Posted on 07/08/2003 6:16:30 AM PDT by shortstop
Bring 'em on.
That's what the president said and that's what the Democrats hate.
They say it makes him sound like a cowboy, that it is too beligerent a tone, that it shows he is not the statesman America needs. That he is some hothead rube sitting in the most powerful seat in the world.
Well, they're full of crap.
He's right and they're wrong and that's all there is to it.
What am I talking about? A comment President Bush made last week at the White House. A reporter asked him about the terrible string of attacks on American servicemen in Iraq. Almost 70 of our GIs have been killed since major fighting stopped. The reporter asked if the terrorists and provocateurs doing the attacks were getting to be too much for us.
The president looked over and said that he thought we were "plenty tough enough" to handle the situation, and that his attitude was, "Bring 'em on."
Which is how we talk in America. At least in the cut-the-nonsense America that exists outside the Beltway and the network television studio. But it was a language not very agreeable to the complain-no-matter-what crowd. They -- mostly senior Democrats -- said that Uncle Bush's bravado would provoke additional attacks. The "Washington Post" in a news story, without attribution, said it was a "taunt." Kind of like challenging the school yard bully to a fight. The clear implication was that the blood was on George W. Bush's hands.
I think they are wrong. And out of touch.
I think the president's words and sentiment were perfect.
They did what a president's words are supposed to do -- speak for the country. And he did that.
He spoke for the country's people.
More importantly, he spoke for the troops -- and to the troops. As our GIs in Iraq are going through some difficult times, a word of encouragement, spoken with the confidence and resolve of a man's man, are worth their weight in gold. I honestly believe that.
And I honestly believe that the president's challenge -- "Bring 'em on." -- was welcomed with cheers in American military installations around the globe. I bet the soldiers and Marines in Iraq knew exactly what their commander-in-chief meant, and were strengthened and encouraged by his words.
I suspect that morale was substantially improved. Because that's what leadership does. It empowers people and energizes them. It helps them rise to the challenges they face. It is a wonderful thing.
And exactly what our country and our servicemen needed.
We've had a variety of phrases like that in our history. "Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead." "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." "Nuts!"
That's how we talk, that's how we feel, that's how we win.
And it's too bad the Democrats can't see that. It's too bad their desire for partisan advantage is so huge that it blots out their love of country. They based their reaction on who was talking, not on what he was saying.
Sure, sometimes he's a cowboy. But I don't think being a cowboy is a bad thing in America. I think typically it's a good and honorable thing. It's kind of what the American man is supposed to be about. And if President Bush wants to "cowboy up" every now and then, I see that as good news, not bad.
And about these claims that he's a hot head and just blurts things out, I don't believe that for a minute. Because I know people like George Bush, and sometimes I am one. And I know that if "Bring 'em on" is the strongest thing he said about the attacking terrorists, he was biting his tongue. Because there are a few other phrases that describe how the American people and the American GI feel about these attackers. And they all involve either profanity or body parts.
But Uncle Bush is the president and he doesn't swear.
But we know what he meant.
And we agree.
And our troops are going to butcher those murdering Hajis.
So, to quote a great man, bring 'em on.
LOL! Led their men into battle . . . You mean, like, "generals"? Or the heads of state who sat in their tents or on their horse on the far periphery of the battle? What year are we talking here, how many centuries BC?
The only commander in chief I can think of to come close to that in the modern era is George Washington.
The only commander in chief I can think of to come close to that in the modern era is George Washington.
I never used the term "commander in chief." The author compared Bush's remark to those uttered by leaders during battle: "Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead." "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." I hardly think "Bring 'em on" (especially when you consider the source) embodies the essence of bold, fearless leadership the author thinks it does. If Bob Lonsberry seriously thinks we have another General Patton on our hands, he's delusional.
Very practical when you think about it. We are dealing with terrorists who go to great lengths to blend in to the public. bring 'em on! is a taunt. bring 'em on! is a challenge. when the idiot terrorists respond to the taunt, they expose themselves and are targeted, then die.
Looks good to me.
bring 'em on!
You ARE delusional, and appear to think that captains and generals are allowed to utter phrases but presidents are not. Look at Ronald Reagan, who told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" but then ran away to America and left American troops in Germany. Guess he was a big wimp too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.