.


There's a difference between confidence and bravado. There's also a big difference between being an effective and successful Commander-in-Chief, as it could be argued FDR was, and being a fool whose grasp of military strategy is on par with an action movie tag line.

One should also bear in mind that FDR was speaking in the wake of the US having been attacked. Bush was speaking in the context of the US launching an unnecessary invasion.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


I don't - though apparently P51 does:
Perhaps he can answer your question. I just think it was a stupid pep rally cheer which served no purpose whatsoever. Suggesting that it will result in a massive increase in the threat to our troops is unrealistic in the extreme. Suggesting that it was strategic on any level is a desperate act of idolatry on the part of someone trying to find "leadership qualities" in the most banal act of idiocy. I see little evidence in support of either position. It was just another ordinary, run-of-the-mill example of Bush ill-advisedly opening his mouth, demonstrating once again that he would serve our country far better as a deaf-mute.

More namecalling.

And more namecalling. BTW, just because Clinton admitted it doesn't make it any less wrong, but oh yeah, he's a Democrat, so it's okay.

And neither you nor I know whether he was just confident with the troops and showing it, or not.

You don't know what Bush's grasp on military strategy is, so again, this is just more namecalling.

Imagine that, after an isolationist foreign policy, we get attacked, but Bush goes after Iraq pre-emptively and no American civilians die.

CP

But I guess American millitary personnel and Iraqi civilians dying is OK then.

Back on the 'Bring it on' issue, I think it is a big morale booster for terrorists to be challenged to a fight by the most powerful man in the world - I don't think it will increase the frequency of terror attacks much though - its just nice for terrorists to know they are getting so much attention.

No, why don't you "come on" Conservpat?

Doubtlessly the bulk of the attacks against U.S. troops are coming from Saddam loyalists, but they aren't "professional killers." These guys are the rag-tag remants of a defeated Iraq army and from their perspective they are merely carrying on the war long after they have been defeated on the battlefield. Sort of like a dying rattlesnake that still lashes out trying to bite.

Yes, they would have carried out hit-and-run attacks regardless of what Bush said, but maybe you have noticed, most men in Arabic countries are extremely proud males and are extremely hostile to invaders no matter what flag they fight under. Challenging the machismo of the Iraquis was needless big talk from Dubya. He could afford to write a check that his butt wasn't going to have to cash.

Somebody else would and somebody else has. The problem is we don't know the names of these soldiers until they come home in flag-draped coffins. By then it's way too late.

What you consider a mere pep talk for the troops, I call nothing but the cowboy in Bush coming out and his mouth disengaging from his brain---AGAIN.

There's no way to prove that Bush's taunting of the Iraquis prompted them to take him up on his challenge and go out looking for Americans to kill.

But how do you defenders of Bush's remarks prove that they didn't?

CP: This exchange is in danger of straying from the topic, but you can apparently only "defend" Bush and his statesman-like pronouncements by attempting to tear down people as varied as Bill Clinton and FDR and by denying the obvious, so...

• One man's name-calling is the fruit of another man's research and scrutiny. You, of course, have never expressed what you felt to be your informed opinion of any public figure - correct?
• Of course Clinton's draft-dodging is no better than Bush's draft-dodging. The difference is that one lies about it and the other doesn't; plus, as a sorta bonus, one is a deserter and the other isn't. Sorry, but - to my mind - one of these is worse than the other. Their political parties are irrelvant - unless you're trying to imply that Democrats tend to be more honest than Republicans (not necessarily my experience).
• Obviously neither of us knows whether Bush was expressing confidence or not. You are quite right: unscripted, the man is incomprehensible - that's what I mean about "Bring it on!" being "sound and fury, signifying nothing". Perhaps, like FDR, Bush should have been clearly expressing such confidence in our troops. Instead we got "Sis-boom-bah!" Roosevelt's "with confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain inevitable triumph" sounds like an inspiring coach with faith in his team. "Bring it on!" sounds like someone capering on the sidelines brandishing pom-poms in a game with predicted overtime running to decades.
• If the Afghanistan campaign and the invasion of Iraq - the apprehension, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden and the neutralizing of all those WMDs Saddam Hussein had pointed in our direction - are anything by which to judge the capabilites of a Commander-in-Chief, then I think we all have a pretty clear picture of Bush's "strategery".
• "No American civilians die"? I seem to remember about 3000 of them dying on Bush's watch - which (need it still be pointed out?) had nothing to do with Iraq. Given the context of an endless war on unspecified terror, though, "Bring it on!" - especially (as parsed by Passion51) if it were a perceived as a "taunt" - could be seen as begging for more civilian deaths. Accepting P51's spin, the man is no mere fool: he is a dangerous fool.