http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Bring_em_on.html
"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on".
As usual, there are no comments able to clarify these issues, much too hard to do, painted into a corner, the beat goes on....

You are, in your myopic little view of the world, forgeting something....

The president was speaking about what war is the facing of an enemy on the battle field. When we were in Desert Storm, and we heard Hussen speak of "The Mother of All Wars", guess what we (as troops) said in response... "Bring it On!!!"

When the cowardly lion of academia gets up and actively takes the side of the enemy, that is neither "pacifism", nor "freedom of speech", it is Treason! When he calls for the murder of U.S. Military Officers, it is not "an opinion", it is a federal crime!


You can hate Prs. Bush and his words all you want, you can even speak out against him and the war, in both cases, I can respect that. However to sit there and applaud anti U.S. Traitors only shows where your allegiences lie.

Again my allegiance is with truth, not a political party. Excuse me sir, but if your dad was surrounded by lots of people who hate him, would you like it if your dad's immediate boss invited the surrounding people who hate him to attack? To bring it on? Your deflection is better than most I've seen but still isn't correct. What does the first GulfWar have to do with Bush inviting enemies to attack his surrounded men? Your dad's under the gun because his boss tells the enemies with weapons to attack him if they want, and you're only thought is going to be what your dad's previous boss was saying fifteen years earlier? Don't go that route since it's an impossibility. And you know it.

I guess it all depends whether Bush was saying "bring it on" in order to "interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies...", or if he was saying "bring it on" as part of a plan to bring about the destruction of those enemies through the successful application of force of arms.

It has long been a fundamental principle of warfare that the immediate and ultimate goal of anyt military commander is to bring the enemy to decisive battle. Fielding your forces and inviting your avowed enemy to meet them head-on is a classic expression of this principle.

All that's left for you to do, Reiki, is show that rather than promoting the victory of his forces, Bush's purpose in saying this was to bring about their defeat.

I mean, I'm not afraid of a little hypocrisy now and then, but I do like to be intellectually and ideologically consistent whenever reasonably possible. But you've given me nothing to oppose, here, except your own silliness.

Given the tone and topic of this article, can I safely assume that either you don't have a problem with undermining U.S. military efforts (since you freely acknowledge that such undermining does occur on your side of the house), or that you don't have a problem with hypocrisy (since you have not yet taken any time to berate liberal perpetrators of such shenanigans)?

Also, can I safely assume (based on recent experience) that you won't bother replying to this comment?

Bush's intent was not to cause the deaths of Americans. Bush was addressing the gross cowardice of so-called freedom fighters that would rather detonate a bomb from a distance or kill kids on schoolbuses than stand and face an honest war head-on. Like the IRA, and the PLO, and others who have spent more time trying to create terror and a criminal career for themselves instead of really fighting a war, terrorists loathe a face to face fight.

Churchill said that fewer committed officers would put a dent in our efforts in Iraq, and therefore be a "good thing". Spin it however you like, he is actively promoting the failure of his nation's armed forces in the middle of a war. Even our beloved founding fathers who drafted the Constitution that Liberals like to dress themselves in would have hung him in the town square.

Instead of condeming what Churchill said, this guy is blaming Bush for something. You claim to have no political party, but you sound just like a liberal.

Reiki House, it was not my dad that said "Bring it on" at the threat of "The mother of all wars" against us, it was WE WHO WERE THERE!

Prs. Bush wasn't saying, Come kill my troops, he was saying, "Come meet up with our troops... and DIE!"

I guess you just wish someone would assassinate him, then you could feast on his blood like you feast on the blood of dead U.S. Troops.

RH -

"Bring it on" is nothing but Texas-speak for "let them try." You'll recall the President is from Texas. I've tried over the months to persuade myself that you are just a misguided idealist, but I can no longer accept that characterization. You may be truly righteous but you are also truly blinded by your rage. Your blog is well-named.

As for "mission accomplished," the mission the President was referring to in that address had indeed been accomplished. Only the left chose to generalize it to mean something he did not - "War's over, Miller Time!" - then proceeded to repeatedly berate him, even up to this freakin' post, for it. Enough already.

And the feeble effort to equate Churchill's words with the President's is pathetic, quite like all the silliness written just to get the words "Bush" and "Hitler" into the same sentence.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Again my allegiance is with truth

-Which you create.....following your posts,etc... You repeat the same thing...slowly become more and more irrational...take a chill pill.....

Aww RH,

I am honored you would post a article alluding to me. "Shadowy" nice touch.

No offense, but your attempt at factual basis posting falls far short, and your attempt at a personal attack, well lets just say, shows why your are blacklisted.

Here are your personal attacks directed at me(yes I know who it was directed at):

"Dick But No Balls"(How do you know that?? You been peeking??)

"Now, I have to wonder whether the pussman here, who fears mere words with his blacklist fetish, is man enough and moral enough"

"I think there's good reason some blacklist puss' "

"and clearly some people's souls are far too shadowy to want to contemplate" (nice touch there)

I have to say, your attempt at prodding me into responding worked, only to say, I will not resort to vulgar name calling and inuendo's refering to your anatomy, but finally
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Now if someday you want to debate in an adult fashion, let me know.