Posted August 31, 200420 yr http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=694&ncid=716 Bush Suggests War on Terror Cannot Be Won 33 minutes ago By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer NASHUA, N.H. - President Bush (news - web sites) ignited a Democratic inferno of criticism on Monday by suggesting the war on terrorism could not be won, forcing his aides to scramble to defend his remarks just as he had hoped to bask in convention accolades. Bush sought to emphasize the economy ? New Hampshire's appears to be on a rebound ? but his comments on terrorism dominated national attention. In an interview on NBC-TV's "Today" show, Bush vowed to stay the course in the war on terror, saying perseverance in the battle would make the world safer for future generations. But he suggested an all-out victory against terrorism might not be possible. Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the ? those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." Democrats, looking for ways to deflect the spotlight from Republicans as they opened their convention in York, pounced. "After months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on their singular ability to win the war on terror, the president now says we can't win the war on terrorism," said Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites). "This is no time to declare defeat." "The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable," Edwards said later on ABC's "Nightline." "I decided a year ago that he cannot win the war on terror," said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff, at a news conference in New York organized by Democrats. White House spokesman Scott McClellan sought to clarify the president's remarks, telling reporters, "He was talking about winning it in the conventional sense ... about how this is a different kind of war and we face an unconventional enemy." "To suggest that the war on terror can't be won is absolutely unacceptable," said Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "First George W. Bush said he miscalculated the war in Iraq (news - web sites), then he called it a catastrophic success and blamed the military," said John Kerry (news - web sites) spokeswoman Allison Dobson. "Now he says we can't win the war on terror. Is that what Karl Rove means when he calls for steady leadership?" Meanwhile Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, acknowledged that the continuing conflict in Iraq could be a political liability in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona. "We're in a war, so you got a lot of people who say, `I don't like the fact that we're in a war. But I want to win the war,'" Rove said in an interview in New York with Pennsylvania reporters. The coordinated Democratic attack came as Republicans sought to portray Bush as a strong leader in the war on terrorism in the opening session of the Republican National Convention. Bush suggested in an interview with Time magazine that he still would have gone into Iraq but with different tactics if he had known "that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day." He called the swift military offensive that led to the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 "a catastrophic success" in light of the fact that fighting continues to this day despite the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government. Speaking in Nashua, Bush praised a 3.9 percent unemployment rate that is considerably below the national average of 5.5 percent, below other states in the region and below New Hampshire's July 2003 rate of 4.3 percent. "It's dropping every second," Bush said with a smile as he took credit for the state's gains. Bush was on a three-day, six-state campaign dash that will bring him to New York late Wednesday. Later, in Taylor, Mich., he acknowledged at a rally before thousands of supporters that that state's "recovery has lagged." July's unemployment rate of 6.8 percent in Michigan was tied with Oregon for second-highest after Alaska. He charged that Kerry's longtime support for raising automotive fuel-economy standards would worsen the state's unemployment. Kerry's campaign rejected that. Bush "is trying to mislead Michigan voters on Kerry's plan to increase fuel efficiency," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer. Kerry would provide $1 billion to help plants convert to make the autos of the future, Singer said. "Kerry will ensure that the energy-efficient cars of the future are made in Michigan. Lee Iacocca knows this ? that's why he's supporting John Kerry this year." Iacocca, the former Chrysler Corp. chairman, campaigned for Bush in 2000 but backs Kerry this year.
August 31, 200420 yr You can't win the war on terror because every terrorist group cannot be eliminated. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. They'll stick around regardless. But you can win it in the sense of sending them all into hiding and seclusion.
August 31, 200420 yr Again there goes the media mis representing what GW says... Terrorist there is no beating them in a conventional state...for instance after WWII, Japan surrendering, Germany surrendering, signing PEACE treaties...Terrorist will not do that, the only way to beat terrorism is through preventive action and slaughtering as many as you can...I can see it now Osama crawling out of a hole to sign a peace treaty... Digging his political grave, LMAO...91% of the media is against Bush, why because it is fashionable...When Reagan was President they called him cowboy, dumb, etc, now they refer to him as one of the greatest Presidents ever...People who can make up there own mind know who to vote for
August 31, 200420 yr Author Well I guess we'll just have to settle for perpetual war. How Orwellian of you.
August 31, 200420 yr Well I guess we'll just have to settle for perpetual war. How Orwellian of you. 534302[/snapback] What do you suggest, accept terrorism, leave it as it was, should we bargain with terrorist?
August 31, 200420 yr yes, i'm sure bush was conceding defeat to the terrorists in that interview. that's exactly what he meant.
August 31, 200420 yr yes, i'm sure bush was conceding defeat to the terrorists in that interview. that's exactly what he meant. 534310[/snapback] Yeah I think thats what he was doing also, i think I heard him say "We lost, Terrorist won" George Bush
August 31, 200420 yr Author I'm not stupid, I know what he said. But contrasting this with statements made previously about trying to "win" the War on Terror (I don't know how Iraq got associated with that), he flips the biggest waffle I have seen in this campaign since "I'm a war president"/"I'm gonna be the peace president." I would be more than happy to flip him the bird.
August 31, 200420 yr I'm not stupid, I know what he said. But contrasting this with statements made previously about trying to "win" the War on Terror (I don't know how Iraq got associated with that), he flips the biggest waffle I have seen in this campaign since "I'm a war president"/"I'm gonna be the peace president." I would be more than happy to flip him the bird. 534322[/snapback] Again you intentionally mistake WHATEVER Bush says purposely skewing it to youre view point... Kerry was never known to waffle on any ideas :whistle
August 31, 200420 yr I'm not stupid, I know what he said. But contrasting this with statements made previously about trying to "win" the War on Terror (I don't know how Iraq got associated with that), he flips the biggest waffle I have seen in this campaign since "I'm a war president"/"I'm gonna be the peace president." I would be more than happy to flip him the bird. 534322[/snapback] Iraq got associated with winning the war on terror by a new policy called preemptiveness. 9/11 has forced a dramatic change in foreign policy. Preemptiveness has worked under Bush. Your boy Clinton should have tried it.
August 31, 200420 yr Well I guess we'll just have to settle for perpetual war. How Orwellian of you. 534302[/snapback] We don't want war, but if the terrorists are going to fight us, we won't stick around and take it in the ass! :killthemall
August 31, 200420 yr Well I guess we'll just have to settle for perpetual war.? How Orwellian of you. 534302[/snapback] We don't want war, but if the terrorists are going to fight us, we won't stick around and take it in the ass! :killthemall 534371[/snapback] And libs don't get that! Further proof that being liberal is a mental disease... when partisanship outweighs instinct for survival
August 31, 200420 yr How can you defeat an enemy with no central core? No matter is done there will always be terrorism, much like the RIAA trying to get rid of internet file sharing, regardless of what they do it is impossible to completely eliminate it. On the other hand, Bush is doing everything humanly possible to make sure the war on terror is not being fought on our soil. If terrorism got so bad to the point where there were bombings everyday in the USA like there are in Israel and other places, the only man I would want in office and trust to protect me is Bush. I'd rather have Bush that will do whatever it takes to protect this country rather than someone more liberal than Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton combined that wants a more "sensitive" war on terror. Bush didn't say a single thing that was wrong, he is being realistic, something that John Kerry has not proven he can do with all his campaign promises that contradict his voting record in the senate.
August 31, 200420 yr "President Bush will make certain that we are combating terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we can reduce the risk of having to confront it in the streets of New York. John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combating terrorism gives us no confidence he'll pursue such a determined course." -RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI
August 31, 200420 yr the war on terror is winnable...but you have to destroy top organizations and then stop pissing off the wprld. it would take a generation.
August 31, 200420 yr .... he'll pursue such a determined course." -RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI 534407[/snapback] :plain Determined course leading us towards Catastrophic results. Yeah I like his stubborn determination to have us all killed and for not recognizing his mistakes... Nice leadership.
August 31, 200420 yr I'm not stupid, I know what he said. But contrasting this with statements made previously about trying to "win" the War on Terror (I don't know how Iraq got associated with that), he flips the biggest waffle I have seen in this campaign since "I'm a war president"/"I'm gonna be the peace president." I would be more than happy to flip him the bird. 534322[/snapback] youre absolutely correct. of course this is a-flip flop. his position on the so-called "war on terror" has changed 180 degrees when he tried to answer the reporter's question by saying the war on terror cannot be won, per se. what a waffler he is, changing his policy on such whims. this is so newsworthy. i feel so enlightened every time i turn on the tv and hear this repeated on certain news cycles every 20 minutes.
August 31, 200420 yr I don't get it, would you rather him lie and say yes we will win it? If he says that then in 2 years when there's a terrorist attack you can say "SEE HE WAS LYING" There is no chance in hell that the war on terror can be won, but a lot of it can be prevented.
August 31, 200420 yr Victory doesn't need to mean all-out annihilation of every terrorist in the world....like SF said if the top orgs are removed the war is essentially won. Bush now says the war is winnable...one day later In a speech to the national convention of the American Legion, Bush said, "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win. That statement differed from Bush's earlier comment, aired Monday in a pre-taped television interview, that "I don't think you can win" the war on terror. That had Democrats running for the cameras to criticize Bush for being defeatist and flip-flopping from previous predictions of victory For those of you so infatuated with the Bush and the Republican party I use this to show you the politics of politics. Flip-flopping exists on both sides in equal or close to equal amounts. Start realizing that Bush and Kerry are both apart of the same game and both will do all things necessary to achieve the goal of president. I'm tired of one party or the other trying to proclaim moral superiority over the other. Group-think makes me want to vomit.
August 31, 200420 yr .... he'll pursue such a determined course." -RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI 534407[/snapback] :plain Determined course leading us towards Catastrophic results. Yeah I like his stubborn determination to have us all killed and for not recognizing his mistakes... Nice leadership. 534445[/snapback] Having us all killed, catatrosphic results, nothing you said is correct, if you think that Bush is not actively trying to make every step necessary to make this country safer, than you just dont want to see the facts
August 31, 200420 yr Having us all killed, catatrosphic results, nothing you said is correct, if you think that Bush is not actively trying to make every step necessary to make this country safer, than you just dont want to see the facts 534512[/snapback] Apply that quote to yourself. Maybe you don't want to see the facts and realize that Bush has no idea what the hell he is doing, neither do his people. Are you one of those poor missinformed souls that believes we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq?
August 31, 200420 yr For those of you so infatuated with the Bush and the Republican party I use this to show you the politics of politics. Flip-flopping exists on both sides in equal or close to equal amounts. 534494[/snapback] there's a difference between a flip-flop--taking one ideological stance on a policy issue and later taking up a completely different one--and what is clearly only a play on semantics in this case. i watched the matt lauer interview on msnbc just a little while ago, and the point bush was making was pretty obvious. criticizing him for the soundbyte of him regurgitating the questioner's train of thought ("do you really think we can win...?) in his unwitting attempt to have a semantical discussion is really just an exercise in partisan politics. it doesnt take a high level of reasoning to realize bush wasnt "being defeatist" and certainly wasnt "flip-flopping from previous predictions of victory." who on earth could watch the interview and actually think he meant to say, "we can't beat the terrorists"? :lol this isnt even close to being a "flip-flop." personally, i would file this under the overflowing bush famous-faux-pas folder and leave it at that. on another note, i think it's a little ridiculous to suggest that the level of flip-flopping is roughly "equal" between the two candidates. each candidate has his own particular strengths and weaknesses, but i dont see how anyone could actually step back and say "inconsistency in policy stances" doesn't plague kerry FAR, FAR more than his relatively consistent opponent. being a "flip-flopper" isn't necessarily a bad thing, but i hate using the word because it trivializes the much more important issue of a candidate's credibility. there is much to be said about a candidate who goes to the arab-american institute and condemns israel's fence for being a "barrier to peace," then, months later, tells an israeli newspaper that the fence is "a legitimate act of self defense" (credit: rudy). during the primary, the guy paints himself as an anti-war candidate so he can take momentum from the legitimate anti-war candidates who actually opposed invading iraq...now he says he would have invaded iraq even without evidence of WMD, but would have planned it better. there's a monumental difference between bush's unscripted stupidity and kerry's penchant for saying anything in order to get elected.
August 31, 200420 yr I think this is hilarious, he's been saying for three years now that we can win the "War on Terror", which he essentially created, and now suddenly we can't. This is the guy you want leading the country??
August 31, 200420 yr this is horse s***. the media is taking this out of context, what he meant was we can't get every single terrorists out there, you are dilusional if you think like that. terrorist aren't gonna sign a peace treaty saying the war on terror is over. like i heard early this morning this, was a trap set by the bush campaign so it would backfire on kerry and the democrats. the man is carrying a party on his shoulders and with all those campaign people don't you think someone would have told him not to say that? common there are millions os dollars invested in his campaign someone would have caught it. this is a trap. Bush's campaign people aren't stupid.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.