Link
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - 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.
"In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table," Bush said. "But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win."
Those statements 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.
"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 (news - web sites) said on ABC's "Nightline" program. "The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable."
In his speech to the nation's largest veterans' organization, Bush also defended his decision to remove Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) from power. Though no weapons of mass destruction have been found, he said Saddam had the capability to make them.
"Knowing what I know today I would have taken the same action," he said. "America and the world are safer with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell."
i don't like him kerrying from one side to another....
the war on terror is a fight that the US cannot walk away from.....but what does "win" mean, that we will be guaranteed safety from crazy suicidal idiots forever? unfortunately, that is highly unlikely.....
Earth to Johnny Boy: there are still communist regimes in this world."What if President Reagan had said that it may be difficult to win the war against communism?
Now Edwards is switching to using an example of a conflict between an enemy country instead of an enemy movement. There is not a country called Terroristan. Yes, some governments do support terrorist groups, but you are not dealing with conventional forces but rather small groups who feel that specifically targeting civilians is acceptable. Those groups can exist anywhere.What if other presidents had said it'd be difficult to win the war — the Cold War?"
Ok Johnny, when will we know it's over?Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) said on ABC's "Nightline" program. "The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable."
This line of argument for the Demos is dumb because Bush's image is certainly that he is -bent on eliminating al-Qaeda. Trying to out-hawk Bush on terrorism is foolish. What they can score some points on is the notion that Bush is reckless, that he will continue to wage perpetual war for perpetual peace.
I think it was an unfortunate choice of words on the part of President Bush.
I've heard him address this point in the past and, from that, know that what he was alluding to was that it will be impossible to know when the war on terror is over. Why? Well, there won't be a surrender. There won't be a regime change. There won't be an occupation or change in sovereignty. Acts of terror, whether or not they're related to the current war, will continue past the point at which we've secured our homeland against it and feel satified with our own defenses against our enemies.
Can a war against terror be won? Who knows? And, more importantly, how would one know that it was won? When all terrorist acts cease? Well, Pollyanna, that's not going to happen. If it isn't Islamic Extremists...it's White Supremists...and, if it's not White Supremists, it'll be someone else, probably the French, (if they had the gonads).
The second part of the President's statemtent was as important as his belief that a war may not be winnable. He said that, even if it isn't, we can make terrorism near impossible and we can make life very difficult for those who would engage in terrorism, harbor terrorists, or support terrorist agendas.
It's really not about a clear cut military victory over some nebulous, enigmatic enemy. It's about making the practice of terrorism completely unsavory for those who would choose it as a method.
It's all semantics. Everyone knows what Bush means when he says he doesn't think the War on Terror can be "won." I don't blame Kerry/Edwards for jumping on this opportunity to shift attention from the Swift Boat Vets/RNC, but most people get it I think.
Still, if you're Bush, you should be careful not to give them something to sink their teeth into.
Here is the problem of the Kerry campaign. They have not made a clear distinction between Bush and Kerry. Edwards was responding to something that Bush said in an interview that the Bush campaign set up with Laurer on their own. Laurer is doing a better job putting Bush on the defensive than the Kerry campaign. Bush right now is campaigning from a position of strength. He is setting the agenda. This is all wrong for Kerry. He is the challenger. He should be making it crystal clear as to how he differs from Bush and make Bush defend his record.
The DNC was a failure. It did not take Bush to task. Kerry did not offer any lasting vision nor put Bush on the defensive. Now Bush gets to set the agenda. He gets to set the issues of the debate. He gets to offer the vision.
A major problem for the Kerry campaign is that they made this campaign personal against a likable in bent president who has a good job approval rating and their own candidate is an arrogant and aloof individual who is not offering a clear alternative to Bush. Bush is not his dad and Bush is not Carter. Bush41 and Carter were in bents with job approval ratings in the 30s and who did not have their party united and energized behind them.
Another is that the Demos seem to have read too much into the 'wrong track/right track' poll numbers. It doesn't seem to occur to them that people can believe this country is not where they'd like it to be, yet that is because their vision of America is closer to Bush's than Kerry's.
On some days Kerry-Edwards try to criticize Bush for being too hawkish and then on other days they hit him for being too dovish. They still do not know where they stand on the top issue of the day and here we are 63 days from the election.
Kerry-Edwards F'ed up.
i agree with marcus.
we'renot going to eradicate terrorism. bush ed up yesterday, and then kerry/edwards and bush all ed up today.
but this is what happens when elections are won/lost with soundbites.
The President's gaffe (if it really was one) isn't going to make a bit of difference.
Just like racism will never be eradicated from this earth I don't believe terrorism will either.
It is a never-ending war.
Yet, just like racism, terrorism can be made impotent.
Why bring up impotence?
Sincerely,
Bob Dole
Not like any of them matter anyway.Earth to Johnny Boy: there are still communist regimes in this world.
Yeah, like North Korea.
I agree.
That's rather ignorant.
It sure isn't.
Communism isn't the threat it used to be. There no longer is the danger of expansion -- President Ronald Reagan slayed that dragon. But, as was pointed out, there are a few remnant communist states that are giving the rest of the world heartburn.
You're right, North Korea isn't really a security threat. Japan isn't scared less about them developing nukes. Who knew?
Get a ing clue.
Reagan didn't crush communism.
Communism is still around and Iran, N. Koria, Pakistan, India and other nations have nuclear capabilities but Dubya is so obsessed with terrorism that son he'll want to nuke the whole world.
Well Yoni that depends on what you want to call the Chinese government and economy.
I did. You didn't.You're right, North Korea isn't really a security threat. Japan isn't scared less about them developing nukes. Who knew?
"I know you are but what am I?"
Get to class kiddo, you have much to learn.
Like what?
Start with the fact that North Korea is ruled by a communist totalitarian regime which is developing or perhaps already has nuclear weapons and has engaged in belligerent actions towards Japan and the United States. It's not exactly a secret that North Korea is considered a threat to international security, a view that is shared across the political spectrum in these United States and throughout the world.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote