1
   

President says war on terror can't be won

 
 
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:46 am
To avoid hijacking another thread...

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/31/Decision2004/Bush___I_don_t_think_.shtml
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,168 • Replies: 42
No top replies

 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:54 am
Ok, I guess I need to stir the pot. So, who needs a war president that can't win wars?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:58 am
How would you know the war was won?

At least Bush is not coddling the terrorists like Clinton did for 8 years letting them plan to attack America at their whim. The battles in this war will be victories for america one after another.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:59 am
:-)

The article that au posted on the "BUSH is the flip flopper" thread (great place for it) has the best juxtaposition I've seen (what he's saying now vs. what he said then):

Quote:
"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."
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 08:00 am
What do you say about his previous quotes, then, McG?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 08:01 am
Well, if you won't be able to tell when you've won, why start fighting? Two words, Powell Doctrine.

Clinton was on their asses, that's why we weren't attacked while he was in office. These guys came in thinking nothing had changed in 8 years and were proposing missile defense systems.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 08:05 am
Freeduck, do you mean to tell me that AQ and OBL planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11 in the short time span of 9 months after Bush was sworn in?

I'm sorry Freeduck, but your way off base on that one.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 08:08 am
No, McG, I don't mean to tell you any such thing. I mean to tell you that you can't always stop people from planning, but you can sure as heck try to keep them from executing those plans.

Anyway, aside from blaming Clinton, what do you think about this administrations declaring war on terror and then coming to the realization that you can't win it.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 08:09 am
FreeDuck wrote:
No, McG, I don't mean to tell you any such thing. I mean to tell you that you can't always stop people from planning, but you can sure as heck try to keep them from executing those plans.

Anyway, aside from blaming Clinton, what do you think about this administrations declaring war on terror and then coming to the realization that you can't win it.


Just for fun, I'll say 'Vietnam'.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 08:10 am
I think Bush meant that you can not ever eliminate every single terrorist everywhere in the world. But we can make the world a safer place by eliminating the majority of them. There will always be terrorists, but we can make the numbers smaller and make it difficult for them to operate in the world.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 08:13 am
cavfancier wrote:

Just for fun, I'll say 'Vietnam'.


Oooh, naughty naughty!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 08:15 am
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
I think Bush meant that you can not ever eliminate every single terrorist everywhere in the world. But we can make the world a safer place by eliminating the majority of them. There will always be terrorists, but we can make the numbers smaller and make it difficult for them to operate in the world.


And I might agree with that, though I probably disagree with the way you could go about it. But isn't this position one that was practically laughed at a few years ago?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 08:16 am
jpinMilwaukee, I agree that if that's what he meant (and there seems to be some question about whether that's what he meant or whether he misspoke), it's reasonable enough. I actually agree with it more than, "'Can you ever win the war on terror?' Of course you can." Thing is, he said both.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:00 am
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
I think Bush meant that you can not ever eliminate every single terrorist everywhere in the world. But we can make the world a safer place by eliminating the majority of them. There will always be terrorists, but we can make the numbers smaller and make it difficult for them to operate in the world.


How do you propose to "eliminate the majority" of terrorists? Seeing as terrorists look the same as any of us (at least those of us with darker skin), who exactly are you going to eliminate.

Most of the people we killed in Iraq were not terrorists.

The people in Sadr's militia are being called "terrorists" now. They weren't terrorists before we invaded. Is this making the numbers smaller? What gives?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:01 am
I would also point out that we have provided the terrorists with the worlds best terror training camp. They get to practice with real weapons against real US troops.

Not only do I think we are creating more terrorists, we are creating particularly well trained, battle hardened terrorists.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 10:06 am
I think, that while a little thin, Bush flip-flopped on this issue as much as Kerry has on anything...

You could make a great sound byte commercial out of it. It would be the republican thing to do, after all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 12:40 pm
THE PRESIDENT wrote:
Well, I appreciate you bringing that up. Listen, I should have made my point more clear about what I was saying, you know, what I meant. What I meant was that this is not a conventional war. It is a different kind of war. We're fighting people who have got a dark ideology who use terrorists, terrorism, as a tool. They're trying to shake our conscience. They're trying to shake our will, and so in the short run the strategy has got to be to find them where they lurk. I tell people all the time, "We will find them on the offense. We will bring them to justice on foreign lands so we don't have to face them here at home," and that's because you cannot negotiate with these people and in a conventional war there would be a peace treaty or there would be a moment where somebody would sit on the side and say we quit. That's not the kind of war we're in, and that's what I was saying. The kind of war we're in requires, you know, steadfast resolve, and I will continue to be resolved to bring them to justice, but as well as to spread liberty -- and this is one of the interesting points of the debate, Rush, is that, you know, I believe societies can be transformed because of liberty, and I believe that Iraq and Afghanistan will be free nations, and I believe that those free nations right there in the heart of the Middle East will begin to transform that region into a more hopeful place, which in itself will be a detriment to the ability to these terrorists to recruit -- and that's what I was saying. I probably needed to be a little more articulate.


THE PRESIDENT wrote:
THE PRESIDENT: Right. Really what I was saying to Lauer was, is that this is not the kind of war where you sit down and sign a peace treaty. A totally different kind of war. But we will win it. Your listeners have got to know that I am, I know we'll win it, but we're going to have to be resolved and firm, and we can't doubt what we stand for, and the long-term solution is to spread freedom. I love to tell the story, Rush, about a meeting with Prime Minister Koizumi. He's my friend. He's the prime minister of Japan. It wasn't all that long ago that may dad your dad and others dads were fighting against the Japanese, but because after World War II we believed that Japan could self-govern and could be democratic in its own fashion, Japan is no longer an enemy; it's a friend, and so I sit down with him to help resolve issues like the North Korean peninsula in other words. We're working together to keep the peace. The same thing is going to happen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's when I say the transformational power of liberty. That's what I'm talking about.

link
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 12:50 pm
Can you find an independent source on that, McG? Rush has a bad habit of editing his transcripts.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 12:58 pm
It's a transcript of his interview with Rush. If you'd like a different source, I'll leave it to you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 01:25 pm
But you know as well as I do that Mr. Limbaugh reserves the right to edit, in any way, his transcripts and does so.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that anything that was written in the transcripts is actually the exact same thing as what was said. It should not be used as a primary source due to the lack of veracity.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » President says war on terror can't be won
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 02:03:10