DemocratsStayon Offensive(scold Bush forsaying war onterrorism can't bewon

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dems31aug31.story

Democrats Stay on Offensive(scold Bush for saying war on terrorism can't be won)
Kerry keeps a low profile, but others in his campaign scold Bush for telling an interviewer that the war on terrorism can't be won. ("This is no time to declare defeat")
By Matea Gold Times Staff Writer

August 31, 2004

NANTUCKET, Mass. — Trying to stay on the offensive during a week dominated by Republican festivities in New York, the Democrats pounced Monday on a comment by President Bush that the war on terrorism was not winnable, calling it pessimistic and defeatist.

Bush's remark came in an interview on NBC's "Today" show. When asked whether the United States could win the war on terrorism, Bush replied: "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."

In a statement released by the Democratic campaign — and later in a speech in Wilmington, N.C. — vice presidential candidate John Edwards scolded Bush for the remark.

"This is no time to declare defeat," Edwards said. "It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but we have a comprehensive long-term plan to make America safer."<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/campaign/31bush.html


Paraphrased: -- his NBC comment saying that he thinks it can't be won, in contrast to past statements that he has a plan to do so is perhaps a shift that indicates a departure from the world where no mistakes are admitted, reflect both foreign policy and political realities, and appeared intended in part to emphasize that even a striking breakthrough, like the capture of Osama bin Laden, would not by itself assure the nation's security.

Bush Cites Doubt America Can Win War on Terror
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

ASHUA, N.H., Aug. 30 - President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday, said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually prevail.

In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program "Today," conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign.

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

As recently as July 14, Mr. Bush had drawn a far sunnier picture. "I have a clear vision and a strategy to win the war on terror," he said.

At a prime-time news conference in the East Room of the White House on April 13, Mr. Bush said: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we are asking questions, is, 'Can you ever win the war on terror?' Of course you can."<snip>

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/29679.htm

WARTIME PRESIDENT RALLIES HIS HOME FRONT

By DEBORAH ORIN
August 31, 2004 -- NASHUA, N.H. — At a town-hall huddle full of military families with loved ones in Iraq, President Bush yesterday vowed to cheers, "We'll complete the mission."
"I think it's very important for the loved ones to hear from the commander-in-chief that we'll complete the mission," Bush told the mother of a soldier, who thanked the president for "your love, your support" for the troops.

Bush's comments came after he seemed to downplay expectations for the war on terror. Earlier, he said it would be "a disaster for your children" for America to retreat from the war on terror but "I don't think you can win it." <snip>

In an interview on NBC's "Today" show, Bush said: "You cannot show weakness in this world today because the enemy will exploit that weakness. It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place."

Bush was asked, "Can we win?" the war on terror.

"I don't think you can win it," he responded. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." <snip>


The president pointed to Kerry's explanation that he voted against $87 billion for troops because it was "complicated" and zinged: "There's nothing complicated about supporting son in harm's way." <snip>

[livetohike]

1. A big Bush flip-flop

I wish the media would make a bigger noise on this. Headline in San Diego Union Tribune this morning is:


Bush: Can't win war on terrorism

[papau]

2. The media NEVER headlines as a flip/flop any GOP flip/flop!

not the we have a right wing GOP controlled US media - they just act that way!

:-)

[papau]

4. President admits war on terror cannot be won/ now saying 'We Will Win'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1293995,00.html

President admits war on terror cannot be won

Julian Borger in New York
Tuesday August 31, 2004
The Guardian

George Bush admitted yesterday the war on terror could not be won, as the Republican party convention, designed to showcase the president as a resolute leader at a time of national peril, was launched in New York.

The White House rushed to limit the potential damage as Democrats seized on the remarks as a sign of defeatism. A spokesman for the president said he was simply pointing out the unconventional nature of the conflict.

However, the timing of the remarks could not have been worse for the president, coming on a day that the party had lined up two of its biggest names - Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor who led New York through the September 11 trauma, and John McCain, a Vietnam war hero - to pay tribute to his qualities as a wartime leader.

"So long as George Bush is president, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism?" Mr Giuliani said, according to an early text of a speech, that tied America's safety against terrorists to Mr Bush's hold on office.

Asked on NBC television whether America could win its "war on terror", the president had replied: "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." <snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4464103,00.html

Bush Now Saying 'We Will Win' Terror War

Tuesday August 31, 2004 5:46 PM
By JENNIFER LOVEN

Associated Press Writer

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - President Bush said Tuesday ``we will win'' the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism over his earlier remark that victory may not be possible.

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. <snip>

"What if President Reagan had said that it may be difficult to win the war against communism? What if other presidents had said it'd be difficult to win the war - the Cold War?" Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said on ABC's Nightline program. "The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable."<snip>

Bush cited increased funding for veterans programs....The Kerry campaign disputed that, saying Bush's budgets have fallen far short of what veterans need and promising that Kerry would reverse that.

[ixion]

3. okay, here's the thing: the so called 'war on terror' IS unwinnable

The democrats position should not be 'we can win it', but rather:

"WHY WAS IT STARTED IN THE FIRST PLACE?"

Wars against abstractions, and further wars for occupation are unwinnable, historically and statistically speaking. Wars against abstractions are not really wars, by the definition of the word 'war', which implies a nation or state or government -- some type of physical proximity.

Wars against abstractions, that is, wars against concepts, are unwinnable since concepts are illusory. It is the same thing as a 'War on Shadows' or a 'War on Knowledge' (already in the planning stages).

Why they are taking this tack, which only adds fuel to the GOP fires of 'security' and fear, is beyond me. :crazy:

[cybildisobedience]

5. and further...

if this is a "war" the way that we had a war on poverty or drugs, can we now change horses in mid-stream, or criticize the commander in chief?