Bush Unveils "Don't Make Me Go Medieval on You" Doctrine

So many of us had a little chuckle when Dubs did his Dirty Harry impression during the State of the Union Address, saying of suspected terrorists:

Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.

Still more of us groaned when the president, apparently mistaking himself for Bill Pullman's character in Independence Day, landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a S-3B Viking jet and proceeded to give the first stump speech of the 2004 campaign.

But I think this one may have crossed the line separating the merely risible from the creepy-awful:

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

When did Randy "Macho-Man" Savage become the leader of the free world?

Comments

[trainwreck]

I really don't think that the US Military would implement a strategy where soldiers are the functional equivalent of a goat tethered to a tree in the jungle, drawing the predator in to a trap.

[amr]

"Snap into a slim jim, terrorists!"
--George "Nacho Man" Bush

[Eric Deamer]

Here's the full quote in context:

"There are some who feel like that if they attack us, that we may decide to leave prematurely," the president said. "They don't understand what they're talking about. ... There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

It was simply a statement of resolve and strength. You're not going to force us to leave early or disrupt our plans to improve the lot of the Iraqis with your useless guerrila attacks. Such attacks will be futile, bit if you insist on doing it, indeed, bring it on. We're prepared.

Andrew Sullivan has a good post on it:

"No, I don't think it's merely rhetoric. One of the many layers of the arguments for invading Iraq focused on the difficulties of waging a serious war on terror from a distant remove. Being based in Iraq helpsus notonly because of actual bases; but because the American presence there diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere. By confronting them directly in Iraq, we get to engage them in a military setting that plays to our strengths rather than to theirs'. Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn't always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open."

As for the other things which so offended Julian's sensibilities. The thing about "they're no longer a problem . . ." was a simple, non-blustery statement of fact. The aircraft carrier thing was a bit over the top and seemed kind of third-worldish to me too.

As for the cancelling the subscription guy. Julian Sanchez is indeed the most unabashedly left-wing, reflexive Bush hater here, but the other writers are far more nuanced and open-minded in their judgements. I guess every publication needs a Paul Krugman.

[quaker120]

Uh, there's an email address there too, genius. You could use it to discover that my real name is John Luther and that I live in New York.

What's your email address, tough guy?

I apologize to everybody else. No more flames. I'm done with this coward.

[Brian]

When Bush speaks that way, he is either 1) simply speaking his mind without much consideration for nuance; while that makes some cringe occasionally (myself included), you have to admit it's kind of a refreshing change of pace from most national politicians; or 2) playing to "his people", which post-9/11 have primarily been the "God, guns, and guts" crowd.

Actually, I think it's a little of both.

But more to the point, what difference does it _really_ make whether GWB says "we will act to ensure the safety of our forces against all who would attack us" or "bring it on"? Both will be translated into the Arabic equivalent of "we will crush the people of Islam" on Al-Jazeera anyway. If you think that Bush can avoid the ire of Islamists by softening his words a bit, you're deluding yourself.

[Anonymous]

when is julien going to post on Dean's support of an invasion of Liberia? or is that a can of worms...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030702/ap_on_el_pr/dean_liberia_2

[B]

Are you really implying that one must be pretty queer to be alarmed by Bush telling terrorists to "bring it on."?

Heather - if you're cute, then no, otherwise yes, but more sissy than queer.

Quaker - I thought anonymity was at the heart of libertarianism

[erf]

And some disappointment should be sent Julian's way for butchering the borrowed phrase he used in his post title. Everyone should know by now that the real phrase is go "Medieval on your ass."
Then again, the comments seemed to have provided all the homoerotic content needed.

[TJ]

He speaks as though he were Hector or Achilles, but he's nowhere near Troy.

[Will W.]

B has called Julian's sexual orientation into doubt. I can affirm that Julian is a card carrying metrosexual. (You should see the cards. They're fabulous.)

[a randy savage]

heather doesn't pee sitting down. strap in on sistah, yeah.

[Anonymous]

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s891703.htm
http://fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/070703.html
http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

http://www.synthesis.net/~wussyboy/WebSitePages/Pubs.htm
http://www.tremble.com/feech/migay/
http://www.bettybowers.com/isbushgay.html

[Anonymous]

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s891703.htm
http://fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/070703.html
http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

http://www.synthesis.net/~wussyboy/WebSitePages/Pubs.htm
http://www.tremble.com/feech/migay/
http://www.bettybowers.com/isbushgay.html

[Heather]

Being based in Iraq helpsus notonly because of actual bases; but because the American presence there diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere. By confronting them directly in Iraq, we get to engage them in a military setting that plays to our strengths rather than to theirs'.

Saying every Iraqi resisting the US occupation of their country is a terrorist that would have attacked the US is a pretty mindless statement. Dont you believe there are people that could be passive towards the US, until it starts taking over their countries. How is infuriating more people going to stop or "control" terrorism?

[Anonymous]

john luther the quaker - please spare any further details. this isn't the personal pages of the village voice.

[Eric Deamer]

Heather,

First of all those weren't my words, though I mostly agree with the argument. Ultimately, neither one of us are in Iraq, so I'm disinclined to take this conversation further. I will say that most reports show that almost all of those involved in ambushes etc. are either non-Iraqi Jihadists or Baathist remnants. But, if you come back with something along the lines of "That's just what the man wants you to belive" that makes the conversation pretty non-productive, which is again, why I'm not terribly excited to keep it going.

[digamma]

"As for the cancelling the subscription guy. Julian Sanchez is indeed the most unabashedly left-wing, reflexive Bush hater here, but the other writers are far more nuanced and open-minded in their judgements. I guess every publication needs a Paul Krugman."

I think Paul Krugman is an absolute hack. And I love Julian's work. That comparison is completely unfair.

[bardp]

You guys should lay off of W, he's just quoting his favorite philosopher, Jesus H. Christ. Don't you remember when the Romans were coming for him and his apostles wanted him to flee? He was all, "Fuck that shit, bring those mothers on!" But then Judas hit him with an aluminum chair and it was all over for him. Or was it....

Dun dun dun!!!

B, how do you sit down with that big swinging dick of yours?

[buzz harsher]

Heather sez:
Saying every Iraqi resisting the US occupation of their country is a terrorist that would have attacked the US is a pretty mindless statement. Dont you believe there are people that could be passive towards the US, until it starts taking over their countries. How is infuriating more people going to stop or "control" terrorism?

I call BS on this. The people who are attacking US soldiers in Iraq fall into one of three categories: those whose lives became significantly worse, those who hope to improve their lives through these attacks, and deluded fools.

1) Whose lives got worse?
a) Ba'ath party members and the fedayeen can no longer terrorize their fellow Iraqis with impunity. Tough luck, bubs.
b) "Normal" folks? No way. Normal people don't shoot power utility employees when the power goes out.
c) Iraqi soldiers who lost their jobs, and are too stupid to find new ones. OK, I'll grant you that, but their fantasy about attacking US soldiers in the hope of fixing this places them firmly in category 3: deluded fools.

2) Who hopes to improve their lives?
a) Islamist fundamentalist groups who would like to create, and then fill, a power vacuum in Iraq.
b) "Normal" folks? No way. Shooting US soldiers is what most would call "a bad idea."

3) What about the deluded fools, who follow one (or both) of the above groups? Too frikkin bad. This delusion is the very one the war on terrorism targets. US security requires demonstrating the futility of attacking US targets.

The idea that the average Iraqi has seen such a significant decrease in their standard of living since the invasion that they can be excused for attacking their occupiers: that's the "mindless statement."

[Heather]

Has Iraq suddenly become a democracy now that it is being occupied by the US? It seems like they are under the same oppressive force, but the profits from their rescources are being diverted out of Iraq.

Here is a cute little photo of the "new" Iraq.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030625/241/4hule.html

[Anonymous]

Please don't insult the Macho Man that way. He was far more coherent and literate than Dubya could ever aspire to be.

[Todd Fletcher]

Heather,
"It seems like they are under the same oppressive force, but the profits from their rescources are being diverted out of Iraq."

Nice use of the Chompskian "seems", there. CYA.

I suppose it's asking too much for you to come up with some proof of this. And in any case, those resources have formerly been 'diverted' to Saddam.

[Heather]

I suppose it's asking too much for you to come up with some proof of this. And in any case, those resources have formerly been 'diverted' to Saddam.

OK, I'm sure Saddam "dipped" into the nationalized oil revenue.
But Iraq, prior to being submitted to crippling santions was a pretty wealthy country with a strong middle class. The first thing the US has been working on in Iraq is privatising the oil, and selling it "at a steal of a deal" to big, non-Iraq based oil conglomorates.
I really fail to see how selling iraqs oil to foreign companies is going to help them out in the long run.
Privatize it, fine, but keep it in their country.

[Ballsac the Terrible]

Has there been an actual *terrorist* attack in Iraq since this war started? Actually, has there been a terrorist attack in Iraq in the last 10 years?

We aren't confusing a guerrilla resistance movement with terrorism, are we?

P.S., 'buzz harsher': I know it's incredibly hard for a lot of us westerners to imagine a person feeling strongly enough about *anything* to close the message forum window, and grab his AK-47, but you should keep trying really hard to imagine that not every culture in the world is made up of people that think exactly like us.

Peace.

[Martin]

Quaker,

Is calling B a coward your subtle, passive-aggresive way of telling him to "bring it on?"
Are you really GW trying to incite bedlam on this site? Friends should know better, but then again you are likely not a Friend if you call yourself a Quaker.

[Anonymous]

I guess every publication needs a Paul Krugman.

Or a Jon Katz. Notice a pattern? Julian Sanchez ist ein Jude.

[Anonymous]

"We aren't confusing a guerrilla resistance movement with terrorism, are we?"

terrorism vs guerrilla action is the just the difference in targets. terrorists are capable of both.

[HH]

So the US is "the same" in terms of oppression... okay.

[Kevin Carson]

If Dumb W. Ass is going to impersonate anybody from "Independence Day," it should probably be the drunken crop duster pilot.

Chad:

Bush "helped" land that plane the same way a three-year-old "helps" drive a car when Daddy lets him put one hand on the wheel. It was all manufactured photo-op.

And BTW, I know somebody whose son was on the Kitty Hawk, which was originally ahead of USS A.L. on the rotation out of there, but got delayed a week so that beady-eyed little turd could use the Lincoln as a reelection ad prop. Kind of like getting a $100 haircut on a runway, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Poor Kevin, still hasn't gotten over getting the shit beat out of him by the poplular kids.

[godhatesacoward]

wtf did that last comment have to do with anything?

[buzz harsher]

Ballsac:

Au contraire! I am easily able to imagine such strong feelings. Do you assume I lack such feelings? Do you assume that I have never acted on them?

There is, however, a vast gap between "strong feelings" and acceptable behavior; "strong feelings" cannot form the basis of a functioning civilization.

I may hate my neighbor's loud parties with a passion that exceeds understanding, but I surely do not fire an RPG into his house! If I did so, is my behavior acceptable because it is driven by "strong feelings?"

Civilization has come to consider self defense (and, possibly, well-informed, pre-emptive self defense) to be the only excuse for murder. "Strong feelings" may mitigate punishment for a crime, but in no way do they excuse it.

It remains unclear to me exactly which "strong feelings" one could attribute to Iraqi civilians that would drive them to this violence. Are these "strong feelings" religious in nature? Nationalistic? Irrationally anti-American? Does possessing these emotions elevate the killing of US troops to the level of self defense?

Are Americans expected to accept this violence, because it is driven by "strong feelings?" Are Americans expected to accept the existence of cultures that pursue the murder of Americans, for the crime of being American?

Surely a rational Iraqi would recognize that their lot in life has, at the least, not significantly degraded within the last few months. What further gain would the typical Iraqi hope to acquire by killing US soldiers? Should the pursuit of that gain excuse murder?

Ultimately, is this irrational hatred of America, and the unlimited violence arising therefrom, not terrorism itself?

['Reason' Backwards Sounds Like]

Wait a minute. Julian Sanchez is now the editor of Reason? What's that commenter talking about?

But that does lead to a good point. Where are all these new people coming from -- Sanchez, Matt Welch, etc.? I want the good old Reason crew! Not this covey of Cavanaugh pals. They add nothing to Hit & Run but more posts. The Reason mission seems to be going askew, at least here on at Hit & Run. What -- is this now supposed to be Suck Jr., only in a more user-friendly format?

OK, now here's the part where somebody tells me I don't understand the real Reason mission, etc. So let me preempt that retort by clarifying: Welch, Sanchez, et al., do not seem to be promulgating the Reason mission as I once understood it to be.

[Frank]

Buzz: "It remains unclear to me exactly which "strong feelings" one could attribute to Iraqi civilians that would drive them to this violence. Are these "strong feelings" religious in nature? Nationalistic? Irrationally anti-American? Does possessing these emotions elevate the killing of US troops to the level of self defense?"

How about a once strong civilization reduced to what Iraq is today? Seeing your family blown to pieces, either by your current leader or by supposingly a liberating force that you have been "educated" to hate, years of unemployment and sanctions imposed by those you been "educated" to hate, and simplying believing in the old saying, "out of the frying pan and into the fire." A scenario such as this is cause for the rational to become irrational, reality becoming unrealistic, and truth seemingly becoming nonexistent. Self defense becomes daily survival and the tiny shred of remaining nationalism generates enough pride to resist invaders. Shall we call it chaos and anarchy? Under these circumstances, the pope would probably kill his mother if she wore the same color robe as the uniform of the aggressors.

Consider Iraq to be a 3 year old child getting their immune shots. If they would quit fighting it and just sit still for a minute, it will be quick and painless and you will be stronger and healthier in the long run.

[Chris Puzak]

Mr. Nose Hair guy,

Since the "new people" like Matt Welch and Julian Sanchez are listed as editors in the list of staff memebers in the paper version of the magazine, I would assume they were hired by Nick Gillespie and not by Tim Cavanaugh. What's the difference between their posts and the ones the other posters put up? They all seem pretty similar to me.

[Mr Nose Hair Guy]

The difference? Most notably, that they seem more interested in political process than in discussions of principle.

My radar could be off, but that's what I've picked up on from scanning this blog.

Sanchez, in particular, seems to drift. Straight logic doesn't seem to be a strong point.

But maybe I don't read here enough to be making such sweeping judgments. Carry on, all.

[buzz harsher]

Frank:

I think Iraq has not sunk quite to the level of 3 years old. 13, maybe ;). Still, true, true.

I think part of your claim is, "Well, some Iraqis are acting crazy and foolish, and if they would just behave like adults, their lives will get better." If so, you'll get no argument from me.

Those who argue, "Some Iraqis are acting crazy and foolish, ..., so the Americans can't object when their soldiers get shot," lose me somewhere in the ellipsis.

Now, as to the, ahem, root causes of the crazy & foolish behavior:

I admit that I am not _in_ Iraq, but the images I see and the stories I read (and I _do_ venture beyond NRO and FoxNews...) do not seem to match the Lovecraftian horror you describe.

Chaos? Anarchy? Dogs and cats living together? I see crowds chanting lame slogans, and shopkeepers selling melons and falafel. I read about crime, and power outages, and strikes, and neighbors getting together to haul away trash (yay voluntary associations, btw).
Change a few details of these story, and you could be talking about Paris.

Families being blown up? See France, 1945.

Occupation by a military one was told to hate? See Germany, 1946.

Further, given the low numbers of civilian casualties, I don't think the war itself was any more terrifying than the "peace" that preceded it.

Unless there is something horrible going on in Iraq, that not even the BBC dares to report, I do not see how the outrage in, e.g, Fallujah is reasonably tied to the _actual_ activities of the American occupiers.

What are these soldiers doing? Driving around? Wearing sunglasses? Trying real hard to get the power back (which should be the Iraqis' job, anyway)? Distributing food and medicine? Checking IDs at checkpoints? Confiscating anti-tank missiles? Staring menacingly at hooligans? Ohmigawd, I just gotta jihad.

Sure, there are the crazy stories about Jews & Christians seizing land and oil, and some Iraqis might believe this nonsense, but, c'mon, Joe al-Baghdadi's life hasn't changed, and won't change, if Nasty Regime #2 steals the oil instead of Nasty Regime #1. Especially if Nasty Regime #2 doesn't shoot quite so many of his kids along the way.

Fedayeen who miss privilege, Fanatics building bombs in mosques, and Fools who need to be somebody's slave. Those are my candidates for the resistance, and civilization will not ail for their absence.

[Biff]

What's "creepy-awful" about Bush is his attitude towards our troops, which the "bring them on" statement unwittingly reveals: namely, that they're expendable. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation" means "We have plenty of soldiers in the area - you can kill a few every day but we'll still control your country."

[Delorian]

"I really don't think that the US Military would implement a strategy where soldiers are the functional equivalent of a goat tethered to a tree in the jungle, drawing the predator in to a trap."

No, Amtrack, they wouldn't do that Jurassic scenario, because the predator would be sure to put on the chase afterwards, all the way past a non-electrified fence (Syria, Iran, Turkey) and on to the supposed "safety" of the Info Center (Washinton, DC.)

And we all know how THAT story ended, no?

[Anonymous]

Hey, REASON subscription department, wanna know why I won't be renewing my subscription? Three little words:

"Julian Sanchez, Editor"

-- Chad P.

Hey, INTERSTATE, wanna know why I'm never going to drive my car on you again? Three little words:

"Annoying Pot Holes"

-- Chad P.

Hey, SUMMER, wanna know why I'm never going outside anymore? Three little words:

"Pesky Little Mosquitos!"

-- Chad P.

Hey, MALLS, WALMART, wanna know why I'll never buy anything ever again? Three little words:

"Fucking Sales Taxes!"

-- Chad P.

Hey, AMERICA, wanna know why I'm leaving for Europe and won't be coming back? Three little words:

"Hillary Clinton, Creep"

-- Chad P.

[Anonymous]

Hey, Chad P, wanna know why no one takes you serious? Three little words:

"You are dumb!"

[Flem Snopes]

Well thanks for at least taking a flyer at what I'm talking about Biff, in the middle of all this other swaggering libertarian -- I think -- chest bumping.

Hard to say whether this is a libertarian crowd or not. A pure libertarian'd probably not be putting on some sort of Victorian hair shirt about "Bring it on" but I'm new to this. These guys are more like the New Republic on Crank to this reader.

Anyway, once again I come back to the main point which is, war sure is heck. In armed conflict, "guys die." Troops are "expendable" in the sense they get sent into difficult spots and may not come out ok. And I agree with you, that's downright creepy and awful. Put whatever words around the dying and maiming you like, I don't care.

We're in Iraq and we have to win that conflict. "Bring it on" sums it up prit nicely for me.

[A.Murphy]

"Anyway, once again I come back to the main point which is, war sure is heck."

Heck?

Hell, Mr.Snopes! War is hell! (Say it.) War is HELL! Stop pussy-footing around it.

[Connie Fusio]

War do not determine who is right, war determine who is left.

[Student]

How long did the Hundred Years War last?

[Buddy Williams]

War Dims Hope for Peace.

[Chuck Gilmore]

The war that was supposed to force a regime change in Iraq cost $200 billion. It is puzzling to me why some of those fiscal fitness fanatics in the Repug Party haven't tried to find a cheaper way to do it.

Maybe if they had offered the Iraqis half ($100 billion) they could have done it themselves. Then we'd still have $100 billion left over to spend on regime change in this country.

Because (and I have to be blunt here) the folks we have in charge are fossils fueled by fossil fuels. And in the reptilian brain, problems aren't solved -- they're attacked.

Like the War on Poverty. Remember that? I'm happy to report that it's finally over. The poor people have all surrendered.

[Bloggin' for nickels]

That Bush is such a Machavellian!!! WHy can't he diplomatically bend over like all the other great presidents?

[Anonymous]

he was speaking about iraq. clearly it was a comment aimed at iraqi terrorists, probably to enrage them and put them off guard.

god dammit julien, why do you always force us to stand up for chimpy! this shit may fly on the democratic underground, but it is a shame to see it here.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of which side you're on, it would be a good idea for Dubya to lighten up on the prick-waving.

[Jesse]

"this shit may fly on the democratic underground, but it is a shame to see it here."

That's odd, seems most of the posters here mistake this place for the Corner"

[joe]

Ten more wounded today. Yee-haw! Bring 'em on!

Jesse - way to swat the fly.

[Anonymous]

you should have said "freerepublic" -- at least that would make logical sense. unless you equate demowacko undergeround as being the opposite of NRO...

[dude]

I've been trying to figure out why we invaded Iraq. I don't buy WMD, or oil, or any of the usual rationales.

Instead, I think the idea is to turn Iraq into a roach motel for terrorists. Why come over here to the USA to blow up infidels when you can do it in Iraq? Some americans will die, but many more terrorists will. Some ostentatious dick-waving is part of this scenario.

This is the only reason for the war in Iraq that really makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Maybe he was trying to boost the moral of the troops. But joe would rather him say "oh know its quagmire vietnam, what have I damned you fools into"! that would boost their spirits.

[Anonymous]

"clearly it was a comment aimed at iraqi terrorists, probably to enrage them and put them off guard"

Are you serious?

[Anonymous]

it is just a theory. maybe macho headgames are the only language the terrorists understand. not all his speeches are aimed at reason editors

[quaker120]

Say what you will, his numbers usually rise every time he says something this idiotic.

But we all know that W doesn't "govern by polls..."

[Anonymous]

the unfortunate result of a precision military action is that too many baathists & arab terrorists are still in Irak and they need to be rooted out and killed. so yeah bring 'em on, the sooner the better.
I see what side Joe's on - certainly not on the Iraqui people's. What disgusting glee he expresses.

[B]

Oh brother, here we go again. Julian, there's nothing wrong with a little straight, tough talk. This is readily understandable if you're a man...a straight man.
If you'd rather live during the more sensitive Carter days, then vote for Kucinich. Otherwise, take some testosterone pills and get over it!

[quaker120]

Dear B and " ": Real men don't post anonymously.

[Heather]

Oh brother, here we go again. Julian, there's nothing wrong with a little straight, tough talk. This is readily understandable if you're a man...a straight man.
If you'd rather live during the more sensitive Carter days, then vote for Kucinich. Otherwise, take some testosterone pills and get over it!

Are you really implying that one must be pretty queer to be alarmed by Bush telling terrorists to "bring it on."?

[Anonymous]

that from a quaker.

[Anonymous]

heather - umm, yeah.

[Jim]

Personally I like dude's 'Terrorist Roach Motel' theory. Let'em keep it over there. The Americans that will die are troops who voluntarily joined to protect us (not that it isn't a bad thing when US soldiers die but, hey, they knew what they were getting into unlike the folks that just showed up for work on 9/11).

Sooner or later, though, they'll find a way to get back at us on US soil. And the Iraq occupation, if it keeps continuing as it looks like it will, is going to motivate more terrorism against the US. I'm not sure what the 'net' result would be because we really don't have any way to predict the likelyhood of additional terrorist attacks on US soil. Can't read any trends on a sample size of one.

[Kerry for Prez 2004]

"Are you really implying that one must be pretty queer to be alarmed by Bush telling terrorists to "bring it on."?"

I am alarmed that a little queer like Bush has the audacity to say bring it on when just 30 years ago he was saying about Vietnam, "leave me out of it!"

[Chad P.]

Give me a break. The President helps fly a jet onto an aircraft carrier and your response is to groan?

Hey, REASON subscription department, wanna know why I won't be renewing my subscription? Three little words:

"Julian Sanchez, Editor"

[Flem Snopes]

i'm struggling to understand what's wrong with "bring them on" in a setting involving armed conflict. "creepy awful"? dude! shootin and killin and bombin is the creepy awful part. the semantics much less so. "bring em on" at least has the advantage of candor, IMO

i guess we intelleckshals like the leader of the free world to present himself as some top-hatted Wilsonian cat and less like, i dunno, Sgt. Fury. maybe that's it. we need to dress up what's really going on in the dreary language of state and what have you (otherwise these worldly frenchmen will think ill of us! the arab street will inflame! the unreconstructed stalinst peace movement will compare us all to Goebbels or something! and we can't have that. that'd muck up our self image as Smart Peeps).

[quaker120]

You can call me names all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you're an anonymous coward.

[Anonymous]

i looked up "quaker120" in the phone book. u sure that's your real name?

[Wild Pegasus]

As someone with an unhealthy fascination with Canadian and Western European politics, I enjoy Welch keeping tabs on the French political situation. Vive Alain Madelin.

- Josh

[Rick Barton]

Bush is almost as bad as the Democrats. His embarrassingly childish bravado is a natural outgrowth of his administrations hyper-interventionist policies. There are good pricipled conservative Republicans out there but Bush is no conservative (although he talks like one on occasion, a lot like Nixon in that way) and it's a shame he's head of the GOP.

Happy Independence Day

"Laissez Faire" "Don't tread on Me"

[Anonymous]

Only white trash bends over for creeps like Saddam.

[Evilcor]

Back to Crazyland for me, I guess.
I don't know which is more upsetting:
1) Dubya quite deliberately taunting a bunch of really scary dudes because he looks cool when he does
2) His apologists calling their opponents queer
3) John Kerry starting to look like the Mahatma
Maybe the British will take us back if we ask really nice?

[Anonymous]

Wasn't that the name of that cheerleading movie? If Bush was referencing that, then that would be pretty gay.

[Anonymous]

Evilcor, where's Crazyland?

[Jack]

I find it hysterically funny that Bush's supporters think putting the words "Bring them on!" in context makes the speech something other than what it is: A man who's closest approach to post-war Iraq was at 40,000 feet in a jetliner challenging Iraqis to try and kill as many American soldiers as they can so that he can prove he has "resolve", i.e., indifference to bodybags.

Incidentally, here's Bush's entire response to the question: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030702-3.html

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we'll put together a force structure who meets the threats on the ground. And we've got a lot of forces there, ourselves. And as I said yesterday, anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice. There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case.

Let me finish. There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation. Of course we want other countries to help us -- Great Britain is there, Poland is there, Ukraine is there, you mentioned. Anybody who wants to help, we'll welcome the help. But we've got plenty tough force there right now to make sure the situation is secure. We always welcome help. We're always glad to include others in. But make no mistake about it -- and the enemy shouldn't make any mistake about it -- we will deal with them harshly if they continue to try to bring harm to the Iraqi people.

I also said yesterday an important point, that those who blow up the electricity lines really aren't hurting America, they're hurting the Iraq citizens; their own fellow citizens are being hurt. But we will deal with them harshly, as well."

[oracle]

You are here right now. But you know, you really have no choice. Because no matter where you are, you are always "here." And it is always "now."

So it doesn't matter what Dubya does.
It doesn't matter what his aplogists do.
It doesn't matter what John Kerry does,
or what he looks like.
And it doesn't matter what the British do.

What matters is what YOU do.

Right now. Here. Today.

[Rick Barton]

John wrote:
"I think Iraq will become a battleground in the war on terror."

And how might this come to pass? Fabricated connections between Al Qaeda and a regime that is no longer extant anyway won't do it. More likley, because the government is spawning terrorists with the occupation A "war on terror" is a stupid and dangerous thing anyway. Terror is a tactic not an enemy and can never
be defeated so the cost in our "blood and treasure", and most importantly, our liberty could go on with out end. A better policy would be one in which, if we are attacked or are about to be, we kill the attackers. The current policy cycle of intervention, preemption and occupation only breeds enemys, some of whom choose terror.

[Lefty]

"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."?as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002

[Vinny]

Rick Barton is right.

"A better policy would be one in which, if we are attacked or are about to be, we kill the attackers."

Even as we speak, we're mounting artillery on top of New York skyscrapers. C'mon! Bring 'em on! Those 747's don't scare me anymore.

[Mark Borok]

After Sept. 11 the Onion ran an article entitled "Life Turns Into a Bad Jerry Bruckheimer Movie". Bush's rhetoric certainly seems to come from a bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

This "Bring 'em on" stuff sounds right coming from a Jesse Ventura or Charlton Heston. Coming from a Yale grad, semi-draft-dodging mediocre businessman with a history of laziness and self-indulgence it's just empty posturing. Only those who have deluded themselves into thinking that Bush is somehow "tough" because he isn't afraid to stand up to France can possibly see this as anything else.

[John]

I, as a soldier, though not in Iraq this time, fully support the President's sentiments and statements. Sometimes evil has to be confronted forcefully, both in word and deed. And quite frankly, I think Iraq will become a battleground in the war on terror. And I think it is one we will eventually win. I think the Iraqi people will end up on our side, because our side will be the one turning the lights on, not, not blowing up the infrastructure. I think we might be able to create a rights based society in the middle east, and in the long term, that is well worth the price, in both blood and treasure, of trying.

Besides, those are the sentiments of those who fight, and it was inspiring to hear resolve from the Commander-in-Chief. I find it interesting that so many here insist on taking those words out of the context of the paragraph in which it was said. I am surprised that so many libertarians are willing to right off the liberty of the Iraqi people.

[Rick Barton]

9/11 happened because our governments foreign policy bred an irrational rage by the Al Qaeda murderers against the whole nation. Irrational, because it blamed all of America for the actions of the government. This interventionist foreign policy serves to spawn "endless enemies".

[Mike E]

What a bunch of drivel and nonsense on this site! I have continued to periodically check out its offerings for comic effects only; it has ceased to be an informative arena of ideas long ago. "The Corner" packs more news and insight into one day than this sinkhole manages to do in a month.

How refreshing it is to hear "bring it on" from our president than "Can we talk? We need to talk! Is it some pent-up childhood abuse scenario that is causing all of this murder and mayhem? What can WE do to stop your killing of us?"

As for American foreign policy being the reasons for the terrorists? actions, how many more Muslims do we have to save from government-sanctioned slaughter in the Balkans or elsewhere?

People like Rick use this pathetic and worn-out line to impart intellectualism; they come off sounding the trumpet of imbeciles

[John]

Rick, the answer as to how this might come to pass is simple. Those who are driven by hate of western ideals and values go to Iraq where they confront us militarily and are slaughtered. Will their be American casualties? Yes. Far fewer than if those extremists become footsoldier terrorists. It took 19 to slaughter thousands of civilians. Those 19 may kill 2 and wound 10 in Iraq...and be just as dead.

Rick, do you think it is impossible that we will build a successful secular, rights based society in Iraq?

[joe]

"I see what side Joe's on - certainly not on the Iraqui people's. What disgusting glee he expresses."

Spare me, chickenshit. You didn't give a rat's ass about the "Iraqui" people in 1991, you didn't give a rat's ass in 1998, you didn't give a rat's ass in 2001 - you didn't give a rat's ass until pretending to do so became a useful way of covering up the lies and incompetance of the smirking chimp in the poster abover your bed.

And even if this fiasco were a good idea, telling those who would kill our soldiers to "bring it on," or saying that sending them into harm's way and bombing the shit out of another country "feels good," is irresponisble and callous.

[Rick Barton]

Mike E defends the presidents Jerry Springer-esque comments with name calling and insult of his own. Those affiliated with this site should be quite proud that it doesn't meet with Mike E's approval.

"As for American foreign policy being the reasons for the terrorists' actions, how many more Muslims do we have to save from government-sanctioned slaughter in the Balkans or elsewhere?"

Here Mike E uses the logic of a liberal Democrat defending yet another failed government program in asking why can't this or that constituency be happy with what else we've do for them. Well Gosh, apparently Osama wasn't impressed. (For a serious look at the Balkan intervention see: "Balkan Express" on Antiwar.com a libertarian/conservative anti-war site)

"People like Rick use this pathetic and worn-out line" ( That an interventionist foreign policy causes problems)

Mike E needs to be reminded that resistance to foreign entanglements and empire has been an article of advice for good conservative governance since the founding of our republic(see: chapter 12 in "James Madison And The Future of Limited Government" John Samples,Ed.) This is no less true when George Bush has abandoned this principle completely, despite his campaign pledge to the contrary. (Remember his debate with Gore, when he called for a more modest foreign policy - Cutting back the IMF, etc - and Gore wouldn't have any of it while favoring a more robust foreign policy?)

[cowboy]

- When our cars get stolen, we install an alarm in the next one, or we call Lo-Jack(TM).

- When a thief robs us at our house, we put locks on our doors and equip the house with various security measures.

- To keep more horses from escaping (to prevent more loss) we close the barn door.

- When America gets attacked, she closes HER doors.

I am envisioning a New Isolationism on the horizon. (And rightfully so.)

Mike E., I'll visit your "Corner," but do come back often. It only gets better here.

[Anonymous]

Stood on the corner, watching all the girls go by.

http://www.TheCorner.com
"Full Service Internet Solutions"

Maybe was wrong corner?

Hello!

Mike E. -- specifics, please?

[Rick Barton]

John wrote:
"Those who are driven by hate of western ideals and values go to Iraq where they confront us militarily and are slaughtered."

But this repeats the same misleading mistake about our attacker's motives that Bush put forth right after 9/11 . If they simply hated "western ideals" there were much easier and closer targets they could have hit. Including, Dubai of the UAE, sort of Arab Hong Kong where capitalism is the order of the day, free speech abounds and the religious nuts have quite minimal imput into government policy. A situation that much of the region including Israel would do well to emulate. (for a look at the harmful effects of Jewish fundementalism on Israeli policy see:"Jewish History,Jewish Religion,the Weight of Three Thousand Years" by Israel Shahak) If "western ideals" were really the reason Switzerland would be a prime target, and what about the very licenctious Denmark? Thats Gotta be a place that Al Qaeda really hates. But we know the real reasons, they told us: Troops in Mecca, US government support of a brutal Israeli occupation and the trade embargo against Iraq.

"Rick, do you think it is impossible that we will build a successful secular, rights based society in Iraq?"

John, when the captive nations were at long last liberated from the Hell of communism "we" didn't have to build more free societys for them, they wanted it that way. Given Iraqs very recent history, if by "we" were talking about our government, then it will be a real uphill climb, even if assuming that those worthy goals are what the government has in mind, which is a charitable assumption for sure. We might earn credibility if we can pressure Israel to end the occupation so those worthy goals have a chance of being realized in Palastine. At any rate, an end to the occupation will be much better for the Israeli people.

[joe]

Face it, Rick: Al Qaeda hit New York and Washington to show the rest of the Islamists that they were the big boy on the block. We were the 17 year old pot head who got charged with drug trafficing so the ambitious DA could show off how tough he is when he runs for Congress. You want to quote Bin Laden? The bulk of his message is that Arabia needs regime change.

PS: "They hate us because of our freedom" would make a great banner for a gay rights march.

[Anonymous]

Some day Joe will actually look into what kind of society Bin Laden & Al Quaeda hope to impose on "muslim" societies and "western" ones. Until then, he'll be making light of the deaths of 9/11 in a disgusting manner and be unable to criticize atrocious attacks on human rights unless they occur in "white" countries. As Joe has shown in his other posts, he is nothing but a racist who feels that anyone who is not a white European or American should be excused of any wrong.
Gay right? Please look at Muslim countries & what BL & his schmucks think of such things. Joe is a lost little boy who has no idea what is done to gays in muslim countries. Why do you think so called "palestinian" gays all live in Israel?

[Rick Barton]

Kosmo wrote:
"Danish licentiousness isn't a "western ideal" - it is western decadence -- an inherent (and unflattering) adjunct concomitant to freedom."

Good point Kosmo. It certainly isn't a "western ideal". It's really one, out of an unlimited number, of possible ramifications of the application of the western ideal of personal liberty (I think the most precious ideal) to certain areas of human action.

[Kosmo]

I've been following this thread for a while now, and I'm beginning to lend credence to Rick Barton's analyses. They make sense:

"If "western ideals" were really the reason, then Switzerland would be a prime target. And what about the very licentious Denmark? That's GOT to be a place that Al Qaeda really hates.

"But we know the real reasons. They TOLD us: Troops in Mecca, U.S. government support of a brutal Israeli occupation, and the trade embargo against Iraq." (Emphases mine.)

Yup, sounds like buck-naked INTERVENTIONISM to me.

One point of contention, though, Rick: Danish licentiousness isn't a "western ideal? ? it is western decadence -- an inherent (and unflattering) adjunct concomitant to freedom.

[Kosmo]

Yes, that's what I said, Rick (in fewer words.)

Now, I don't want to be quibbling with you, because you're my friend. Anyone who gives up some 21-odd years and has the patience, the caring, and the courage to raise two upstanding young boys (your sons) is my friend.

So, not to cavil, but the "ideal of personal liberty" is not one over which the West has a monopoly. The ne plus ultra of personal liberty is also an eastern, a northern, and a southern ideal.

In other words, the whole world wishes to be free. Western society just managed to muster the wherewithal to achieve some of it.

[Lefty]

All the Palistinian gays live in Israel? No wonder Sharon's so pissed off.

[joe]

Not one of the troll's criticisms has anything to do with what I wrote. Did you intend your flame for someone else, or is this just the boilerplate you paste in when someone makes a point about terrorism that you don't quite get?

[Anonymous]

FUN GAME: Count how many posts Rick Barton makes before he drops the inevitable "Blame ze Jews" bit. It's very fun.

[Anonymous]

How come all Jews are liberal except when it comes to Israel? Like they show so much love for the Niggers, but when it comes to Sand-Niggers.. no love?

[joe]

Several American Indian tribes valued individual liberty more highly than America ever has - the Lakota, for example, believed that no man can tell another man what to do. I'm not sure how much these cultures influenced our cultural heritage, however.

[Anonymous]

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/02/fog0000000255.shtml

---
For instance, in addition to studying European writings the Founders studied the governing principles of the Iroquois Confederacy (the "Six Nations") and other Indian nations, and it is generally acknowledged that they were very influential.

[Rick Barton]

Kosmo, Thank very much you for your kind sentiments. Actually its one son and one daughter, but again Kosmo, your words are much appreciated. Do you have children?

Ah, the linage of the "ideal of personal liberty" An interesting question. A first thought is that, was it not western civilization that elevated "personal liberty" from an idea to an "ideal"? Also the first known written expression for the word "liberty" is Sumerian cuneiform. Not that that fact plays into the western--non-western question. But I think when you look at the development of the idea over time from Aristotle thru Locke to Hayek it can be argued nothing going on in the Oriental worlds (both far-eastern and mid-eastern) that can compare. (As an aside I want to point out that in a thread a couple of months ago I was giving evidence for the many important Arab contributions to western thought)
But, I think your point that: " the whole world wishes to be free. Western society just managed to muster the wherewithal to achieve some of it."
is a good one and bares repeating...so I just did.

[Kosmo]

So true, Rick: Arab contributions to western thought are legion ? especially in the realms of astronomy, mathematics, and language. That is, English includes many terms that describe certain concepts, but for which we didn?t have any such expressions before the Arabs cultivated southern Spain.

For example, words like ?alcohol,? ?azimuth,? ?nadir,? ?zero,? and ?zenith,? to name just a few . . . all came to us, thanks to the ?Land of a Thousand Nights.?

In astronomy, Betelgeuse and Alnatak come to mind. (Alnatak is one of the three prominent stars in the belt of Orion, arranged in a straight line, and one of the most striking sights in the sky, don?t you think?)

And in mathematics, well . . . I?ll let you look up the word ?algebra? for yourself (or better yet, read ?Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea? by Charles Seife) to discover its fascinating history.

I?m not Arab. I?m European. And, yes, I have one daughter (but that?s quite enough, believe me!) But since this thread is about to fade into oblivion soon, and since we seem to be getting more personal than what such a thread calls for, perhaps it is best if we continue to express our enthrallment with the world, and our mutual admiration (;-} elsewhere. I have your email, so I guess I?ll be the first to write.

Thanks for the compliments, and see you on the other side of cyberspace.

[adam]

This is to Jim who on July 3rd said 'not like it's a bad thing when a US soldier dies' FUCK YOU BUDDY!!! I am A US soldier and yes we did know what we were getting into when we signed up. But who are you to celebrate when a Soldier (who is protecting your right to a Insane opnion) dies. you are very lucky you didn't post your last name. I think you are a coward that shoots off his mouth and hides by only giving his first name!!
JIM YOU ARE A COWARD AND I TRULY FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, from Adam

[Spingarn Evan]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://linux-shell-account.1st-host.org
DATE: 01/20/2004 11:38:57
People are exponentially funnier when they're in rant mode.