The heat is just starting to rise on the COWBOY in the White House
Bush Taking Heat for 'Bring Them On' Remark
By Steve Holland
Reuters
Thursday 03 July 2003
President Bush has used colorful language before to great effect, but he is taking some heat for
his "Bring them on" challenge to Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces, who he said were tough
enough to take it.
Even some aides winced at Bush's words, which Democrats pounced on as an invitation to Iraqi
militants to fire on U.S. troops already the subject of hit-and-run attacks by Saddam Hussein
loyalists and others.
"These men and women are risking their lives every day, and the president who sent them on this
mission showed tremendous insensitivity to the dangers they face," said Democratic presidential
candidate Howard Dean.
Another Democratic presidential candidate, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, said condemned the
comment, saying, "The deteriorating situation in Iraq requires less swagger and more
thoughtfulness and statesmanship."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer dismissed the criticism and said Bush viewed his
comment as a way to express confidence in U.S. troops.
"I think the men and women of the military are appreciative of the fact that they know they have a
president who supports them as strongly as he does, and who has as much faith in their ability to
complete the mission, despite some of the second-guessing that this president has," Fleischer
said.
Bush, a proud Texan with a penchant for plain talk, told reporters on Wednesday: "There are
some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is: Bring
them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."
'Dead or Alive'
In the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks he said the United States wanted al Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" and vowed to "smoke" them out of their holes.
University of Texas political scientist Bruce Buchanan, a longtime Bush watcher, said Bush uses
such language when under strain, and that he is likely feeling the heat of criticism about the lagging
post-war effort in Iraq.
He called the remark an unfortunate choice of words because it sounded belligerent.
"I think that when he feels up against it, as he did at the time of the 9/11 attacks, or when he does
when coming under criticism now, he has a tendency to strike back verbally, and I think that's what
you're seeing there. He's not choosing his words diplomatically at those moments because he's not
feeling particularly diplomatic," Buchanan said.
At least 25 U.S. and six British troops have been killed by hostile fire since Bush declared major
combat in Iraq to be over on May 1.
Brookings Institution presidential scholar Stephen Hess said many Americans like what they hear
from the president, calling his words reminiscent of his defiant stance against the Sept. 11, 2001
attacks when he stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center towers and vowed to fight back.
"My observation is he's saying exactly what the American people want him to say, and saying it
even in a way that they would want him to say it," Hess said.
He added: "Obviously we're going into a presidential election era and one expects the opposition
to oppose. That's their job. But the sort of response that somehow he was inviting the enemy to
attack us I think is more than a stretch."
Go to Original
Gephardt Statement on Bush's Challenge to Iraqi Combatants
Press Release
Wednesday 02 July 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Erik Smith / Kim Molstre Campaign HQ: 202-448-9300
press@dickgephardt2004.com
In an impromptu press conference at the White House today, Associated Press reports that
President Bush responded to questions about the situation for American troops in Iraq by saying
"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." Gephardt released the following statement in response.
"I have a message for the president: enough of the phony, macho rhetoric. We should be focused
on a long term security plan that reduces the danger to our military personnel. We need a clear
plan to bring stability to Iraq and an honest discussion with the American people on the cost of that
endeavor. We need a serious attempt to develop a post-war plan for Iraq and not more shoot from
the hip one-liners."
Go to Original
Lautenberg Criticizes Bush "Bring Them On" Rhetoric on Iraq
United Senator Frank R. Lautenberg sharply criticized the irresponsible and inciteful rhetoric used
by President Bush today in his speech about intensified violence against U.S. forces by Iraqi
insurgents. With regard to those oppositional forces attacking American troops, Bush said: "My
answer is bring them on.We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.'' Minutes
after learning about the speech, Lautenberg said:
"I am shaking my head in disbelief. When I served in the army in Europe during World War II, I
never heard any military commander - let alone the Commander in Chief - invite enemies to attack
U.S. troops," said Lautenberg.
Lautenberg described Bush's word choice -"bring them on"-- as tantamount to inciting and inviting
more attacks against U.S. forces. He said that the U.S. should be aspiring for the opposite military
objectives:
"We want to see the Iraqi opposition disappear. We want to see law and order restored to Iraq,
which will allow the Iraqi people to live in security and freedom. These should be our goals - rather
than encouraging more violence and bloodshed," Lautenberg said.
Lautenberg wrote a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld today expressing his concerns over the lack of a
post-war strategy in Iraq in light of the number of casualties the U.S. has sustained since President
Bush declared that major combat operations had ended on May 1. One third of U.S. casualties in
Iraq have occurred since May 1st.
Go to Letter
Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense
Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
July 01, 2003
Dear Secretary Rumsfeld:
As a Senator who supported Operation Iraqi Freedom, I now write to you to express
my concerns regarding this post-conflict period. On May 1, President Bush
announced the formal end of "combat operations"; he told the American people and
members of Congress that the military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom had
been met. Yet since that time, 63 additional U.S. service men have died in Iraq. This
past week, intensified attacks on U.S. troops precipitated Operation Sidewinder and
Operation Desert Scorpion and other military efforts to defeat the remaining
oppositional insurgents. Indeed, with 1/3 of U.S. total casualties in Iraq occurring
since May 1, I am worried that this upward casualty trend will continue and that U.S.
forces - serving in an insecure and unstable country - will sustain further losses.
These recent events suggest that a comprehensive military strategy is immediately
required to successfully defeat Iraqi insurgents who oppose the Coalition Provision
Authority (CPA). This plan must, as its primary objective, aim to enhance the security
and rule of law for Iraqis. I request that you share with members of Congress and the
American people the Administration's strategic plan for this current era of post-regime
Iraq, and that this plan include detailed figures of projected force deployment for the
next 12 months. I believe that the absence of a public post-conflict plan has led to
confusion and misperceptions among the American people regarding the magnitude
of the military operations necessary in Iraq.
Retired Army General Eric Shinseki expressed his belief last February that military
planners had underestimated the necessary troop size required to successfully
invade and secure Iraq. He recommended at least 300,000 U.S. service men and
women to achieve the intended objectives. With only 150,000 U.S. service men and
women currently on the ground in Iraq, I believe that our troops need immediate
reinforcements, both to increase their numbers and to relieve active duty service men
and women. We should invite international troops from coalition countries to join our
forces, to boost morale and to provide needed expertise in military policing and other
civil reconstruction work.
It is vital that the Administration carefully communicate its plan for stabilizing
post-war Iraq to American people. This plan must include the Pentagon's estimate of
the duration of the current U.S. force deployment as well as the estimated military
and reconstruction costs. Both issues directly affect the American taxpayers and the
families of service men and women deployed at home and abroad. In addition, I am
concerned that though independent think tanks have calculated the projected costs of
the reconstruction efforts that range from $5-$20 billion over the next year, the
Administration has not yet relayed to Congress and to the public what the financial
costs of this war will be.
I look forward to hearing from you in response to these concerns.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Lautenberg
CC |
