Hey, Mason Malmuth? BRING IT ON ! Right here, on this website!

[Cyrus]

Translation :

Hey, Mason Malmuth? GREAT JOB! Right here, on this website!

...Yes, that's what the brightest ever American President claims now that he meant. So I'm adopting the new, official version of it.

I'll let Dubya elaborate. Read on.

CNN Report : President acknowledges that "sometimes words have consequences" (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.regrets.ap/index.html)

<font color="white"> . </font>

[Toro]

Even his wife thinks he's a tool.

[zaxx19]

Ya, your right. Too bad tens of millions of voters didnt agree....4 more yrs-4 more yrs-4 more yrs.

Seriously, though, if I thought more than half of Americans were complete morons, that the president was an evil imperialist puppet controlled by a cabal of evil corporate interests, that our country was being sucked into the next Vietnam,...etc etc Id probably exercise my right as a free person to leave the country. Whats funny is that so few Liberals are. Begs a question doesnt it....

[arabie]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, though, if I thought more than half of Americans were complete morons...

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Sklansky say 95% were morons? I think this is giving too many people undeserved credit. For every person in this world that you truly respect and think is very intellectual, how many do you think otherwise?
IMO, out of every 100 i meet, read or listen to, i definitely don't find 5 that i respect, let alone 50.

An example, for those who disregard religion as an intellecual endeavor, over 99% of americans believe in a god-fearing religion.

[zaxx19]

He also said a typical MIT undergrad in Physics should be considered more intelligent than Bach. After such an acinine comment I pretty much took his takes on intelligence as campy dork humor and nothing more

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't Sklansky say 95% were morons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so but if he had he would have been incorrect. A moron is defined as having an IQ of between 50 and 69. Thus only about 10% of the earths population would truly qualify as a moron.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't Sklansky say 95% were morons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so but if he had he would have been incorrect. A moron is defined as having an IQ of between 50 and 69. Thus only about 10% of the earths population would truly qualify as a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]nice.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
4 more yrs-4 more yrs-4 more yrs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are trying to out-moron your President, forget it, he's a pro.

This is not about the election. It's over, he won it. This is simply about one more Dubya howler.

The man stepped in front of the TV mikes one year ago and challenged the Iraqi insurgents to "BRING IT ON!" A year later, with more than a thousand Yanks killed and an insurrection in full swing, the man should be apologizing -- for being arrogant and careless. He'd have won political brownie points, too, for that.

But, no, he chooses some pathetic misdirection: BRING IT ON means GREAT JOB.

[MMMMMM]

Bush probably would have done better to have spoken more softly and to have carried a bigger stick--and should long ago have thoroughly whacked Fallujah, Mosul, al-Sadr City, and most of the Sunni Triangle with it.

[cardcounter0]

"But, no, he chooses some pathetic misdirection: BRING IT ON means GREAT JOB."

Since the American People have eaten, with big smiles on their faces, every lie and misdirection to come from this Administration why shouldn't Bush stay the course?

I'm surprised Bush even addressed the issue, must have been a slow day or something.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Even his wife thinks he's a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

link????

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Even his wife thinks he's a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard that Laura sticks with the buffoon because Bush has a tool, not because he is a tool.

OK, he is that too - but check out Laura's satisfied smile! Day in and day out.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush probably would have done better to have spoken more softly and to have carried a bigger stick--and should long ago have thoroughly whacked Fallujah, Mosul, al-Sadr City, and most of the Sunni Triangle with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been, at least, my personal experience that the more a person boasts about something, the less that person is confident about that something and their ability to achieve it.

As to your wish that more men, women and children should have died (whacked), it is no more than a vampirist thirst for blood.

You feed on the blood of those people as a substitute for victory - which you know is eluding you.

The smell of napalm in the morning, then, the smell of blood in the morning, now.

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
The man stepped in front of the TV mikes one year ago and challenged the Iraqi insurgents to "BRING IT ON!" A year later, with more than a thousand Yanks killed and an insurrection in full swing, the man should be apologizing -- for being arrogant and careless. He'd have won political brownie points, too, for that.

But, no, he chooses some pathetic misdirection: BRING IT ON means GREAT JOB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooo, 1000 killed in Iraq during the past year. Not all by the enemy, even. How many people killed in Detroit alone during that time?

Yeah, it was a silly statement on his part, but maybe there was a purposeful intent behind it that didn't go as planned. Either way, Iraq isn't exactly a deathfield as far as wars are concerned. And that insurrection is so bad that I see them having free elections for the first time now. Women are running for office, even! Crazy!

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
1000 killed in Iraq during the past year. How many people killed in Detroit alone during that time?

[/ QUOTE ] Right. So this means nobody should be complaining then.


[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there was a purposeful intent behind [the BRING IT ON] that didn't go as planned.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't know what else that message could possibly intend to say other than I CHALLENGE YOU TO A FIGHT IF YOU DARE TO!

And, as messages go, that one was obviously received loud and clear -- and the challenge accepted. (Thanks, Dub.)


[ QUOTE ]
Iraq isn't exactly a deathfield as far as wars are concerned.

[/ QUOTE ] As wars go (and as far as American casualties are concerned), yeah, no deathfield.

But as far as occupations go, it's a disaster : [ QUOTE ]
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/18/iraq/index.html) On Monday the 17th, insurgents killed at least 14 members of the Iraqi security forces and one civilian in attacks on checkpoints in two cities, Baquba and Tikrit. Three U.S. soldiers were killed Monday "while conducting security and stability operations in the Al Anbar Province," statements from the Combined Press Information Center said. Monday's deaths bring to 1,369 the number of American troops killed in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Free elections for the first time now. Women are running for office, even.

[/ QUOTE ] If you think that women during Saddam Hussein's reign did not have the power to vote or apppointed in office, you are mistaken. Local and municipal elections (without political parties, though) have been the order of the day, in both Libya and Iraq, for decades. Neither state ever followed religious law. Didn't you know this?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
probably exercise my right as a free person to leave the country. Whats funny is that so few Liberals are. Begs a question doesnt it....

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they have the backbone and will to stay and fight to change the described situation in the country they love.

[MMMMMM]

The insurgent areas which were not truly conquered during the war, probably should have been defeated soon after the war. That is all I am saying. Allowing them to continue the insurgency from these areas largely unchecked enabled the insurgents to gain strength.

The people must feel defeated in war else they will fight again (look at Germany after WWI; it never felt defeated after that war, so it rebuilt unrepentant and unconvinced and that eventually led to WWII). Since our army could not enter from Turkey, the area north of Baghdad escaped much of the force of the invasion, thus they never felt defeated in the least. No wonder they were hanging American soldiers from the bridge in Fallujah. If we had swept down through Fallujah from the north on the first pass, the bridge incident probably would never have happened. Turkey cost us a lot by changing their minds at the last minute; the most belligerent parts of Iraq escaped the force and thunder of the US military during the invasion. Those were however the parts that most needed to be subdued.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Since our army could not enter from Turkey, the area north of Baghdad escaped much of the force of the invasion, thus they never felt defeated in the least. No wonder they were hanging American soldiers from the bridge in Fallujah. If we had swept down through Fallujah from the north on the first pass, the bridge incident probably would never have happened. Turkey cost us a lot by changing their minds at the last minute; the most belligerent parts of Iraq escaped the force and thunder of the US military during the invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The South was taken by straightforward thrusts of the bulk of the US armed forces, while the North was taken essentially by the Kurds - plus American special forces. There was nothing that happened in the North, as events unfolded, that was detrimental to the war's outcome - nothing! In fact, things went much better than expected, as the Pentagon stated. The US did not expect to take the North so quickly.

Now here's the hard part to swallow: The Turkish refusal to allow US forces to pass through played no part in the existence today of such a strong Iraqi insurgency. The main culprit is the American idiotic decision (taken against the military planners' suggestions!) to disband the Iraqi army, close down the Iraqi police and go after Ba'ath Party smalltimers. The Americans sent everybody home -- out of work, bearing a grudge, and armed. A recipe for disaster.

So, if you wanna look for guilty parties, look in the White House -- Oval Office way.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
Women are running for office, even! Crazy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Women have been involved in public office for many years in Iraq. In the sense of women's rights Iraq was by far the most progressive of the middle eastern states.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Women are running for office, even! Crazy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Women have been involved in public office for many years in Iraq. In the sense of women's rights Iraq was by far the most progressive of the middle eastern states.

[/ QUOTE ]


Of course that was contingent on whether or not they avoided being taken to a rape room or being summarily executed for some minor offense against the Ba'athist party committed by them or one of their family members. But other than that it was great.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
Ya, your right. Too bad tens of millions of voters didnt agree....4 more yrs-4 more yrs-4 more yrs.

Seriously, though, if I thought more than half of Americans were complete morons, that the president was an evil imperialist puppet controlled by a cabal of evil corporate interests, that our country was being sucked into the next Vietnam,...etc etc Id probably exercise my right as a free person to leave the country. Whats funny is that so few Liberals are. Begs a question doesnt it....

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. Something like "liberals have no stake in the survival of the United States," or "liberals are not patriots," etc. "Question begging" means something different than you think it does.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even his wife thinks he's a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

link????

[/ QUOTE ]

It's in the initial article.

"Recalling that remark, Bush told the reporters: "I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura said, 'Why did you do that for?' I said, 'Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it.'

Also notice the always-stellar grammar; 'Why did you do that for?'. Ah, to be so stupid yet so powerful....

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
In the sense of women's rights Iraq was by far the most progressive of the middle eastern states.

Of course that was contingent on whether or not they avoided being taken to a rape room or being summarily executed for some minor offense against the Ba'athist party committed by them or one of their family members.

[/ QUOTE ]

The women faced the same things that men did, in Saddam's Iraq.

That's the point. Kenrick claimed that, in the coming elections, Iraqi women will get involved for the first time ever in Iraqi politics -- which was absolutely incorrect.

Whatever Saddam Hussein was doing to the Iraqis (and one has to admit that, like all dictators, he also did a number of good things), there was no sex discrimination in it - for better or worse.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
The women faced the same things that men did, in Saddam's Iraq.

That's the point. Kenrick claimed that, in the coming elections, Iraqi women will get involved for the first time ever in Iraqi politics -- which was absolutely incorrect.

Whatever Saddam Hussein was doing to the Iraqis (and one has to admit that, like all dictators, he also did a number of good things), there was no sex discrimination in it - for better or worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats the point of "admitting" that Saddaam did good things?
If I punch you in the face, breaking your nose and knocking out a few teeth, are you obliged to admit what a nice guy I was for helping you up after the fact? Thats just a complete non-sequitir. Kudos to you for picking apart a technicality and ignoring the larger fact of the argument, that Iraq will have elections, something they havent had in a very long time.

[nicky g]

It's not about admitting Saddam did good things. It's about not incorrectly giving credit for everythign we see as positive in the current Iraq to the invasion and not perpetuating stereotypes where they aren't appropriate. Someone said the invasion meant women could hold political posts for the first time, someone else pointed out that isn;t true. What's the problem with that? Maybe we should thank the invaders for introducing the wheel and teaching Iraqis how to read too. It may not be true, but that's a minor technical quibble.

[Victor]

Women in Saddam's Iraq enjoyed many other freedoms that the other middle eastern Islamic societies did not allow. This included higher education and business opportunities. They were even allowed to drive and appear in public withoug a male and with their faces exposed.

The Iraqi elections and ensuing constitution will most likely yield an Islamic based society that will curtail at least some of these women's rights. Furthermore, it will allow for a more fundamentalist approach to Islamic based women's rights in the future.

Also, in certain pockets of Iraq women will be forced into a suppressed role like in fundamentalist islamic societies due to the lack of a strong central government that will not exist for some time.

Vultures, I am only stating the situation and not trying to justify or vindicate our old friend sadaam.

[vulturesrow]

...(with apologies to Gilbert, Sullivan, and Carte)

[ QUOTE ]
The main culprit is the American idiotic decision (taken against the military planners' suggestions!) to disband the Iraqi army, close down the Iraqi police and go after Ba'ath Party smalltimers. The Americans sent everybody home -- out of work, bearing a grudge, and armed. A recipe for disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely flawed thinking. First, there is no way for anyone to say with any degree of certainty if keeping the Army (at least what was left) or police intact, , would've made any bit of difference. You cant ignore the very real dangers of leaving Saddam/Ba'athist loyalists in positions of power. Look what happened the first go around in Fallujah where we gave the Iraqi leaders of that city the opportunity to clean it up. Whose to say that wouldnt have happened throughout Iraq. It was also a symbolic move that was intended to assure the people of Iraq, esp the Kurds and Shiites, that it wouldnt be business as usual. So it was a tough choice and its really not possible to say that the wrong choice was made.

So, Cyrus, do you know the croaking chorus of the Frogs of Aristophanes?

[Cyrus]

Stop pestering me, I'm only copying what the American brass has been, for months now, saying: That it was wrong to do what the American armed forces did in Iraq when they over-run Saddam's regime. They should NOT have disbanded the army, the police and the other instruments of Iraqi state order.

I'm not saying that. Put it differently, I'm not the only one saying that. Fanatically pro-war people are saying that!


[ QUOTE ]
It was also a symbolic move that was intended to assure the people of Iraq, esp the Kurds and Shiites, that it wouldnt be business as usual

[/ QUOTE ]

Never mind "best intentions". The Bush administration and its chickenhawk "warlords" (call me Donald) were warned very explicitly about the dangers of causing chaos in Iraq. The U.S. Army War College, for instance, was adamant about not even hurting the electric power infrastructure with bombing runs.

But, no, the ideologically-driven "war masters" (hah!) only had time for good and re-assuring news. Such as the "guarantees" of Iraqi exiles that the people of Iraq would welcome with enthusiasm the Americans and that within a few months the Iraqis would have re-built a fully self-administered country.

The honest and decent thing to do, faced with the overwhelming evidence and testimony that the "demobilisation" was a serious blunder, would be to admit as much.

[Laughingboy]

1000 dead is not something to trivialize, but even if it were, the low numbers are more a result of advanced medicine than lower violence. If you look at the CASUALTY numbers, we've had more than the first 2 years of any other war besides the Civil War. We just have more cripples coming home this time.

[JoeC]

This is the height of political discourse.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Also notice the always-stellar grammar; 'Why did you do that for?'. Ah, to be so stupid yet so powerful....

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a pretty stupid comment itself. that's all.

[theBruiser500]

"'Bring 'em on' is the classic example,"

His English is terrible, this would sound so much better if he said "Bring 'em on is a classic example," or "Bring 'em on is a good example of this."

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush probably would have done better to have spoken more softly and to have carried a bigger stick--and should long ago have thoroughly whacked Fallujah, Mosul, al-Sadr City, and most of the Sunni Triangle with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hear! Hear! For genocide! A foreign population doesn't like you, or your invading occupying army, or particularly mind if some extremists attack from all directions? we could steer clear and leave them to their own sad ways. or, a much better idea, we'll teach them to like us with continuous aerial bombing and large scale depopulation--and keep teaching until those are the only ones left if we have to. as long as we get "elections", and "democracy", so we can get a new Iran, or Saudi Arabia, instead of Afghanistan--oh, wait, no, it's going to be a new Germany, right? Bravo to the morons. those Shiite clerics, they feel a deep warmth in their hearts for the U-S-A, are just burning for the chance become the next UK-style lapdog, I'm sure. Did you know they have elections in Iran too? Except Iran doesn't have a divided mutually antagonistic population. But it'll all be fine as long as some ballots get counted. That'll calm everyone down (including Turkey and Israel, no doubt). Once again, to the morons! it's amazing how consistently

in addition to depopulating cities and aerial bombardment, now we also get to be involved in widespread torture. but no one got their heads cut off, they were only sexually humiliated (try that on for size)--so we're not the bad guys, right? it's all the same mentality: no holds barred when they're all "terrorists" or, amounting to the same, terrorist sympathizers. they're all terrorists or insurgents, because if they didn't actually attack Americans, they wish they would have, or they don't mind at all that someone else did. so now all we have to do is...uh....yeah...uh...well...kill them all? this is a tragic and horrifying course and it's hard to imagine any way to get out of it.

[MMMMMM]

Fine rant there, mosta.

It's not genocide because we are going after the terrorists and violent fanatics, not the average Iraqi or Muslim.

KILL THE TERRORISTS (before they kill more innocents)

KILL THE SADDAMITES (before they kill more innocent Iraqis who want only to vote and have some say in self-determination)

KILL THE VIOLENT FANATIC MORONS (before they blow themselves up along with a bunch of innocents too)

That's what should be done to help bring peace and progress and human rights to the region, and to give the ordinary Iraqi some chance at self-determination (which ought to be the birthright of every human being on the planet).

The Saddamites, the violent fanatics jihadists, and the terrorists: are all opposed to human rights. Today or yesterday Zarqawi called democracy "evil" and said anyone who voted would be an "infidel" and would be worshiping "demi-idols". His view of how the world should be ruled is by the Koran, by Sharia--not by laws made by men.

KILL THE LUNATIC PSYCHOPATH ZARQAWI AND HIS FOLLOWERS, TOO--before they savagely kill countless more innocent Iraqis and foreign nationals.

Then, maybe peace and human rights--and the self-determination of Iraqis--will have a chance in Iraq.

Now go ahead and rant again if you care to.

[dcoles11]

maybe you and Sklansky and the other 5 people on earth you respect should get a room together while the rest of us "morons" hang out with the women. You guys can do algebra and give each other hand jobs in respect for one another.

[dcoles11]

please make more post, we need intelligent people like you to drownd out the not so informed.

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
1000 dead is not something to trivialize, but even if it were, the low numbers are more a result of advanced medicine than lower violence. If you look at the CASUALTY numbers, we've had more than the first 2 years of any other war besides the Civil War. We just have more cripples coming home this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't to trivialize. It was to put in perspective since so many people apparently think 1000 deaths during a war is a high number. My father was in the Marines for 20 years with two tours of Vietnam, and my brother was in for five. I do not trivialize anything that has to do with the armed forces.