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

[McGavin999]

For example, any attacks on our troops will be dealt with severely and swiftly. end of sentence

Oh, you mean like what Clinton said each time our troops were bombed? Yeah, that worked.

[RemainCALM]

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".

Right. The Fedeyeen Sadaam and Baathists just shrugged off all those 2000 lb bombs and cruse missles. Everything was going swimmingly, and then the president had to go and taunt them. Now they're REALLY pissed!
It reminds me of a story my father told. As a youth, he got into a fight with a bully. Dad fought hard, but after throwing a punch, he'd say, "sorry!" Then he'd hit the guy again. I asked him, why he felt he needed to apologize in the middle of a fight. He said that he really didn't know, but he guessed that he just "didn't want to piss the guy off."

[TheDon]

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that the Demorats didn't like something about President Bush!

[VOA]

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.

Being culturally Oklahoman-Texan, when I heard Dubya's comment, I said
"finally he's gotten around to what I've been saying!".

When Iraq fell so quickly, I was happy and neverous...thinking that
"this is not good...there should be a LOT more dead Saddam-ites in the desert and streets".

You're probably right about the potential of Demos cashing in on this if things
go badly.
Conversely, I think when the body-count of Saddam-ite insurgents starts piling up
(e.g., all 11 killed in an attack a day or two ago), Dubya will look like
a genius who taunted them into coming into the open where they can be killed.

Hopefully to the last dastardly one.

[TN4Liberty]

I guess these "taunts" also cause the Moscow concert to be bombed.

Maybe "Please, Mr. Iraqi, don't hurt us!" would have been better.

Fact is we are taking down far more bad guys than we are losing. I hurt for every individual who is killed or wounded. But we as a nation and a military must not be afraid of our enemies. I think Bush's comment meant, "No matter what you do, we will win." Only someone with an agenda would hear anything else.

[William McKinley]

I am sure that if Bush had said nothing, no further attacks would have happened.

Am I now qualified for a job in the media?

[mel]

I would say there is quite a bit of difference in 42 and 43, don't you see the difference in the two people. That doesn't make any sense.
We are not in Iraq, I think action and not words such as taunting will make a much bigger impact on the terrorists there. A simple statement followed with action is all that is necessary. This is not the time for bravado. After all it is easy for one to speak those words when he surrounded by tight security 24/7. I don't have to agree with what Bush says 100% of the time.

[McGavin999]

WE know the difference between 42 and 43, but the terrorists just know they're dealing with the US president. Uttering those code words would be a sign of weakness. Over the years we've threatened and nothing has happened.

Besides, there's a method to what we're doing in Iraq. We're not just fighting Iraqis there, there are foreign terrorists coming into that country at an incredible rate. We're fighting Al Qaeda, can't you see the difference in how they are fighting?

[mel]

Simply uttering the words yes would be a continuation of old 42's tuck your tail and run tactics, however, I am not one to mince words here, action speaks louder than words. And I believe that Bush chose not the greatest words, but that is simply my humble opinion. But, thank goodness I can say that about the President on a public forum and not constantly have to be looking over my back for a bullet like so many of the Iraqis had to do in the Hussein regime.

[new cruelty]

I think action and not words such as taunting will make a much bigger impact on the terrorists there. A simple statement followed with action is all that is necessary. This is not the time for bravado. After all it is easy for one to speak those words when he surrounded by tight security 24/7.

One cannot get a much more simple yet powerful statement than 'Bring 'em on'. And, while we are not privy to the inner workings of this war on terror, it would seem that indeed, action is being taken. So, you are left with your displeasure with the apparent bravado such a statement conveys and your posturing- 'after all, it is easy for one to speak those words when surrounded by tight security 24/7'. I too don't have to agree with what Bush says 100% of the time, but in this case, I'll take 'Bring 'em on'.

[mel]

Have you served in the military, do you have family who are risking giving all for this country?

[new cruelty]

No, I have never served in the military. Yes, I have several family memebers (12 in all) who are 'risking, giving' all for this country.

[squidly]

I failed to see anything in the article that backed up the headline. Anyhow, Dubya said the right thing and I know the military appreciates it (speaking as a vet).

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thank your family members. Are they wondering why the press consistently misrepresents their efforts in Iraq? Why reporters hype the bad while ignoring the good works and bad guys WE round up? Why the AMERICAN press is playing pro-Saddam propaganda while ignoring the decades of rape, torture, mass-murder of the Iraqi people by Saddam and his dead-ender defenders (who WE are never, ever going to let rule Iraq again)? Are they furious, too, that the press keeps implying that our troops are 'victims' - useful dupes - rather than our best and brightest - honorable patriots, by hyping each casualty in a nation of 24 million Iraqis w/ over 146,000 troops? Why they neglect to mention that our troops are successfully conducting major operations to root out serious bad guys across a nation the size of California?

Are they wondering why the folks back home don't know what an awesome job they're doing in Iraq?

Two months of dishonest reporting is effecting troop morale - AND aiding the ENEMY. The PRESS endangers our troops by promoting anti-American sentiment around the world with their daily dishonest war coverage - and by their habitual, petty, partisan attacks on our honorable CIC.

VOICES OF FREEDOM
Quotes from the grateful Iraqi people. Y

“The Americans liberated the Iraqi people from a despotic regime from which they suffered a lot. The Iraqi people could not change that regime with their own hands or overthrow it with their available means. The Americans came and solved this problem quickly and easily and in a way that gladdened the Iraqis.”
~ Baghdad Al-Balat, an Iraqi newspaper, 6/18/03

[new cruelty]

While I am sure they would agree with you regarding misrepresentation in the media and petty, partisan attacks on our CIC, I do no think they are furious- for now, as they are focused on their jobs.

[risk]

>>>> You guys should go for the more tougher, "ondoreya nani wo sarashitte kittsukano ja, ware!"

Can you break the meaning of that down for us?