Bush invites Iraqi militants to do their worst.

Apparently unhappy with the rather slow pace of attacks on American military personnel since he formerly declared an end to combat in Iraq, Bush decided to see what a little stomping on the ol’ ant hill might produce:

Yahoo! News – Bush to Iraqi Militants: ‘Bring Them On’

“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. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation.”

Pretty tough talk, eh? Though I’d imagine it’s pretty easy to toss your brass testicles around when you’re not the one actually standing in the middle of the desert getting shot at with rocket propelled grenades.

27 thoughts on “Bush invites Iraqi militants to do their worst.

  1. 10 soldiers wounded today in attacks in Iraq.

    Bush needs to be impeached; his damned cowboy routine is getting our troops killed.

  2. Why do people like Bush and Reagan have such teflon coatings where the media is concerned?

  3. That’s a good question. I think part of it is perception. They seem to be Teflon coated to us because we’re hoping they’ll screw up enough to warrant their removal. I’m sure Clinton’s opposition wondered the same thing about him at times.

  4. Les and David,

    I think the teflon characteristic has has more to do with the oposition than with the target.  “Conservatives” by definition are less prone to consider viewpoints alternative to their own (i.e. the status quo), and therefore find it easier to mobilize their cohorts and cadres into homogenous juggernauts of concerted political and social action – like the relentless persecution of Clinton.

    The very term “liberal”, on the other hand, relates to a social strategy by which conflicting viewpoints are considered, debated, and ideally accomodated – eventually – accounting for the image of the liberal American political sphere as wishy-washy and disorganized.

    In short, despite the insistance by Limbaugh and Coulter to the contrary, there is no strong liberal “party line” and very few strong movements from the left that do not degrade due to entropy. 

    This is why the often overt crimes and moral outrages of which our current leadership is guilty are not pursued with the same fanatical monotony as were Clinton’s slip-ups (Travelgate?  the Lincoln bedroom?  How do these stack up against sending American servicepeople to their deaths for personal profit?)

  5. I think the ability to be narrow minded is limited to any one classification, be that liberal or conservative, religious or atheist, Budweiser or ‘Bud Lite’ drinker. It is easy to sometimes allow yourself to get so annoyed with what you see wrong about a situation that you inadvertantly become a little narrowminded without really meaning to. That’s part of being human.

    I’m not proud of everything Clinton did, but a lot of the Lewinsky stuff probably wouldn’t have happened had it not turned into such a desperate witch-hunt by the Republicans. That isn’t to say that Clinton’s actions in response to it are defensible, just that to me this was more of an inssue for his wife than for Congress to be pursuing. Clinton had his fair-share of fuckups, but he was doing incredibly well in the polls and the Republicans were looking for anything they could use to try and bring him down.

    By my personal code of ethics I have to admit that the Lewinsky affair pales in my mind to Bush’s rushing into war with Iraq without much of a basis. Again, not saying that the events in the former are unimportant, just ranking the seriousness from my viewpoint.

  6. Wow, this one sat on the back burner for a while!

    Let me clarify some of my previous points, in light of some of Mild Bill’s justified criticism.  To start with, I must point out that some of this criticism (re: difference between liberals and conservatives) avoids facing the rationale by which these opposite poles were originally labeled: Conservative = status quo/ liberal = progressive/changeable.  Although I did not clarify this, I discuss these poles as opposites only in the abstract – in reality our political spectrum is a continuum, on which individuals fall in some position.  No one lacks all of one quality and possesses a full dose of the other, but there are noticeable differences, which manifest themselves in political affiliation. 

    As for Clinton, you are correct on certain points – the man was in many ways an embarrassment and disappointment to his party, whether they recognize the fact or not.  His much-vaunted “sincerity”  was pure cheese.  His few foreign military adventures were of the same sordid, criminal nature that have characterized most of America’s thumpings of weak peripheral nations throughout the 20th Century.  This really irritates me.

    However, lying about a blowjob under oath is still just lying about a blowjob!  As for your example of the General in Turkey pulling the old David/Bathsheba/Uriah ploy – that was a cold-hearted criminal act with real victims. However, I didn’t hear Rush or the rest of the vast right-wing conspiracy bitching about it every time I turned around.  You don’t mention the fate of this General – was he disciplined?  If not, why not? Different standards?

    Clinton was blown by a dumb whore who got a decent job in return – sleazy and unscrupulous, but not worth talking about. 

    If the Republicans had managed to give legs to some of the other more serious allegations you listed (particularly the missile attacks), I might have gotten on board.  However, the fact that the millions spent trying to peg Clinton with ANYTHING failed to turn up anything other than sexual patronization suggests to me that most of this stuff was rumor and wishful thinking.

  7. The observation that politics can be expressed as a continuum is an outstanding point!  That is exactly what I was taught in one of my

  8. Some good points made, but they all (with the exception of the general discussed previously) involve people dying.  As far as I know, Clinton’s dalliance with Monica and his subsequent lying under oath have not resulted in anyone’s death – certainly not an ongoing quagmire in which we lose ca. 10 servicepeople a week.

    Its true that the courtroom oath is an important linchpin in our legal system – its also true that the prosecution of perjury is pursued very selectively.  Only those lies that truly effect important cases are even considered for additional prosecution – otherwise our court system would be ridiculously swamped.  The only exception to this is represented by cases in which the prosecution really has a hard-on for the perjurer, which is what we had in the Clinton impeachment. 

    I initially entered this discussion to point out the discrepancy between the hounding of Clinton and the seemingly free ride the neocons are getting in their murderous exercise of multiple conflicts of interest.  The family and business connections of people in our administration to corporations and mercenary outfits (AKA “military consultants”)that are raking in fortunes on our foreign policy are clear and undeniable, yet its a topic our “liberal” mainstream media shies away from every time it comes up.

    We are, however, about to get an earful as to the Saudi connections to 9/11, and a raft of bullshit from our administration excusing the deletion of relevant elements from the recent senate report. I don’t think that the Saudi connections will be revealed as having been strong or direct, but members of the senate committee have alluded to the previously surmised fact that they vastly outweigh the non-existent Iraqi connection which was used as a major rationale for this war. 

    Remember:

    Saudi Military = Northrup Grummond/Vinnell

    Northrup Grummond/Vinnell = Paul Bremmer/Bush Senior/Rumsfeld

    Iraq (prior to March 2003)= weakened pain in the ass that hasn’t made wealthy Americans any richer for a long time.

    Clinton was and is a sleazy politico, but at least he didn’t fabricate a war to enrich himself and his friends.

  9. Ken

    Since you are so good with the math…check this out:

    51 dead GIs since May 1=

    51 dead/13 weeks=4 per week not 10.

    Your math abilities would make you a natural to run Bush

  10. It was ten dead a week for a couple of weeks there, and we’re working on it this week.  But maybe if you stretched out the accounting for six months it would look even better!

    Northrup Grummond and Vinnell corp. have trained segments of the Saudi military for years, and have supplied intelligence, tactical and logistical consulting for them as well. This is the same kind of stuff that these and other mercenary companies are now doing for our military – since privatization is the newly revealed word of Jesus and all.  Paul Bremmer – current U.S. viceroy of Iraq – is called “ex-embassador”, but he is also “ex-Vinnell executive”.

    I’ve said all this before on this site, but I don’t remember where:

    The neoconservatives in this administration have been pushing a set-up that links privatized consultants and services providers directly to the decision-making offices of this country.  This may sound like old hat, but the level at which this is all going on is unprecedented.

    Under Bush Senior, Cheney had Brown and Root do a feasibility study of privatizing ancillary military activities.  Then Bush lost (they couldn’t believe it! they had to wait eight years for the payoff!), and Cheney went to work for Haliburton (who owns Brown and Root). After buying the Bush family lock, stock and barrel, Cheney made it back into the White House (along with his old conspirators Wolfowitz and Pearle), and waited for some excuse to start a war. 

    I could go on, but I don’t want to.  Look up some of this stuff yourself.  And for Christ’s sake get over Clinton!  People like you sit around bitching about penny-ante Arkansas graft while we have a fucking capitalist Fourth Reich brewing in Washington.  Mark my words, these guys are dismantling everything good about this country for their own (oh yeah, and for Jesus, if you ask June-bug or Ashcroft).

  11. Oops, I forgot the word “good” at the end of the last sentence.  Maybe I could get a job as one of Bush’s speech-writers?

  12. Once again, I excuse nothing illegal that Clinton did, and – due to his character – give reasonable consideraton to any unproven allegations.  However, Clinton is not in office.  He used our military in questionable ways on occasion, but he never started a war that – by his own admission – will not end in our lifetime!  The reason I got irrate in my last message was my impression that you have been justifying current misbehavior by Bush et.al. by saying “but look what Clinton did.”  There is no comparison in scale and scope in the malfeasance of these two administrations (the current one being worse, in case you’re wondering).

  13. Mild Bill,

    I hope you don’t mind, but I’m double-dipping.  The reason is that I realize that I failed to directly respond to your question regarding “wagging the dog”. 

    No, wagging the dog is not a moral or acceptiable activity – my dog Carl fucking HATES it!  However, it is an extremely difficult charge to prove.  A president has multiple problems facing him at any time, and must develop appropriate responses that sometimes appear to be in conflict.  But where, in any scenario, is the paper trail linking any president’s particular action to a particular desire to get the press off his back?  If you find a memo, or even a credible witness who can lay out these conections, then sure.  Otherwise, its an easy charge to make, but a bitch to support.  Its an opinion – possibly right on the mark in Clinton’s and others’ cases, but there are just far too many extenuating circumstances and “plausible deniabilities” for this to become a serious issue without more data.

    Now when you have a dad, an VP, and key members of your cabinet financially linked to private contractors who are given sweetheart deals on the war that will never end – and strong evidence that outright lies were extended by these people to justify that war – well then you have a case.

  14. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15445”>

    Mild Bill,

    Are you guilty? I don’t know, Bill: In pursuit of the luxuries and riches you describe did you tweek crucial security information, enabling you to send somebody’s kid off to die on false pretenses?  If so, then YES! Please report to the Hague immediately!

    But from what you have mentioned regarding a major portion of your adult history (i.e. military service) it is clear that you are in no way connected to this administration.  Therefore, any professional affiliations you might have had are unlikely to directly influence the ongoing formation of our national policy.

    As for this administration – they have recieved the benefit of the doubt and they have failed!  People in America just have to start giving a shit.

    If you a truly interested, check these stories out: 

    http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15445
    http://www.thedailyenron.com/documents/20020730085550-68379.asphttp://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14221

  15. Ken

    My goodness, those evil neoconservative globalizers are at it again huh?

    In the 1970s, Hillary made a $1,000 investment that turned into nearly $100,000, a one hundred-fold increase!  I believe she did this in a one month period, so multiply that by 12 to get the annualized rate.  I only have a 32 bit computer, so it can

  16. Bill,

    Believe it or not, we are on the same page!  I am unaware of the specific deals you mention, but I accept that their dexistence is certainly feasible. This kind of profiteering is not to be countenanced in our government!  Believe me, I write the same letters to Lieberman and McAuliffe that I do to Republican malefactors.

    You have to admit, however, that it makes more sense to start fixing things with those in the seat of power.

  17. Belated response to Cheney rant:  repeat same rant, but insert name “McAuliffe” and you have a “balanced” argument that could continue forever.  We are on the same page, just reading from different angles.  Mine, I think, is the more carefully considered – I’m sure your feel the same of yours.

    You say you despise crooked fat-cats, and yet you are willing to let the current fiasco slide because you feel that Democrats in the past got a free ride.  I say – start demanding accountability of all of our representatives!  No one will investigate and punish Terry McAuliffe unless partisanship is thrown out the window and George Herbert Walker Bush (among others) is investigated for his part (ca. $800,000) in the same Global Crossing scam.  I call that fairness – lock them both up.

    I may seem partisan, but that is because Democrats statistically adhere to populist principals to a greater gegree than do Republicans.  However, if you can show that one is defrauding or exploiting the American people to a greater degree than any available alternative, I will turn on him like a starving dog.

  18. A starving dog with angry weasles up his butt, or just a starving dog? 😕

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.