Bush regrets "Bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi insurgents

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush has admitted that his bellicose "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi insurgents was a big mistake, as he and Prime Minister Tony Blair carefully avoided setting a timetable for removing troops from Iraq.

Meeting at a time when a new Iraqi unity government offers the promise of a way out of an unpopular war that has damaged their standings at home, Bush and Blair were remarkably reflective on some of the grievous mistakes that critics say has intensified anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.

At a joint news conference with Blair, after three years of war that has killed more than 2,400 Americans and thousands of Iraqis, Bush was asked what mistake he most regretted.

The Texan said that he regretted saying "bring 'em on" when responding in July 2003 to a question about the Iraqi insurgency.

On Thursday, Bush said the remark was "kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong message to people."

"I learnt some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know. "Wanted, dead or alive"; that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted," he said.

He also cited the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal as "the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq ... We've been paying for that for a long period of time," he said.

Blair said the effort to rid Iraq's army of members of Saddam Hussein's Baathists -- a process called "de-Baathification -- could have been done better.

"I think it's easy to go back over mistakes that we may have made. But the biggest reason why Iraq has been difficult is the determination by our opponents to defeat us. And I don't think we should be surprised at that," Blair said.

PRIME MINISTER'S GOAL

The two leaders are under pressure at home to show progress in Iraq so they can start withdrawing their forces. There are now about 132,000 U.S. troops and 8,000 British troops in the chaotic country.

Blair said he believed it was possible to meet new Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's goal of having Iraqi security forces in control of all of Iraq by the end of 2007.

"Listen, I want our troops out -- don't get me wrong," said Bush. "But I also understand that it is vital that we do the job, that we complete the mission."

He said he would consult with his military commanders in Iraq about the security situation, as well as with the new Iraqi government about its needs and that any decision would be made based on the conditions on the ground.

Blair said that "Inevitably, over time, we have to transfer responsibility" because it will be easier for an Iraqi interior minister "who is the product of an Iraqi-elected government to go in and take the really tough measures sometimes that is necessary to sort some of these issues out."

But as for now, he said, "This directly elected Iraqi government has said they want us to stay until the job is done."

Both leaders acknowledged the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 had been divisive, but agreed it was time to look to the future now that the Iraqis had gone to the polls and freely elected a new government.

"It is our duty, but it is also the duty of the whole international community to get behind this government and support it," Blair said.

In Baghdad, gunmen shot and seriously wounded a senior Defence Ministry official, in what appeared to be part of a campaign to target top figures in Iraq's U.S.-backed administration. It was a reminder of the uphill struggle Maliki faces.

The new prime minister, in an interview with Arabiya television, said there was no reason for the array of armed gangs and militias in Iraq, now that the country had an elected government. He said the real problem for the government was the armed gangs, rather than the organised militias.

[aussiewench 9]

[Mirorgate 0]

just cause it cant be said enough

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

[*Robert* 2]

followed by....

Ya think?!!!

[ual777 0]

With all due respect, as a former Marine with many friends serving in Iraq, I can confidantly say that U.S. forces consistantly beat the pants off of insurgents in any open engagement. The problem now, is that the only way the insurgents fight is through IEDs and land mines. They hide behind women and children to accomplish their goals. If they grew a pair, instead of killing more civilians than military members, then they would be cut to ribbons.

BTW, under the Geneva Convention and the governing rules of war, these terrorists are NOT entitled to any safe harbor. Technically, coalition forces could have a military trail and execution on the spot, but we are too nice for that.

I apologize for the bluntness of my post, and its not intended to be a 'justify the war in Iraq' debate, Im just posting to show what kind of scum these guys are. I lost a good friend in Iraq when he was there for only 2 weeks (God rest his soul), and I feel strongly on the issue. If the U.S. wants to put down the insurgents we have to play hardball.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

With all due respect, as a former Marine with many friends serving in Iraq, I can confidantly say that U.S. forces consistantly beat the pants off of insurgents in any open engagement. The problem now, is that the only way the insurgents fight is through IEDs and land mines. They hide behind women and children to accomplish their goals. If they grew a pair, instead of killing more civilians than military members, then they would be cut to ribbons.

BTW, under the Geneva Convention and the governing rules of war, these terrorists are NOT entitled to any safe harbor. Technically, coalition forces could have a military trail and execution on the spot, but we are too nice for that.

I apologize for the bluntness of my post, and its not intended to be a 'justify the war in Iraq' debate, Im just posting to show what kind of scum these guys are. I lost a good friend in Iraq when he was there for only 2 weeks (God rest his soul), and I feel strongly on the issue. If the U.S. wants to put down the insurgents we have to play hardball.

Exactly who are the "insurgents" though?

Al Qaeda jihadists

Foreign mercenaries

Ex-Baathist party soldiers / republican guard

Civilians with an axe to grind

I can sympathise with you - but I think the US should not be in Iraq. No war, no death = no problem.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

With all due respect, as a former Marine with many friends serving in Iraq, I can confidantly say that U.S. forces consistantly beat the pants off of insurgents in any open engagement. The problem now, is that the only way the insurgents fight is through IEDs and land mines. They hide behind women and children to accomplish their goals. If they grew a pair, instead of killing more civilians than military members, then they would be cut to ribbons.

BTW, under the Geneva Convention and the governing rules of war, these terrorists are NOT entitled to any safe harbor. Technically, coalition forces could have a military trail and execution on the spot, but we are too nice for that.

I apologize for the bluntness of my post, and its not intended to be a 'justify the war in Iraq' debate, Im just posting to show what kind of scum these guys are. I lost a good friend in Iraq when he was there for only 2 weeks (God rest his soul), and I feel strongly on the issue. If the U.S. wants to put down the insurgents we have to play hardball.

Errr.... this thread is about the troops' Commander-in-Chief regretting his ill-considered remarks, which ended up having the disasterous effect of making those troops' jobs even harder.

Perhaps your sentiment would be more pertinent in this thread :

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15376

Edited May 27, 2006 by wife_of_mahmoud

[ual777 0]

With all due respect, as a former Marine with many friends serving in Iraq, I can confidantly say that U.S. forces consistantly beat the pants off of insurgents in any open engagement. The problem now, is that the only way the insurgents fight is through IEDs and land mines. They hide behind women and children to accomplish their goals. If they grew a pair, instead of killing more civilians than military members, then they would be cut to ribbons.

BTW, under the Geneva Convention and the governing rules of war, these terrorists are NOT entitled to any safe harbor. Technically, coalition forces could have a military trail and execution on the spot, but we are too nice for that.

I apologize for the bluntness of my post, and its not intended to be a 'justify the war in Iraq' debate, Im just posting to show what kind of scum these guys are. I lost a good friend in Iraq when he was there for only 2 weeks (God rest his soul), and I feel strongly on the issue. If the U.S. wants to put down the insurgents we have to play hardball.

Errr.... this thread is about the troops' Commander-in-Chief regretting his ill-considered remarks, which ended up having the disasterous effect of making those troops' jobs even harder.

Perhaps your sentiment would be more pertinent in this thread :

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15376

You are missing the point. My post IS relevent because it has to do with the 'bring it on' statement. When they DO 'bring it on' they get destroyed. When they hide behind women and children, they inflict casualties. Oh, and BTW, insurgants and secretarian violence have killed more Iraqi civilians than the U.S.

If it was up to me, I think we should pull out. Im tired of my country playing policeman of the world. If we are going to go to war, go to war. If we aren't, dont. In order for the U.S. to win this war, they need to increase troop numbers, and crack down in Iraq. Make examples, and work with a heavy hand. Then, as soon as the Iraqi government is truly able to sustain itself; get the h*ll out.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Oh, and BTW, insurgants and secretarian violence have killed more Iraqi civilians than the U.S.

Well, how convenient to forget that both would appear to be a direct result of the US invasion...

[almaty 19]

bush is a lying chopf##k ..and by the way, where are those wmds?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"Listen, I want our troops out -- don't get me wrong," said Bush. "But I also understand that it is vital that we do the job, that we complete the mission."

I thought we did that on May 2, 2003 - three some odd years ago...

Does he regret this one, too?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

With all due respect, as a former Marine with many friends serving in Iraq, I can confidantly say that U.S. forces consistantly beat the pants off of insurgents in any open engagement. The problem now, is that the only way the insurgents fight is through IEDs and land mines. They hide behind women and children to accomplish their goals. If they grew a pair, instead of killing more civilians than military members, then they would be cut to ribbons.

BTW, under the Geneva Convention and the governing rules of war, these terrorists are NOT entitled to any safe harbor. Technically, coalition forces could have a military trail and execution on the spot, but we are too nice for that.

I apologize for the bluntness of my post, and its not intended to be a 'justify the war in Iraq' debate, Im just posting to show what kind of scum these guys are. I lost a good friend in Iraq when he was there for only 2 weeks (God rest his soul), and I feel strongly on the issue. If the U.S. wants to put down the insurgents we have to play hardball.

We need more people like you. Thanks. Keep that head out of the sand!!!!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

With all due respect, as a former Marine with many friends serving in Iraq, I can confidantly say that U.S. forces consistantly beat the pants off of insurgents in any open engagement. The problem now, is that the only way the insurgents fight is through IEDs and land mines. They hide behind women and children to accomplish their goals. If they grew a pair, instead of killing more civilians than military members, then they would be cut to ribbons.

BTW, under the Geneva Convention and the governing rules of war, these terrorists are NOT entitled to any safe harbor. Technically, coalition forces could have a military trail and execution on the spot, but we are too nice for that.

I apologize for the bluntness of my post, and its not intended to be a 'justify the war in Iraq' debate, Im just posting to show what kind of scum these guys are. I lost a good friend in Iraq when he was there for only 2 weeks (God rest his soul), and I feel strongly on the issue. If the U.S. wants to put down the insurgents we have to play hardball.

We need more people like you. Thanks. Keep that head out of the sand!!!!!

Calling the grave and dangerous nonsense that the administration is busy selling as a foreign policy what it is does not equate to having one's head in the sand. Au contraire: Buying into and defending w/o question the BS which the administration offers as fact and wisdom day after day is much closer to that...

[ual777 0]

With all due respect, as a former Marine with many friends serving in Iraq, I can confidantly say that U.S. forces consistantly beat the pants off of insurgents in any open engagement. The problem now, is that the only way the insurgents fight is through IEDs and land mines. They hide behind women and children to accomplish their goals. If they grew a pair, instead of killing more civilians than military members, then they would be cut to ribbons.

BTW, under the Geneva Convention and the governing rules of war, these terrorists are NOT entitled to any safe harbor. Technically, coalition forces could have a military trail and execution on the spot, but we are too nice for that.

I apologize for the bluntness of my post, and its not intended to be a 'justify the war in Iraq' debate, Im just posting to show what kind of scum these guys are. I lost a good friend in Iraq when he was there for only 2 weeks (God rest his soul), and I feel strongly on the issue. If the U.S. wants to put down the insurgents we have to play hardball.

We need more people like you. Thanks. Keep that head out of the sand!!!!!

Calling the grave and dangerous nonsense that the administration is busy selling as a foreign policy what it is does not equate to having one's head in the sand. Au contraire: Buying into and defending w/o question the BS which the administration offers as fact and wisdom day after day is much closer to that...

I never in my posts started singing the praises of the Bush administration. I merely offered my opinion. You however state that muslims are killing eachother BECAUSE of the U.S. occupation. This is not acceptable. The people there are NOT monkeys. They can think for themselves. They are being spurred on by the rabid islamic extremists and I find it disgusting. Again, I am not justifying the war in Iraq. I think we should pull out and stop trying to police the world. However, from a military standpoint, you must fight fire with fire.

People got rabid about Abu Gharib because a few guys were put in a naked pyramid and messed with. However, who is cutting off heads and broadcasting it to the world? Who is blowing up pizzarias full of civilians? Who is bombing mosques? Who brutally tortured and murdered Atwar Bahjat? The U.S. is not perfect by any means, but that does not excuse the wanton killing of innocents.