Bush says we can't win war on terror Bush says we can't win war on terror

Portsmouth Herald ^ | 08/30/04 | Deb Riechmann - AP

[Josh in PA]

Bush says we can't win war on terror

By Deb Riechmann Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- President Bush says staying the course in the war on terror will make the world safer for future generations, though he acknowledges an all-out victory against terrorism may not be possible. In an interview on NBC-TV's ''Today'' show broadcast to coincide with Monday's start of the Republican National Convention in New York, Bush said retreating from the war on terror ''would be a disaster for your children.'''

''You cannot show weakness in this world today because the enemy will exploit that weakness,'' he said. ''It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.''

When asked ''Can we win?'' the war on terror, 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.''

[Unam Sanctam]

You can say that again!

[Major_Risktaker]

When asked ''Can we win?'' the war on terror, 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.''

I totally Disagree.

I will not live in a global police state forever. This war must end.

[AmericanVictory]

John Edwards talking about how he'd hunt down all the terrorists is particularly unimpressive. He'd subpoena them all and orate upon them is the impression one gets.

[QQQQQ]

I suggest reading the entire transcript, and you can see what Lauer was doing, putting words in Bush's mouth, not allowing him to fully answer, interrupting him, changing the subjects back and forth, so Bush didn't have the chance to fully explain anything. If you read the whole thing, it is becoming very clear that Lauer was trying to set Bush up to get him to say something the Dems can use against him, and that is how that comment happened. This comment totally taken out of context was what they are now trying to totally blow out of proportion. In that same paragraph, Bush said how we continue to fight the war on terror and what he is doing specifically.

Here is the direct link to the article:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/

[joonbug]

True. We haven't won the war on murder, rape, theft, drugs, etc. either. And what is the alternative? Losing the war on terror.

[Josh in PA]

The more I think about it.. The more I am getting worked up about it.


Kerry was D-E-A-D, DEAD in the water.. Now we have given him a glimmer of hope with something to seize on.

Even if all of us KNOW what he meant, it's still a major, major gaffe, anyway you want to look at it.

[ChefKeith]

FYI

[Josh in PA]

Well Lauer succeeded..


I have a bad feeling right now.

[sinkspur]

This is the first time I've been pessimistic all campaign.

Don't be. Anybody with a head on his shoulders realizes that terrorists are free-lancers, and will not lay down their arms until they are shamed out of existence by governments and their own people.

[Kornev]

The islamics will blast nukes in several US cities before this war ends. And even then, who knows.

[Graymatter]

For once, the president was challenging what he perceived as an oversimplification, and now there's nothing else on the alphabet news but the Bush flip. Well I heard him say:

I don't think you can 'win' 'it.'

He purposely emphasized the words, suggesting clearly that it wasn't a simple matter of winning and there was no specific "it" to defeat. Terror is a method, a practice. Would you speak of winning a war against murder or burglary? Decisively, permanently eradicating those crimes? Of course not. Same with terror.

That said, there was no good reason to talk to Matt Lauer at all. :(

[weegee]

If the "war on terror" were like any other war, the combatants would wear identifiable uniforms, have a leader that can be brought to the negotiating table (or tried in court if captured/defeated) and who has the authority to really be able to get his "troops" to lay down their arms and agree to the conditions of peace, and they would not engage in acts that would be deemed "war crimes" such as using ambulances for terrorist bombings, killing civilians (including small children), kidnapping civilians and executing them, et al.

We defeated Nazism and imperial Shintoism. We defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War but did not defeat communism or socialism. We now face Islamofascism which has attrocities every bit as revolting as those of the Nazis (and there are Nazi sympathizers among the Islamofascists).

When the president says "the War on Terror", are we actively targeting the bombings in Ireland as well between Catholics and Protestants or can we agree that this is primarily militant Islam that we are discussing (at least poised at the highest priority)?

I don't think that we will stop defusing the terrorists after we have tackled the Islamofascists. This is why there will always be "vigilance" in the war on terror (at least until several generations have been shown to be secure).

Europe seems to have accepted as commonplace the occurance of a bomb going off outside a cafe. This should not be.

Then again Europe was quite satisfied to pay "protection money" to the Barbary pirates when Thomas Jefferson decided otherwise.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I think there's a gaffe in assuming this problem will go away by being more "sensitive" and getting the unfettered support of the U.N.

You got that right.

UNITED NATIONS' WORLD CONSTITUTION:

"...The age of nations must end....The governments of the nations have decided to order their separate sovereignities into one government to which they surrender their arms."

[Josh in PA]

Unfortunantly, only about 40% of this country has a head on their shoulder. The other 40% are complete morons, and the remaining 20% are ignorant to politics and do whatever the media tells them to do.

[JudyinCanada]

Here is my take on what that President said.

I think he was more or less saying that the world would probably always produce would-be terrorists. When children are taught that they go to heaven when they strap bombs to themselves and kill, when they are raised to hate Christians and Jews, etc., they will always be looking for the opportunity to attack.

They can be kept in check by remaining strong, rooting them out, killing them, and helping to build nations that would no longer tolerate these people.

This is actually winning the war on terror, even though there will likely always be those groups of radicals rising up to threaten freedom. You only win the war by continuing to fight it.

[mabelkitty]

You can read this and easily visualize Bush using finger quotations around "win".

In that context, even dumba$$es can get it.

[QQQQQ]

Don't worry, People know better, than to buy the Dems propaganda.

This is so totally ludicrous.

Here is what President Bush said just in April and he obviously didn't change his mind -- this is just the Dem "rapid-response" slime machine trying to hang onto something.

BUSH:"I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they'll stay with me. They understand the stakes."

Bush stands firm on Iraq, war on terror

[Chode]

perfection is not achievable... but it is approachable = we can't win terror war... but we can win major battles

Jesus said there will always be poor amongst us, and like the poor... there will always be the jealous haters amongst us too

[QQQQQ]

Bush repeatedly said that it will be a long war, but we will win the war on terror. And we will.

[WestCoastGal]

"You cannot show weakness in this world today because the enemy will exploit that weakness,'' he said. ''It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place."

That was the important part of the article.

Your post 18 is right on!! If we don't scare the cr@p out of them they will keep attacking us if they are able.

We need a President with cajones not the girlie guy F'n!!