Is this a high crime?

July 2, 2003 11:35 AM

Bush dares Iraqis to kill U.S. soldiers"There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
Is it wise to goad Iraqis into killing Americans?
Is it an impeachable offense?
posted by Holden (135 comments total)

I'm sure that the parents of US military personnel are pleased as punch that a (more-or-less) draft dodger is using their children's lives as collateral in his quest to prove his undying cowboyness.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:39 AM on July 2, 2003

Man, our president is the coolest! Unlike those wimpy leaders of yesteryear who droned on and on about "peaceful resolutions" and "mutual understanding," when you front George W., he comes back at you with a resounding, "Bring it, bitch!"

I think Bush thinks he's Bill Pullman in Independence Day.
posted by vraxoin at 11:41 AM on July 2, 2003

With Republicans in charge of everything, Bush could take a dump on the Constitution and wipe his ass with the flag, and he would still get a standing ovation. Impeachment = losing battle. Better to focus energy on removing him the old-fashioned way... elect someone else.
posted by spilon at 11:45 AM on July 2, 2003

When military braggadocio is used as a campaign reelection method , there is a deeper problem within the political system.
posted by four panels at 11:46 AM on July 2, 2003

so you've gotta ask yourself one question
do I feel lucky
well do you
punk!
posted by Outlawyr at 11:46 AM on July 2, 2003

I don't know - sounds more like a semi-illiterate, stunted-rhetoric "we will fight them on the beaches" spiel to me. Don't all heads of state use this kind of "we'll dance on their decaying asses" strain during any military action?

Not to derail, since I know the lack of smoking gun/administrative denial thing has been discussed many times elsewhere, but I was more interested in Shurb's continued refusal to admit that Hussein did't have any WMD. What's his plan for dealing with this whole issue?
posted by orange swan at 11:46 AM on July 2, 2003

Better to focus energy on removing him the old-fashioned way... elect someone else.
Bush just made this much more probable. This soundbite will haunt him. People will be talking about that quote after Election Day 2004.
This day could mark the unraveling of the Bush presidency.
posted by Holden at 11:48 AM on July 2, 2003

What's his plan for dealing with this whole issue?

Same way he dealt with all the questions about his cocaine use and drinking and being AWOL. Admit as little as possible and then let his friends frame persistant questions as persecution, duh.
posted by black8 at 11:50 AM on July 2, 2003

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome president?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:50 AM on July 2, 2003

Two-minutes-hate-filter.
posted by jsonic at 11:50 AM on July 2, 2003

"Saddam Hussein had a weapons program," Bush said. "Remember he used them — he used chemical weapons on his own people."

Yes, he did, and that would be when the US supported Iraq in its war with Iran. (I do love the way that 'reconstituted nuclear programme' has become 'he had a weapons programme': it's the kind of weasel-wording to remind you that Clinton's quibble on 'is' wasn't so weaselly after all.)

To link the two points: Bush might actually want a guerilla war to crush in Iraq, just to deflect attention from the no-show of the chemical and biological nasties. Point is, losing another couple of hundred soldiers, especially on a one-a-day basis, isn't sufficient to raise the spectre of Vietnam. Especially if he comes up with a few TV-friendly shots of 'terrorist camps' being blown to bits.
posted by riviera at 11:51 AM on July 2, 2003

Better to focus energy on removing him the old-fashioned way... elect someone else. - spilon

Ob-dig: We did.
posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 11:51 AM on July 2, 2003

My knee-jerk reaction:

Jee Zuss Christ! He said what????

(apologies to G*d for taking His name in vain)
posted by alumshubby at 11:51 AM on July 2, 2003

I hate Bush, you hate Bush. Does anyone else think this is a poor front page post?
posted by elwoodwiles at 11:51 AM on July 2, 2003

Clinton's quibble on 'is' wasn't so weaselly after all

Nah, Pres. Clinton's 'is' quibble was weaselly too. Just because this guy lies about more important things doesn't let the former president off that hook.

Both of them were and are wrong to lie. At least the former president finally admitted it ... I wonder if we will eventually see the same admission from this one?
posted by moonbiter at 11:58 AM on July 2, 2003

Better to "call out" our enemies so that we can defeat them, rather have them cower and strike cowardly attacks posed as civilians, etc.

What the President said was merely an expression of both (a) absolute confidence in our military personnel, and (b) possibly slight frustration with the "hit-n-run" tactics of Iraqi terrorists and Saddam loyalists.
posted by davidmsc at 12:00 PM on July 2, 2003

Does anyone else think this is a poor front page post?

No, but I think the "Is it an impeachable offense" question is gratuitously dumb. But to dignify it anyway, the answer is resoundingly (yet depressingly) no.
posted by alumshubby at 12:02 PM on July 2, 2003

>Is it an impeachable offense?

I think to determine if something is impeachable you have to take into consideration whether the opposing party has the power and the will to even try to impeach.

Bush is getting a pretty nice free ride, but come election time I would assume the kid gloves will come off and there will be some serious rhetoric on his administration's policies that really hasn't been exploited by the democrats.
posted by skallas at 12:02 PM on July 2, 2003

The Army of One Death at a Time.
posted by DragonBoy at 12:03 PM on July 2, 2003

Isn't it funny (in a horrible and tragic way) that what some of us against the war feared would happen, actually is happening?
Guerilla warfare, house-to-house searches, etc...

If I were a parent of a servicemember serving in Iraq, I would march to DC and beat the shit out of Bush for that crack.
posted by amberglow at 12:04 PM on July 2, 2003

This day could mark the unraveling of the Bush presidency.

What is different about this display of criminal idiocy? Will this even be on the TV news/daily papers? One month from now no one will remember this--especially those who believe his previous lies. That being said, I hope that I am completely wrong, as usual.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:09 PM on July 2, 2003

Isn't it sad that we're fighting a war that has been declared over? That we're losing an average of one soldier a day, weeks after we've had our victory speeches? That our diplomats have moved on to other interests and solving other world problems, even though this one has yet to be solved?

November 2004 will not come soon enough, I fear.
posted by grabbingsand at 12:11 PM on July 2, 2003

No, but I think the "Is it an impeachable offense" question is gratuitously dumb. But to dignify it anyway, the answer is resoundingly (yet depressingly) no.

But it is. Smelling funny is an impeachable offense. Not bringing home my money is an impeachable offense. There are precisely zero constraints on what the House can actually impeach for, since it is the House and only the House who decides what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. If they want to impeach a sitting President for having a big zit, there is exactly squat that anyone else on God's green earth can do about it.

Which means that the question is still gratuitously dumb, but in a different direction.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:14 PM on July 2, 2003

TEDDY SAYS INVADE THE PHILLIPINES NEXT
posted by solistrato at 12:17 PM on July 2, 2003

What is different about this display of criminal idiocy?
Bush's statement today will turn a lot of military families away from Bush -- the people who used to be called Reagan Democrats. How many people are on active duty -- 1.4 million? How many parents, brothers and sisters do those people have?
Would you be royally pissed off if the commander in chief painted a bullseye on the back of your son or daughter or brother or sister?
posted by Holden at 12:20 PM on July 2, 2003

>This day could mark the unraveling of the Bush presidency.

You would think these kinds of moronic/old west declarations would hurt him, but it seems like the media either does a 'Bush is so tough' or a 'please excuse him, he's not terribly smart' thing. There was an interesting Salon article about the way Bush is treated by media versus how Al Gore was treated.
posted by blefr at 12:23 PM on July 2, 2003

Better to "call out" our enemies so that we can defeat them, rather have them cower and strike cowardly attacks posed as civilians, etc.

What? So, now that Bush called them out they're going to line up in nice Revolutionary War-style rows so we can gun them down all civilized-like?

Historically, few things bring a population together like an invader. And without a formal cry of "uncle," I don't see this One-A-Day trend ending any time soon.
posted by Cyrano at 12:29 PM on July 2, 2003

possibly slight frustration with the "hit-n-run" tactics of Iraqi terrorists and Saddam loyalists

You mean the way George III was frustrated with the "hit-n-run" tactics of the continental army during the American Revolution?
posted by vraxoin at 12:29 PM on July 2, 2003

As my friend just IMd me, "Kill as many of us as you can -- we've got more!"
That, sadly, is exactly what this absolute fucking embarrassment of a president--of a human being--meant.
posted by ghastlyfop at 12:30 PM on July 2, 2003

Would you be royally pissed off if the commander in chief painted a bullseye on the back of your son or daughter or brother or sister?

Me, yes. But I can't assume that that applies for anyone else, as I've been pissed off about one thing or another for years now. What has amazed me about Bush supporters is not their ability to internaliz his illogic and platitude, but their ability to forget his lies, contradictions, and fuck-ups.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:30 PM on July 2, 2003

"My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

Is that kind of like a congruent translation of, "We will grill their stomachs on the Gates of Hell"?
posted by ElvisJesus at 12:32 PM on July 2, 2003

I wonder how the troops in the 3rd ID are gonna feel about this when they hear what their Commander-in-Chief said. Not that they have much choice in the matter.
posted by alumshubby at 12:34 PM on July 2, 2003

This isn't criminal or anything like it. Bush is just being his usual undiplomatic self, and if there's one thing he's good at it is making ill-considered, inflammatory statements which rile everyone up but don't actually mean anything.

This was amusing, though:

"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said at an impromptu news conference at the White House.

You bet - just like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, who were both arrested by courageous law officers, brought in front of an judge, and given a fair trial.
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:34 PM on July 2, 2003

Two article on Bush & his use of language:
Bush revels in cowboy speak - "The cowboy sees complex issues in simple, morally unambivalent ways. There is the good and the bad and this is how George Bush sees things, much to the consternation of much of the country."

Bush dominates a nation of victims - President Bush, like many dominant personality types, uses dependency-creating language. He employs language of contempt and intimidation to shame others into submission and desperate admiration. While we tend to think of the dominator as using physical force, in fact most dominators use verbal abuse to control others.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:35 PM on July 2, 2003

As my friend just IMd me, "Kill as many of us as you can -- we've got more!"
That, sadly, is exactly what this absolute fucking embarrassment of a president--of a human being--meant.

I would venture to guess that that is a frame of mind that is only available to those with no first-hand knowledge of the horrors of war, and who is assured not to lose a loved one in conflict. Not that I know anything about war myself. I am afraid of loud noises. That's why I would never invite others to kill people that I don't personally know so I can prove a point.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:36 PM on July 2, 2003

What is different about this display of criminal idiocy?

Seeing as how challenging Iraqi militants to "bring it" isn't really any more idiotic than sending them over in the first place, it would really be a sweet, sweet irony if this one sound bite was the thing that mobilized the talk radio listeners and soccer moms against Bush.
posted by RylandDotNet at 12:37 PM on July 2, 2003

Better to focus energy on removing him the old-fashioned way... elect someone else.

Not possible. They also control the electronic balloting.
posted by eas98 at 12:40 PM on July 2, 2003

But at least we can win the exit polls...
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:46 PM on July 2, 2003

Better to focus energy on removing him the old-fashioned way... elect someone else. Ob-dig: We did.
So, if we couldn't get past the archaic rules of the Electoral College and the politicization of the Supreme Court, you think we can get this through a Congress with Bush's party in a narrow majority??? Better to focus on getting an unquestionable multi-percent popular win AND focusing on as many 'red' states capable of turning 'blue' as possible... nothing is more important than running a 'smart' campaign.

They also control the electronic balloting.
They haven't gone so far yet to pull off a really major voter fraud. That's why we've got to get out enough previously disenfranchised voters to overcome the 'fraud factor'. It may be our last chance, but it's more possible than getting enough elected Republican legislators to turn on their bosses to get impeachment through. Don't waste time and energy on it.

Isn't it funny (in a horrible and tragic way) that what some of us against the war feared would happen, actually is happening?
No, not funny. I think I am capable of being right about something every once in a while, even if, as a liberal, I am emotionally capable of recognizing that I can be wrong. (Bush supporters and neo-cons seem to have had the gene for that mutated out...)
But in order to neutralize the kind of snarkiness that Rumsfeld used in his "Is it Vietnam yet?" quote, all such reminders that we warned that this kind of thing would happen must be preceded by a heartfelt "I wish I had been wrong about this but...

What has amazed me about Bush supporters is ... their ability to forget his lies, contradictions, and fuck-ups.
When there have been so many, the ones from a few months ago are easy to forget. The Bush Opposition must sharpen its focus, even at the risk of subjugating your highest priority issue. Pick a very few issues that will resonate with the "not-very-committed" middle, and hammer them home. Don't think it's an honest way of debating the issues? No, but it's how Bush and the Republicans have won so far. Wonder if I can have that gene for recognizing I can be wrong removed...
posted by wendell at 12:48 PM on July 2, 2003

Hey. At least we can all agree we're happy he didn't say/quote "Let's Roll!"

Right?

Right?
posted by tittergrrl at 12:52 PM on July 2, 2003

No no, Ignatious, my friend was being morbidly sarcastic.
posted by ghastlyfop at 12:57 PM on July 2, 2003

Tittergrrl:

Right. Most definitely.
posted by blucevalo at 12:59 PM on July 2, 2003

"We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
Ah yes, what a great idea to bring about peace with extremist groups in the Middle East. This approach has worked so well in Israel.
posted by sixdifferentways at 1:05 PM on July 2, 2003

"Yuh kin kill us. G'on - kill us. Plan'cher bombs, sniper at us from yer rooves. You kin shoot one ov'us down, an' I'll sen ten more t'take his place. We ain' leavin Iraq till were done, an' your governmen' is run Our way.

An if you cuz trouble, well, it'll jus take a lil longer. Might be more blood, but we got blood. We'll jus waitcha out. That's all. We'll waitcha out. So come on - shoot at us."


- "A Bold and Dynamic Speech" - Ann Coulter

- "A Visionary in Government" - Rush Limbaugh

- "What's not to like?" - jsonic
posted by Perigee at 1:09 PM on July 2, 2003

Come 2004, any slip, or even anything that can be construed as a slip, by the Democratic nominee and the press will blare it from every orifice and never let it die. Bush lets garbage fall out of his mouth twice an hour and the press takes a nap. It's going to be a grim campaign season.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:14 PM on July 2, 2003

Heh, kirkaracha--I've been using that quote a lot myself lately.
posted by uosuaq at 1:15 PM on July 2, 2003

Man, our president is the coolest! Unlike those wimpy leaders of yesteryear

Most def! Man that is cool. He's all like "In your face mister Osama bin Lardass." No more wussing around you gotta show those people (who are to cowardly to be Americans) who's boss. And we are going hardcore over here in the White-HIZZouse. And you know what while hes at it he should show all those stupid-face liberals what up Pro-wrasslin style.
posted by Dr_Octavius at 1:15 PM on July 2, 2003

"What's not to like?" - jsonic

When did I say I agreed with or approved of Bush's statement?
posted by jsonic at 1:18 PM on July 2, 2003

Hey - you said "Two-Minute-Hate-filter"... I don't see you denouncing the statement, just demeaning those who do. We're all really impressed with the Orwell ref, by the way. Shows you read a book or two.

Or heard it from someone else.

Do you HAVE an opinion, or do you just enjoy snarky, useless comments you don't want to stand behind?
posted by Perigee at 1:23 PM on July 2, 2003

My deepest sympathies go out to all in the US.
posted by signal at 1:27 PM on July 2, 2003

I thought 'Two-Minute-Hate-fiter" was pretty funny.

Fa fa fa!

Not everything has to have a point, sort of like our lives!

Potzrebie.
posted by hellinskira at 1:27 PM on July 2, 2003

Bush might actually want a guerilla war to crush in Iraq, just to deflect attention from the no-show of the chemical and biological nasties.

Which would be a bad idea, in that guerilla could essentially go on forever, or at least until the US withdraws. Sadly, this is what is happen and will probably continue to happen.
posted by drezdn at 1:33 PM on July 2, 2003

"Don't all heads of state use this kind of "we'll dance on their decaying asses" strain during any military action?"

No.
posted by nthdegx at 1:35 PM on July 2, 2003

I don't see you denouncing the statement, just demeaning those who do.

Unless I denounce the statement, then I'm guilty of agreeing with it? "Either you're with us or your against us", right?

My comment was aimed at those who continuously post "Hey look, Bush is dumb" threads. The Bush posters seem unable to go a day without reminding everyone that they dislike Bush. We get the point.

Many of these threads are just links to a news story. Metafilter is supposed to be about linking to interesting websites that others may not have seen before. Unfortunately many people just post threads as an excuse to argue about their political beliefs.
posted by jsonic at 1:39 PM on July 2, 2003

No no, Ignatious, my friend was being morbidly sarcastic.

As am I, literally every time I open my piehole. I know. I meant Bush, but for what it's worth, I also hope that your friend has never experienced the horrors of war.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:49 PM on July 2, 2003

"There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

On the other hand, if they decide to attack us here, then we're in trouble.

Report: Emergency responders unprepared and underfinanced
posted by homunculus at 1:55 PM on July 2, 2003

J, you're absolutely right about that - no denying it. I've been here more than long enough to know it, and I've seen the wheel go around on that debate about half a hundred times.

But, just as traditionally, the people who gather here tend to want to sound off on events that are affecting millions of lives - September of '01 had more "Newsfilter" type stories than any "interesting net spots" by a 30-1 margin. Sometimes, events take presidence in peoples lives above and beyond "dancing ducky" websites, and that's how threads like this get started. It's affecting people's lives and governments - the way they see the face of truth and democracy.

And that, at least in my book, is worth talking about.

Two of today's fifteen posts are of "newsfilter" variety. Trust me, I've been here long enough to know that's not a bad proportion. You've stepped back entirely from the subject at hand - YOUR opinion - and you can just go ahead and do so. Go talk about "Why girls are weird."

But don't just go in there and call it "Amazon-filter," since it links to an Amazon page. Amazon or not, maybe there's a discussion to be had there.

If you DO have an opinion, bring it to the table and add to the discussion - or just stand back and let Matt decide if the thread is a cardinal sin. I'm sure of one thing - if your political agenda is not to allow me to state mine, you're not going to stop it with a dismissive cliche-filter.
posted by Perigee at 1:57 PM on July 2, 2003

Bush wouldn't know the meaning of diplomacy if the cold dead mandible of Woodrow Wilson bit him on the ass.
posted by ed at 1:57 PM on July 2, 2003

I thought the good guys in those old cowboy movies were always the ones who didn't go looking for a fight. They fought only reluctantly, when their families or lands were threatened. And they certainly didn't talk tough and then send other people's children into battle.

(I'm quite biased; my younger brother is serving in northern Iraq. My family was not amused by the president's comment.)
posted by Soliloquy at 2:19 PM on July 2, 2003

Better to focus energy on removing him the old-fashioned way... elect someone else

didn't work in 2000

;)
posted by matteo at 2:25 PM on July 2, 2003

I hope he comes back, soliloquy...i think we all do...
posted by amberglow at 2:25 PM on July 2, 2003

Bush wouldn't know the meaning of diplomacy if the cold dead mandible of Woodrow Wilson bit him on the ass.

Sometimes someone posts a comment that just kind of makes it all seem worthwhile again.
posted by vraxoin at 2:27 PM on July 2, 2003

*checks out Ignatius J Reilly's piehole while eating Oreos™ and scrolling through MeFi*
posted by divrsional at 2:30 PM on July 2, 2003

As of this moment, the front page on MSNBC reads 'Bring them on' Bush challenges Iraqi militants followed closely by 2 more soldiers die
posted by Slothrup at 2:39 PM on July 2, 2003

conspiracy theory alert

Bush Inc is fairly certain that the "guerilla warfare" tactics in Iraq are on the decline. They make this statement late in the campaign, then the decline in the number of American deaths happens. Then they pull out this: "See. We played tough with them and it worked. We were right. Might is right. Build more bombs. You all shut up and KNEEL BEFORE ZOD. Err, I mean ... umm, I mean don't forget to queue up for your national id tatoos tomorrow."

/conspiracy theory

Okay, not the last part, but the first part, maybe?
posted by lazywhinerkid at 2:40 PM on July 2, 2003

This will only endear the military to him. It's a succinct summary of the military attitude.
posted by smackfu at 2:42 PM on July 2, 2003

"My answer is bring them on."

God told him to say that.
posted by Dirjy at 3:00 PM on July 2, 2003

This will only endear the military to him. It's a succinct summary of the military attitude.
He's already got the votes of "the military attitude", it's the relatives like Soliloquy's family who could turn out to be swing votes.

Bush Inc is fairly certain that the "guerilla warfare" tactics in Iraq are on the decline. They make this statement late in the campaign, then the decline in the number of American deaths happens.
Based on the same kind of intelligence as the WMDs?

We seem to have replaced the debate "Anti-Bush vs. Pro-Bush" with "Anti-Bush-But-Hopeful vs. Anti-Bush-And-Hopeless"... Of course, the Pro-Bush may be just lying low hoping this one will go away... which would be another reason why it shouldn't.
posted by wendell at 3:26 PM on July 2, 2003

Later in the day, in response to the question "Mr. President, what, would you say, is best in life?" Bush replied "To crush your enemy, to see him driven before you, to hear the lamentation of the women..."
posted by Ty Webb at 3:28 PM on July 2, 2003

The war itself, is baseless, personal, and reckless.
I dunno, he's being consistent, and all you people can do is condemn him for it. Shame on you.
posted by Blue Stone at 3:31 PM on July 2, 2003

Did anybody else notice that they altered the Bush quotes within the last hour or so, correcting his grammar?
posted by ook at 4:03 PM on July 2, 2003

Huh. I'm so beaten down by bad news, I saw this flash up on yahoo during a lecture someone was giving and thought "Damn. More of that highly rated cowboy talk. The dems are screwed."

Then I went and read the transcript, and got the impression he was encouraged to say something like this rather than it being a flub.

Interesting to see that everyone's so enraged. I just figured people would continue applauding. Hm.
posted by jragon at 4:41 PM on July 2, 2003

Does anyone have the original quotes? Or did they misquote?
posted by Mossy at 4:42 PM on July 2, 2003

Mossy, the changes weren't substantial; just grammatical corrections, "We got" corrected to "We've got," striking a "you know" or two -- that sort of thing. Perfectly valid; my surprise wasn't so much that they made the corrections, as that they released the raw version in the first place.

On the other hand, "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that..." is still in there. So it's a wash.

Don't mind me, I'm being a pedant. Helps me to keep from thinking about the actual subject of the article, which makes me queasy.
posted by ook at 4:58 PM on July 2, 2003

"He ain't no fortunate son."
posted by homunculus at 5:39 PM on July 2, 2003

what jsonic said or: ''how i learned to stop worrying and touch myself".
posted by poopy at 6:18 PM on July 2, 2003

I find it amusing that on the same day Bush is declaring "We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation", there are reports that the chief civil administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, is asking for additional troops.
posted by euphorb at 6:23 PM on July 2, 2003

even if words such as these result in the downfall of bush we all need to realize that we have a much bigger problem on our hands.. the aftermath in iraq. The whole idea (wether it was legitimate or not) is that we need to restabilize the area, and if the US were to pull out after the election we'd see the middle east become a MUCH bloodier mess. The other problem is that no matter how many arms we have in the region, the only way to end a gorrilla war is to make the people of the region so damn happy they don't want to fight. We're basically in a catch 22 until there's sufficient rebuilding to allow the populace to take control of thier own government. Additionally, it's VERY possible that even if we held on to the stage were legitimate elections could be held a fundamentalist government would be created, then whoever was president would have a ton of yoke on his face.

As much as i hate bush i'd rather see the people of iraq achieve thier own government no matter who leads ours. At least we have the option of electing a new leader.
posted by NGnerd at 7:52 PM on July 2, 2003

didn't work in 2000

;)
posted by matteo at 2:25 PM PST on July 2

The only thing worse than trotting out old and overused rhetoric is not even being the first in the thread to do so.

Made me smile though.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 7:54 PM on July 2, 2003

i dunno, i just turned on cnn headline news to see if they were mentioning it, and they are. followed immediately by some soldier being killed by land mines. i wouldn't call cnn's coverage of the "bring it on" line negative however.
posted by rhyax at 8:36 PM on July 2, 2003

derail

The other night, I was demonstrating my excellent cultural taste by watching some VH-1 show called "The Most Outrageous Game Show Moments Ever" or some such. I enjoyed a good, cruel laugh at all of the fine American citizens that were interviewed who could not identify the name of the current U.S. Vice President.

That same night, I read an op-ed column in our local paper about how the common man likes Bush because they understand him. It went to say how all the liberals who dislike Bush's way of speaking are just elitists and out of touch with the majority of America's citizens.

I realized these same people I was laughing at are probably the very "common men" this writer was talking about. I have no idea how they would have reacted to this quote of George's today, but I suspect their reaction would be something along the lines of "so?"

Basically, I am now convinced that the U.S. democracy is a failure and will continue to be as long as the mass of people are a merely a punch line to a Jay Leno "man in the street interview" sketch. Thus, I call for a change of government to a group of philosopher kings that are selected by me.

/derail
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:59 PM on July 2, 2003

I have a whole bunch of National Lampoon magazines from the late 1960s and early 1970s. It's truly amazing how the left then was able to turn their bitter hatred of Nixon into truly hilarious parody, satire, and creative criticism. And it wasn't just one magazine. Nixon was truly brought down, not by the petty Watergate scandal created in fear that he would launch an investigation over "Who Lost Vietnam?"; but by laughter.
But after Reagan destroyed their precious Soviet Union, it seems the left lost their sense of humor. Now all that is left is bitter hatred. The anguish of alcoholics with bad bleeding stomach ulcers. They just can't laugh anymore. Instead they just recite tired axioms they demand everyone accept, and shrilly whine if anyone questions them.

And that is why they lost congress. And the presidency. And why they will continue to lose. Because nobody likes a sourpuss.
posted by kablam at 9:21 PM on July 2, 2003

Man, I miss my beloved Soviet Union. At least I can still pride myself on Fidel Castro's inarguably perfect human rights record. And I can't wait until Hillary Klinton steals kablam's bible and uses it to clean up after an unneeded abortion.

Thanks for kickin' the pravda, kablam.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:44 PM on July 2, 2003

But after Reagan destroyed their precious Soviet Union,
Don't blame kablam, he's just following the new pre-written script of Coulterian Neo-McCarthyism. Expect the other right-wing MeFites to follow the liberal=commie formula as soon as they get their talking points in the mail.

(On the other hand, thanks to Annie, conservatives don't take it as an insult anymore if you compare them to Joe McCarthy... so liberating...)
posted by wendell at 10:19 PM on July 2, 2003

Expect the other right-wing MeFites to follow the liberal=commie formula as soon as they get their talking points in the mail.

I already got that letter a few weeks ago with an honorary invitation into the "Joe McCarthy fan club"...want me to send you a copy?
posted by jmd82 at 10:37 PM on July 2, 2003

Nixon was truly brought down, not by the petty Watergate scandal created in fear that he would launch an investigation over "Who Lost Vietnam?" but by laughter.

An investigation ought to be launched to find out whether that sentence stopped making sense after or before the first word.

[Homer Simpson] ... or you just rented 'Matrix'--medical marijuana can make all things fabulous. This dope can ANYTHING seem funny ... even that show that comes after 'Friends'. [/Homer]
posted by y2karl at 10:42 PM on July 2, 2003

my president bent his wookie.
posted by quonsar at 11:03 PM on July 2, 2003

I know that the "Fuck 'em, mess with the best and die like the rest" mentality has a certain appeal to the military, or at least some members thereof. But, to amplify something I said a good ways earlier in this thread, how would you feel if you were squad mates with one or two guys who'd been blown away or wounded by an Iraqi resistance fighter? Would you want vengeance, or would you despair of your CinC getting the picture, or what?

I worry that if this situation continues, we might see an Iraqi redux of My Lai.
posted by alumshubby at 11:04 PM on July 2, 2003

we should be directing our anger at ralph nader and the people that voted for him.
posted by centrs at 11:08 PM on July 2, 2003

I forgot to mention that I am intolerant of tolerant intolerance. Satan, Ray Suarez, and a couple of Baldwins talked me into that one.

Come on, y2karl, let's go sentimentally wait in line for bread! I have shaken some crumbled bits of the Berlin Wall and stirred them into a nutirtious People's Smoothy, which all MeFi Leftistitatarian Communist Party members can join me in drinking from a single, crappy cup which is untainted by the putrid freedom and egalitarianism of the evil free market.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:08 PM on July 2, 2003

And...........WELCOME BACK qUONSAR, my fellow freedom hater.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:11 PM on July 2, 2003

It's like watching (or reading in this case) pigeons feeding on bread crumbs in the park. "Bush said this" qualifies for a front pager? And damn near 100 posts. Suckers. I hear Ari is going to take a piss sometime tomorrow. I'll get a rough draft of the accompany FFP ready.
posted by Witty at 1:42 AM on July 3, 2003

Bring then on indeed, this kind of rhetoric is just inviting a debacle. My only hope is to have british soldiers back in the u.k as soon as possible, I hope that our american friends also manage to make it home without signiicant loss of life, although that outcome may disappoint mr earp in the white house.
posted by johnnyboy at 3:22 AM on July 3, 2003

And scant hours later, someone takes him up on his offer.

How long can you people endure these kinds of insults to your fine nation and the ideals it supposedly holds dear?

(By 'insults' I mean the antics of this witless scumbag of a president and his legion of dire shitweasels, of course.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:52 AM on July 3, 2003

A google search for "weapons of mass destruction" currently brings this faux 404 up at the top. You want to hack against the war, bring it on.
posted by liam at 5:44 AM on July 3, 2003

O' Defenders of All Things Duhbya!
[ insert pearls of "common man" wisdom here]

naaaa... you're not worth even my untalented prose... go suck on a freeper lolly!
posted by nofundy at 5:44 AM on July 3, 2003

Adam Felber has pegged Duhbya's statement. A must read. Here is the "humorous" take, you know, like the kind that "took down Richard Nixon." Too bad such talent can't get major airtime with our "liberal media!"

Bush Double-Dog Dares Militants to Hurt US Soldiers

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday challenged militants who have been killing and injuring U.S. forces in Iraq, saying "bring them on" because American forces were tough enough to deal with their attacks.
"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is bring them on..."


"...in fact," the President continued, "I don't think Iraqi militants have the guts to kill more Americans. I think they're yeller." Bush, who during Vietnam war bravely combatted an extremely inconvenient schedule, made his remarks a mere 6,211 miles from the front lines.

Military reaction to Bush's words was joyous. "Finally," said Lt. Pete Bundt of the Army 3rd Armored Division, "I was beginning to worry that the Iraqis might stop shooting at us and ambushing our convoys and wounding our men. Now we can be sure that there'll be more action."

Despite some criticism that his statements might be provocative, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that the President's remarks were consistent with the administration's foreign policy agenda. "The more enemies you have, the more likely it is that any given bullet you fire is going to hit one of 'em. It's simple math," he said.

The President himself downplayed the idea that his words might spur more violence. "No chance of that," he said, "because everyone knows that Iraqis are big fat chickens. Buck-buck-buck..."
Posted by Adam Felber at July 2, 2003 11:55 AM
posted by nofundy at 5:53 AM on July 3, 2003

you know something I don't think people around here like Bush much. Fair enough, I don't like him either, but it's not like any of you all seem to have any better ideas. Oh, wait a minute that's not what today's left does, today they sit around and congratulate eachother on being so enlightened and display their contempt for those who disagree with them.

True Bush is a panderer and exploiter with his bullshit "common man" pose but at least someone on his staff had the brains to tell him to use it. Who'd thunk, people like being pandered to better than beingheld in complete contempt.
posted by jonmc at 6:07 AM on July 3, 2003

and kablam: **applause**
posted by jonmc at 6:08 AM on July 3, 2003

jonmc - what exactly do you suggest those who oppose Bush do until the next election? Put up and shut up?
posted by Summer at 6:18 AM on July 3, 2003

I suggest you come up with alternatives, geniuses. Besides the condescension in this thread is so thick it makes me wanna puke.
posted by jonmc at 6:21 AM on July 3, 2003

Besides the condescension in this thread is so thick it makes me wanna puke.

word. where do you suppose it's coming from?
posted by mcsweetie at 6:23 AM on July 3, 2003

I suggest you come up with alternatives

- '101 ways to eat chickenhawk!' I am as we speak earnestly compiling this potential literary gem.
posted by johnnyboy at 6:31 AM on July 3, 2003

Because nobody likes a sourpuss.

-unfortunately I dislike fucking liars as well, yes blair here's looking at you kid.
posted by johnnyboy at 6:34 AM on July 3, 2003

Thanks, for proving my point for me, johnnyboy. I used to like this place.
posted by jonmc at 6:35 AM on July 3, 2003

Well, that was an eccentric performance.

Oh, and Bush is a doody-head.

I suggest you come up with alternatives

I suggest you yank bastards - imaginary left, imaginary right, or otherwise - actually get off your spotty asses and elect someone next time around that isn't Pure Evil™. Or just elect someone. How's that for coming up with an alternative, Jon?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:49 AM on July 3, 2003

unfortunately I dislike fucking liars...

Why don't you start fucking people who tell the truth?
posted by dhoyt at 6:51 AM on July 3, 2003

Why don't you start fucking people who tell the truth?

- celibacy eh?, cunning.
posted by johnnyboy at 6:59 AM on July 3, 2003

Well, he got what he wanted:

Attacks Wound 10 US Troops in Iraq
posted by Cerebus at 7:02 AM on July 3, 2003

I suggest you yank bastards....actually get off your spotty asses and elect someone next time around that isn't Pure Evil™.

See, the thing about that is--we yanks bastards in the US have these, like, totally divergent opinions on what is PureEvil™ and what is not PureEvil™, and have in fact always disagreed on which candidate will make a Great President. In my lifetime I've never witnessed a 99% > 1% landslide victory by any candidate factored by his opponent's palpable Evil.

And yes, let's chastise the voting public for they clearly are at fault here. Please tell us how to run things in the future--we're all so incompetent 'round here! We yanks, every single one of us, deserve to be dished your most insulting, broad-brush insults that you've bravely issued from behind your keyboard, under an assumed name, eight thousand miles away.

(And the trademark symbol on Evil--how ruthlessly clever! What's next, a deliberate mispelling of "Duhbya"? Edgy.)
posted by dhoyt at 7:15 AM on July 3, 2003

I think I just pooped my pants.
posted by Witty at 7:16 AM on July 3, 2003

jonmc - what exactly do you suggest those who oppose Bush do until the next election? Put up and shut up?

I think I'm one of two or three people here who apparently support Bush, but one of the main problems I see is the "left" bitching and moaning and claiming there's nothing to do except wait until election time. You all do realize this is a Democracy (Republic, whatever you want to call it) for a reason. Its called get involved. Join a PAC, get involved in your local political party (yes, you can be involved in grass-roots level politics and still have a life and job, I had a few teachers who did that), educate the masses about what Bush is doing wrong without such vitrole hatred, etc etc etc. Granted, they don't directly oppose Bush, but come on, the masses gotta' start somewhere and using BitchFilter isn't going to do a whole lot.
posted by jmd82 at 7:22 AM on July 3, 2003

I suggest you come up with alternatives, geniuses.

How are we supposed to come up with alternatives to the President before the next election? Military coup? Or how are we supposed to come up with an alternative to what he's said? How about not saying it? Is that good enough? Why do you have a problem with people calling out idiocy?
posted by Summer at 7:22 AM on July 3, 2003

jonmc, your too-hip-to-join-the-club attitude toward the left is just the ironic NYC version of the boredom with politics that is killing democracy in the U.S. In politics, people join a side because of the issues, not because of who wears the coolest shirts. Your comments in political threads consistently show condescension and contempt for those who you supposedly agree with. Your aloof attitude may prove to you that you're too cool to pick a side, but to the rest of us it looks like petty sniping. If you don't like the way the opposition behaves, why not show us by example -- "come up with alternatives, genius."
posted by muckster at 7:25 AM on July 3, 2003

You said "political thread".
posted by Witty at 7:42 AM on July 3, 2003

I apologise for being facetious, I am slightly annoyed by the gung-ho attitude both blair and bush display whilst our soldiers end up paying with their lives, that is what really pisses me off.
posted by johnnyboy at 7:43 AM on July 3, 2003

muckster, if you for even a moment think that being "too cool to pick a side" is my motivation, then you know absolutely zilch about me. Bush and his bunch disgust me, but I'm not exactly impressed by any of the alternatives (such as they are) either. Believe me, I wish I could join the left, if for no other reason than to oppose the right, but unfortunately, I find them to be as fatuous, clueless and contemptuous(NTM close minded) as the people they denounce, so sorry. Besides a very wise man once said, "Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline.."

And also, don't tell me why I do what I do, thank you very much.

Over and out.
posted by jonmc at 7:44 AM on July 3, 2003

I think that a certain amount of the dissatisfaction and whinery from the left has to do with the fact that, anymore, they are a minority, and can do a great deal of nothing about the fact that the country they love and cherish is turning from a place where freedom reigns into a place where cheap, monitored, dimwitted *talk* about how free we are reigns.

This is a democracy, and by and large the country is populated by complacent fools who would rather be fat, safe, and stupid than free, and unblinkingly support anyone they think --to use the term loosely-- can fool them into feeling this way. This is a horrible cynical viewpoint; I hate the fact that I have it; but it is arrived at only after much travel and consideration. And is, to my experience, unavoidable.

President Bush can do or say whatever he wants. As long as he wraps himself in a flag and maintains his dumber-than-thou persona, he will appeal to those who think primarily with their stomachs, bank accounts, and limbic systems, and the opposition will remain cowed. We have achieved some sort of singularity of smug self-interest to which he has attached himself like a brain leech.

Misery loves company. Many people bitch in places like this just to reassure themselves that there are others who are not wholly selfish and/or brain dead. Cheer up, right-wingers. You've pretty much won. Your prize is a lifetime of ill-regard from the rest of humanity, a reduced ability to conduct yourselves how you please, and the wherewithal to buy the biggest damn TV you can afford.

Take the election: did he really win? Moot point. He should have. He represents the country. And that is the reason for the anger/mourning on display. Some people miss America. It has been replaced by Patriotism, Inc.
posted by umberto at 8:00 AM on July 3, 2003

I have a feeling that if every one on MeFi who is politically active were to spend our time in these threads listing the organizations to which we belong, or the ways in which we are involved, we would get laughed at as self-horn-tooters.

I went to a Howard Dean meetup last night, and wrote a bunch of letters to undecided Iowans. I also think I might be able to help raise some money. So I guess that alternative #1 is elect someone else.

I have been active in the local antiwar movement, and prodcutively so. Preferring to leave the traffic-blocking and vandalism to teenagers, I have been involved in distributing information and helping people to organize. Alternative #2 is organize. Did we stop the Iraq war? No. Are we going to be stronger and more prepared to make our voice heard about the (possible) war in Iran? I think so.

I have always given time, money, and resources to political organizations, from the extrememly local to the international. But I have to admit, talking to other people, "shopping" and exploring ideas, and even joking around have always been a key part of how I engage politics. So shoot me, I value the social components of society.

So what do you do, jonmc, to further your pet cause of apathetic elitism?

And how can we on the "lazy left" hope to achieve the level of productive and positive action embodied by telling people that they love the Soviet Union?

'Cause this entire huge swath of the political spectrum waits with baited breath.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 8:08 AM on July 3, 2003

And the trademark symbol on Evil--how ruthlessly clever!

Why thank you, dhoyt. There I was thinking nobody was going to mention my schtick, and getting ready to sniff and sob into my pillow later.

And thanks too for your amusingly misdirected anger, which coming hard on the heels of your clear inability to parse out humor from hatred as it does, amuses me no end. Please, jump up and down and froth and abuse me some more. It's a fine, American way to react to my needling.

You yank bastard.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:18 AM on July 3, 2003

This morning on NPR they reported that critics of Bush were accusing him of being insightful, I'd say this is the one and only time they've ever accused him of that! (yes I know the word they used was inciteful, thanks)
posted by Pollomacho at 8:22 AM on July 3, 2003

Just telling you what it looks like from here, jonmc. If you're disgusted with Bush and wish you could join the left, it would appear that your best course of action would be to show the rest of the opposition how to oppose without being "fatuous, clueless and contemptuous(NTM close minded)" instead of using it as an excuse to come into every one of these threats* and say, "I hate Bush--but I hate all you whiners even more." Why not show us how it's done properly? Clearly, we could use all the help we can get.

And my original point still stands: it appears that you're judging those on either side rather than the issues. That may work for picking hip bands to love, but it's useless in politics. Of course there are idiots everywhere--but that doesn't free you from the responsibility to do and say what you think is right.

(*pointing out spelling mistakes is now the soul of wit?)
posted by muckster at 9:01 AM on July 3, 2003

think that a certain amount of the dissatisfaction and whinery from the left has to do with the fact that, anymore, they are a minority...
Election 2000 results:
Bush: 50,456,169
Gore: 50,996,116
Nader: 2,771,871

...by and large the country is populated by complacent fools who would rather be fat, safe, and stupid than free...
I have more respect for the American people than you have, I guess.
posted by Holden at 9:12 AM on July 3, 2003

I have more respect for the American people than you have, I guess.

Since you're throwing numbers about, Holden, perhaps you might then consider the 100m or so Americans who were eligible to vote and didn't in 2000? Certainly, that might come under the definition of 'complacent'; or at least 'apathetic'.
posted by riviera at 9:52 AM on July 3, 2003

You want alternatives? Here you go.

1) Let the U.N. Inspectors do their jobs. Oh, that's right - we suggested that already, and were ignored.

2) Build a strong coalitrion, and don't alienate the ret of the world. Whoops - we sugested that too, didn't we? That went really far.

3) Provide proof of the WMD before you go in to invade the country. Sorry -= asked for that one too, and got squat.

Why in God's name is it on OUR heads to offer the right suggestions on how to get out of a mess that we practically begged them not to get into in the first place - on a freaking daily basis?

This latest right tactic - and it IS a right tactic - to attack the left for it's lack of support and comfort is imbecilic. We told you what to do before - you called us traitors and communists. Now suddenly it's on us to solve the mess created because you deliberately ignored - and continue to ignore - our good advice and called into question our patriotism?

We're not the ones shooting holes in the ship of state, and suggesting that we're wrong for not bailing the bugger out as that imbecile in office aims for the deck again is rediculous.

Get over it - it aint gonna wash.
posted by Perigee at 9:55 AM on July 3, 2003

It's not a matterof disrespect. It's a choice. It's an easy choice. Do unto others so nobody will be able to do unto you or take any of your stash.

Why do you think Fox News is so popular? Not everyone is watching it with a lip curled for their own cynical amusement.

And on preview, Perigee: I do not think the right thinks we're in a mess, so they certainly don't need ideas to get themselves out of it.
posted by umberto at 9:57 AM on July 3, 2003

...eligible to vote and didn't in 2000? Certainly, that might come under the definition of 'complacent'; or at least 'apathetic'.

Or "falsely categorized as felons."
posted by soyjoy at 9:58 AM on July 3, 2003

You go, Perigee!
posted by soyjoy at 9:59 AM on July 3, 2003

umberto - I've just finished reading Paul Johnson's history of the American People, and I'm so mad reading this article that I'm glad you wrote what you did, because I sure as hell couldn't have said it better. It wouldn't be so painful if it weren't for the fact that our history and inception was founded on such great principles and by such forward thinking men; all of that has been trashed and recycled into some kind of patriotic blue pill we can take and feel better about ourselves -- our political Soma. I'm disguisted by "my fellow Americans".
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:44 PM on July 3, 2003

does "bring 'em on" think iraq is a video game? or a war movie? in which imaginary soldiers go off camera after they get shot and everthing is ok?
posted by specialk420 at 8:15 AM on July 4, 2003

Walking around New York today, I've been thinking about this. Everybody with a "support the troops" hat or shirt, anybody who ever put a yellow ribbon on their house or lawn should be raging furious about this. I know I'll be shouting "bring 'em on" during the fireworks tonight.
posted by muckster at 9:22 AM on July 4, 2003

I'm not sure he phrase was a bad one. I'm not sure that there's that much to a phrase at a fundraiser, but I think it shows some of the ways of thinking.

1) It is s rhetoric stating that we are strong and will defeat our enemies. One piece of common wisdom is that Arabs follow strength. Showing strength in their back yard gets rid of the Somali/paper tiger argument. If Al Queda et al can't do anything about us in Iraq, they lose support.

2) It dares all the violent anti-Americans to come after the US in Iraq, where we do have a huge fighting force. Basically, "ohh you shot a defenseless aid worker...wussy. We're right here now, come get us." If they come after us where we are strong, many of them will be killed, lowering their strength. If they don't, they're just windbags, lowering their strength. Potentially, it's also focusing terrorists/militants away from Israel in a time of increased effort for peace.

3) It shows to Iraqis, pro and con, that we are not going away. We won't be kicked out by Saddam's remnants. There's a lot of fear by Iraqis that Saddam will come back in power, so they're tentative to work with the US in rebuilding Iraq because they are scared of what Saddam would do to them if he regained power. This might give them a little confidence

Of course military will be killed and Iraq will have less stability, but at least the military will be fighting these people, not firefighters and aid workers. If you believe that we are at war with certain people, wouldn't it be best to fight them where we are strong? ( Iraqi's get screwed, though. )
posted by superchris at 11:14 AM on July 4, 2003

If one thinks that this will stop attacks on our interests elsewhere in the world or on aid workers, they are sadly mistaken. There are two assumptions made by this.

The first is that we aren't fighting Iraqis right now, but "terrorists" and "external insurgencies." Through our own rhetoric, we have attempted to diminish the legitimacy of those taking action against our troops. By constantly calling a sovereign government a regime, belittling members of the opposition with playing cards and names like Chemical Ali, and dismissing any person who attacks us a terrorist or outside mercenary, we ignore the fact that we are being fought by people trying to repel an invading force from their homeland. We are only guessing at their origin or allegiances. These are Iraqi "patriots" and the labels we use make little difference. We chose this route (preemptive attack).

Second, that the showing of force will quell terrorist activities. The resentment that we have unwittingly unleashed world-wide will not diminish simply through a flexing of muscles. Every indoctrinated young man or woman, every orphaned child that can carry a boxcutter or don an explosive vest will stop at nothing to inflict harm on Western interests and targets (people.)

In fact, for all the bluster, the world has become a more dangerous place. American troops spread across the globe, not just as a shield, but as a wedge. A renewed arms race, with the US developing a new class of weapons that may prove even more susceptible to being highjacked by terrorists. The thought of nuclear weapons in Japan targeting North Korea. Incentive for other nations to pursue technology to enhance their safety as we erect a bogus anti-missile shield, threatening to render their arsenals obsolete. We are banking on the perception that it will work. So are they. North Korea has learned a valuable lesson from this administration. They have learned that one is safer with WMD than without.

As for "...we are not going away." Doesn't that seem ludicrous when our society, less than 250 years old invades a 7-millennium old culture? Just who do we think we are? tyrants come and go. Regimes come and go. Imperialism comes and goes. If I had to place odds on who will be left standing, and who will be leaving after their might and hearts have been broken, recent history doesn't bode well for the "Coalition of the Willing."

Nope. These remarks sound like all the diplomacy of this administration. Just another schoolyard taunt.
posted by charms55 at 8:58 PM on July 4, 2003

you go, charms55!
posted by soyjoy at 9:23 PM on July 5, 2003

Looks like he got his wish.
posted by signal at 8:58 AM on July 6, 2003