George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

Amen, Br'er Chalmers.

sadly, holmes, you raise a very good point.perhaps, "getting head in the oval office" is one of war powers extended to bush by congress, as is lying under oath... well, i guess we can never catch him.nice try though, schraf.

---

I'm not sure how much you missed. I assume you know about the materials which have fallen into enemy (terrorist) hands because of our invasion.There was regular military hardware as well as wmd capable material under UN watch. They warned us to protect it, anti war advocates warned it would likely be lost during an invasion. Still we didn't protect it and material was lost... well except the stuff showing up in IEDs. If you want links to that find Tal threads where he claims WMDs have been found. The links are usually to articles addressing that (though he still doesn't get it).As far as the incitement part goes, here's a link. From the article... Note, at the time he said this only 65 troops had died so far. Attacks escalated and we now stand at over 2200 dead.In context... And as it turns out we didn't... which he now admits to. So what does this make his actions back then? Hmmmmm. Ari tried to cover the rather treasonous activity as follows... Uh-huh. How about "Watch out", "Think again", "Don't make that mistake"? "Bring 'em on" means they should attack our troops. That they are still in the middle of a military mission is exactly when you don't incite the enemy into increasing attacks.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

After 5 years of the "war" president, I'm definitely getting nostalgic for the "love" president. I'd be willing to grant him the power of commanding bjs of interns, if I thought it would help him mellow out and do something right for a change.Hell turn guantanamo bay into a sex dungeon for him and his cabinet to play around in. Maybe they could all use it.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

are you volunteering? hey, head from a man would certainly make him loose credibility with the neo-cons. what? a gay president? IMPEACH!

---

Yeah... in all honesty, I thought that was a sloppy and careless remark, and displayed a complete lack of thought for the soldiers who his actions put in harm's way, but I guess I didn't find it "treasonous." The implicit assumption is that terrorists were sitting around saying "Hey, Fahid, should we attack America today?""Well, Abdul, I was gonna just sit back and play some Xbox, but that American swine Bush just told us to 'bring it on!' So you know what? I'm gonna!"Like, I don't see it. Bush echoed a sentiment that I imagine the majority of his troops actually share; that those who wish to pit themselves against our soldiers should step out and do so sooner, rather than later, and in the open and fair field of combat (as though it could ever be fair, fighting the best army in the world.)It was a stupid thing to say, but it was also ballsy, and it's exactly the sort of thing our guys say on their way into theater.Delivering tons of high explosive into the hands of the enemy, though? Absolutely outrageous, and I pin the death of one of my oldest friends square on the shoulders of the President.

If a dem had said it, it would have been labelled as such. I think that much is obvious.I see what your are saying and agree that the negligence regarding actual weaponry was worse. However, I do believe that his statement did act to incite the enemy to action, and so put troops in harm's way.Acting "ballsy" is a double-edged sword when you are talking about the media. When one is directly on a battlefield or in some closed compound, that is one thing. Talking to the media is another. A soldier yelling "bring 'em on" is different than a president at a press conference. His words were likely to result in positive reactions from the enemy, including recruitment.Note that the enemy did exactly what he said, and given that he was wrong in his assumptions regarding our control of security this resulted in losses the enemy has used for press advantage.He's the guy that's supposed to be winning the war through making good decisions, including proper rhetoric that gets our people back in one piece and our nation some sort of credence.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Oh, for sure. Well, there is that. Again, I'm not so confident about the incitement effect, but saying it - and then, not being able to match the bravado with bold deeds - certainly did cost us significant credibility.

I don't want to get into this too much more, since we are pretty much in agreement on what was more important. But let me pitch it to you the way I see it. You had an interesting idea of what didn't happen (the two terrorists sitting around), and you are likely right. Here is where I think something could have happened...A nation invades your country and is currently occupying it. They have destroyed your business and killed some friends and/or family of yours. The soldiers act in a gloating and demeaning fashion toward you, and may have even searched your home, wrecking things with no compensation.Then the leader of that nation says that anyone who thinks they can take on the might of that army should "bring 'em on".I don't know about you, but that would be a final straw for me. I would want to strike back and show that asshole some pain.We created a very volatile situation and provocative statements of bravado were more likely to make people angry with us to join those against us... or at least not help us. I mean how many simply gave up trying to defend us from others after that? Would you want to join a fledgling security force where the leader of it is egging on attacks?(Whatever happened to "never a boast or brag" anyway?)This message has been edited by holmes, 02-04-2006 12:44 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Has anyone ever seen this film: Why We FightMy friend told me about it....I have not yet seen it. It explains a lot, however. (At least the website does) Click on the link pics around the page and watch the Macromedia presentations...this film seems like quite a statement!This message has been edited by Phat, 02-04-2006 07:57 AM

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago