Iraq attacks linked to Bush taunts

The Australian ^ | July 5, 2003 | Roy Eccleston

[demlosers]

AT least 19 American soldiers were wounded in an attack on a US base in Iraq yesterday, and another US soldier was killed in an assault on his convoy in Baghdad.

News of the twin attacks brought a sombre start to American Independence Day activities for the 150,000 US troops stationed in Iraq.

The blows came as the US offered multi-million-dollar rewards for Saddam Hussein and his sons, and aides to George W. Bush countered claims the President had encouraged attacks on allied troops by his taunt to Hussein loyalists: "Bring 'em on".

The decision to offer rewards – $US25 million ($36 million) for the dictator and $US15 million for his sons Uday and Qusay – is more evidence of an about-face by a US administration that two months ago had dismissed Hussein's whereabouts as unimportant.

"I think it matters not what happened to him," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said in early May. "I really don't put much stake in what did or did not happen to Saddam."

But the US now believes the failure to account for Hussein – twice targeted by missiles in the war – has encouraged his loyalists who are attacking US soldiers and spreading fear among ordinary Iraqis who dread his return.

In the latest attacks, one US soldier was shot and killed in Baghdad on Thursday night, while 19 others were wounded in a mortar attack near the town of Balad, north of Baghdad.

The US believes Hussein is probably still alive, somewhere in Iraq. The price on his head matches that on al-Qa'ida leader Osama bin Laden, who remains at large.

"We believe it's important to do everything we can to determine his whereabouts, whether he is alive or dead, in order to assist in stabilising the situation and letting the people of Baghdad be absolutely sure that he's not coming back," US Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday.

Mr Bush is facing sharp criticism from Democrats over his taunt to the Hussein loyalists and others who have killed at least 26 US soldiers, and injured many more, since the US declared major combat over on May 1.

In keeping with his penchant for cowboy rhetoric, Mr Bush said on Wednesday that there were some in Iraq who felt the conditions allowed them to attack US troops there.

"My answer is: Bring 'em on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."

In fact, many Washington analysts claim the US troops' strength of about 150,000 is too low – and Democrats immediately claimed Mr Bush had egged on Iraqi killers to take more pot-shots at US troops.

Democrat senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey said he had served in the army in World War II and "I never heard any military commander – never mind the commander-in-chief – invite enemies to attack US troops".

"The deteriorating situation in Iraq requires less swagger and more thoughtfulness and statesmanship," said senator John Kerry, a Democrat hoping to challenge Mr Bush for the presidency next year.

However Mr Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer denied the President had encouraged attacks, and portrayed them as a mark of confidence in the military.

"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," he said.

The Australian

[Galtoid]

Bush probably shouldn't have engaged in such rhetoric. I think those few words will come back to haunt him if more troops continue to be killed. The Dems are delighted about this.

[BullDog108]

KAKKATE KOI!

[nwrep]

KAKKATE KOI, BABY!!

[alnick]

Hogwash! The idea that this would not have happened had Bush not uttered those words is ridiculous.

[Dusty Rose]

Bush is a straight-talker. He also wants Osama "Dead or Alive." If Dems gleefully delight over these remarks, it will only serve to show them up as "weak on defense." IMO our President's remarks demonstrate confidence in our troops to handle whatever is thrown our way. Personally I prefer a President to call it how he sees it, rather than one who speaks in a guarded and scripted way, according to how the polls read.

[new cruelty]

[mystery-ak]

Exactly, couldn't agree more...the time for dipolmacy and statesmansip is over...

[TomGuy]

Hogwash! The idea that this would not have happened had Bush not uttered those words is ridiculous.

What??!!??
Didn't you get the morning DNC Talkingpoints Memo???
Terry McAuliffe is on this like a fly on, uhhh, dogduty.
Maybe you just misplaced your memo.

lol

[rabidralph]

the paper is an opportunistic piece of garbage. Our people were getting killed regardless. Of course, the dems will say that his speech is causing more deaths. Death to all liberals! Now, sit back and see how many actually get killed.

[mel]

There are other words that are just as strong and bold. For example, any attacks on our troops will be dealt with severely and swiftly. end of sentence

[AdvisorB]

I think the RATS are just looking for any issue that will
jump start their flagging campaigns. Attacking the
President on national security and defense hasn't
worked for the hapless RATS, and I doubt it will ever
work for them. Blaming attacks on our troops by Iraqi bathists, on this President's rhetoric is rather absurd.
We've heard all this before from the left. They always
blame America and American Presidents for everything.
Remember how they blamed America, saying that American
rhetoric and actions had pushed castro over into the
communist camp? Castro we all know, was a budding
bolshevik and anti-American back in his youthful days
in college. Likewise, the remnants of the fedayeen saddam,
bathist supporters, and republican guard malcontents are
going to carry on against us no matter what the President
says or doesn't say.

[Dusty Rose]

They blame American Presidents for everything, except if he is one of their own, like Clinton.

[DaBroasta]

Democrat senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey said he had served in the army in World War II and "I never heard any military commander – never mind the commander-in-chief – invite enemies to attack US troops".

Apparently the Laut spent most of his time pulling duty as camp latrine queen. Good thing Private Lautenberg didn't serve under George Patton.

[struggle]

why are people here using the japanese "kakkete koi" here? pretty funny. You guys should go for the more tougher, "ondoreya nani wo sarashitte kittsukano ja, ware!" its yakuza talk and goes a longer way than "kakatte koi!"

[BullDog108]

'cause it is easier to shout!

[mewzilla]

Click here for a FR thread that had the NY Daily News's (of all papers) take on this subject. Worth the read. For once.

[new cruelty]

'Severely and swiftly' doesn't carry the same weight as 'Bring 'em on' or even 'Let's roll'. President Theodore Roosevelt caught flack for making similar bold comments, including 'Speak softly and carry a big stick'.