Today, George W. Bush told Matt Lauer on Today that the “War on Terror” cannot be won.
Actually, he said “I don’t think you can win it“. Here’s the exact transcript:
President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”
Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”
President Bush: “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let’s put it that way.”
Not being able to win this “war” is a new position for Bush who has said over and over that “we will win” it.
As recently as July 30th of this year he said in Springfield, MO., “We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world.”
And yet that’s not what he said on the bush to Matt. So the rest of the day Team Bush went apoplectic contorting to explain that Bush didn’t really mean we couldn’t win the war on terror…he was…referring to something else. To not being able to win, because there is nobody available to sign a surrender document. But other than that, we’ll win. Or something.
They said a lot. They apologized a lot. They spun and danced and twisted and flip-flopped. Even McCain and Guiliani had to change their speeches to try and make sense of the torturued logic and apparent lack of clarity from the “Commander-in-Chief” they tell us should be re-“elected” due to his “clarity of vision”. Or something.
Much was said. I’ll let you go and figure out how they’re now trying to spin it. Spinning is what they do well.
The statement (and I not only read it, but saw it several times) seemed very clear to me, but the Bushies say it wasn’t. Bottom line: Apparently, it all depends on what the meaning of “it” is.
Go figure.
Brad,
"I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let’s put it that way.""
Congressthug Dreier hinged his defense of the former texas governor on those words. So, apparently, the deaths of tens of thousands of innovent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq makes terrorism less acceptable as a tool. Apparently our intel guys are just being untruthful when they say the way these war were carried out has swollen the ranks of al Qaeda.
UGH!!!
That makes me so mad!! He totally contradicts himself and says: " I never said that!" and people buy it !!!!!!!!!!!
AHHH!!!!!
As long as their are people and especially Jews and Arabs, there will be terrorists. To minimize the destruction, you must kill all of the leaders and the guys with the money. Little guys will do little damage. Just think of all of the individuals who were killed by radical Muslims just because they were Jews. We do not want any large scale attacks like 911 or even larger attacks like a nuke attack. That is the War on Terrorism.
Paul,
No kidding. But the issue isn’t whether we can "win" the war on terror. Anyone with a shred on honesty will tell you it’s not a win or lose situation, but a constant fight to keep terrorists on the defensive and limit their successes.
The problem is that Bush has constantly talked about "winning" the war on terror, as if it was only an issue of boundaries. So for him to suddenly see the light tells me either he’s had no clue for close to three years or he felt the public couldn’t grasp the concept of what fighting terrorism meant.
Either way, it doesn’t make me feel confident in the man.
Oops!
I guess we can win the war after all.
http://www.boston.com/dailynews..._the_war_on_te:.shtml
At least until he decides we can’t again. Whenever that is.
So, is this a flip-flop-flip?
"As long as their are people and especially Jews and Arabs, there will be terrorists."
Oh.
My.
God.
Did he just write that? Did he?? Did he really?????
A friend of mine who does not want to participate on this blog, because like I said, most conservatives do not waste their time on a leftist blog, sent me an email this morning. He was a Democrat until Carter and Reagan sealed the deal and he has been a Republican ever since. I will add his email at the end.
I do not know why Brad likes to use "Fake Conservative." The Republican Party is made up of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, and some are social moderates and fiscal conservatives. Some are a little more moderate on fiscal issues. We are a big tent party. We have room for conservative homosexuals like the Log Cabin Republicans. We have pro-abortion and pro-life. We have conservative African-Americans and Latinos.
Ron Silver was very good last night when he said that many of his liberal Hollywood comrades (I used that word on purpose) are blinded by their hatred.
Here is Gary’s email:
Kerry got very little Convention bounce.
Bush gets pre-Convention bounce.
I bet he gets even more bounce after the Convention.
Why won’t the supposed mainstream media ask John Kerry about his senate record? Why won’t they make a big deal over his absentee percentage? Why won’t they interview the Swift Boat Vets? Why don’t they talk about the JK campaign’s attorney working for Moveon and other 527’s? I’m to the point that I don’t watch network news anymore. I get my news online. What happened to the days when you could have friendly conversations with Dems and agree to disagree? I’ve never heard so much venom from the other side…It’s because he is a professed born again Christian. I wonder if the people that give to the United Way realize that they contributed to the protests in NY. Several orgs that receive money from the feds and the United Way are participating in rallies. "Planned Parenthood" is one of them.
These are the real reasons John Kerry is bad for this Country:
http://www.freerepublic.com/foc.../1191284/posts
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241
http://www.freerepublic.com/foc.../1192812/posts
http://www.suntimes.com/output/...ws-bush31.html
http://www.bikerheaven.com/foru...ID33/1897.html
Read the part about the French hostages. It doesn’t matter if you are a pacifist, these people will still come after you.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,...130709,00.html
Paul,
I am one of those socially-moderate fiscally conservative people you have mentioned. I was a Republican ever since I was in the third grade and we held an election between Reagan and Carter (not surprisingly, Carter was trounced). And for a long-time, I believed in the "big tent."
But no more. The big tent is a sham, a myth and a lie. This Administration has gone out of its way to demonize and marginalize every moderate Republican. Calling them "RINOs". Dennis Hastert mocking John McCain on the steps of the Capitol. Trying to pass anti-gay Constitutional Amendments. Ignoring every call to fiscally responsibility made by McCain, Snowe et al.
The "new" Republican Party doesn’t want moderates like me, Paul. So fine. I’ll leave them, just like TR did when he saw corruption spreading throughout the party he once loved. And maybe, just maybe, others will join me. Not only disaffected GOP moderates, but those moderate Democrats who feel marginalized as well.
And God willing, we’ll stomp out both parties, because they’ve become walking jokes, available to the highest bidder.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Paul.
As you keep drinking the kool-aid from the other side. I like cherry.
Paul,
You don’t get it, do you? I’m not on the other side. I’m voting for Kerry strictly b/c Bush has been a lousy president and by getting Kerry in, the government will be gridlocked. So NEITHER party can do anything to damaging to the country.
But hey, don’t actually read the whole post if that’d be too much of a strain.
Teddy,
I’m really starting to like the way you think. Good call on the "gridlocked" and strategic voting. We had something similar in Canada a few months ago.
Johanna,
I saw that. I was wondering how many people voted for the NDP to deny the Liberals a straight majority.
It must be nice having a viable third party….
Teddy,
The third party is nice. We’ve actually even got a little teeny party called the marijuana party. Ya gotta love us. 🙂
Anyway, I’m a firm believer that you will also have your third party someday (and fourth, and fifth). I mean, you’re a democratic country, you have to!!
Maybe Oprah will start her own party…. 😉
I agree with you on the gridlock, but we need conservative judges and the left needs liberal judges, and that is what this election is all about, besides the war. The left knows that perhaps 1-2 Supreme Court judges may retire. Bush could really show Democrat hypocrisy by nominating a conservative black female.
Johanna writes "I mean, you’re a democratic country, you have to"
We are not a Democrat country. We have Democrat elections. We are a Representatvie Republic!
I bet you are a young dope smoker!
Paul, fair enough. You have "democrat elections". My bad.
Paul actually said:
"Bush could really show Democrat hypocrisy by nominating a conservative black female."
How does that show "Democrat hypocrisy"? Do you even know what the word "hypocrisy" means?
It would, on the other hand, show Republican Cynicism and Tokenism. Something which they have shown quite a prediliction for over recent years.
That’s funny, I thought hypocrisy would be the GOP parading moderates as if they actually reflected the party platform.
And, Paul, although our form of government is a Democratic Republic, we are a democracy. Just as the UK is a democracy even though their form of government is a Constitutional Monarchy. Your parsing of speech is worthy of Noam Chomsky (and yes, that’s supposed to be an insult.)
teddy,
i am interested in this "gridlock" think. Both parties, by and large, represent corporate interests. There are some populist democrats in teh House and, of course, the great Bernie Sanders but by and large nothing that would rise to the level of destroying or significantly altering the social and economic structures that keep the compassionate Darwinism we have going on in this country. Hell even the dealth care proposals of the democrats would help both the insurance industry and small business owners. Now i would think that the "gridlock" think would have some sort of political reality of the progressive caucus made up the majority of democrat party politics but it doesnt.
i think its time we fessed up that the opposition to Bush and the hard right of the republican party is based on the fact that they are destructive of the American experiment.