Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 8/30/2004 6:46:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 6:47:28 PM EST by ArmdLbrl]

Updated: 07:40 PM EDT
Bush Tempers Expectations on War on Terrorism
President Suggests All-Out Victory May Not Be Possible
By SCOTT LINDLAW, AP

NASHUA, N.H. (Aug. 30) -- President Bush 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.''


Talk About It


· Post a Message
· Top News Boards

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. ''This is no time to declare defeat.''

''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.''




It's showtime for the Republican convention. Keep up with the latest news from New York:
· Get Full Coverage

Talk About It:
· Post Thoughts | Chat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· AOL Search: Convention


''To suggest that the war on terror can't be won is absolutely unacceptable,'' said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

''First George W. Bush said he miscalculated the war in Iraq, then he called it a catastrophic success and blamed the military,'' said Kerry 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'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. From New Hampshire, he headed to Michigan.

The president rehearsed his Thursday night acceptance speech Monday morning before leaving the White House.

''They're kicking off the convention with positive speeches. It's going to be a positive experience for the people of this country to see what we believe,'' Bush said.


08/30/04 19:13 EDT

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.



WTF?

I mean, the only thing we would win is some peace and quiet anyway. So what does this mean?
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 6:50:48 PM EST
He's right. I'm surprised that he had the balls to come out and say it, particularly now.

Look, there will always be nutballs willing to hurl firebombs. That's never going to go away. What Bush is fighting is the EUroweenie attitude of "it's best just to live with it." No, it's best to attack it and spread democracy and minimize it.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 6:51:58 PM EST
Did anyone actually see him speeking with Lower?
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 6:54:36 PM EST
Unfortunately, I don't know that a total victory could be achieved without a full blown campaign of genocide against the Arabs. As long as there is Islam, there will be militant Islam, and there will be terror.

He shoud have kept that quiet until after the election though!
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 6:54:38 PM EST
What I think he means is that it will not be a diplomatic end with real closure. Terrorists don't have representatves to deal with, and they don't give up. We might "win" by stomping terrorists, but we'll never get the satisfaction of them admitting that they lost.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 6:58:00 PM EST
Of course, you can't "win" against terrorism. Have the Israelis?

All you can do is to take the necessary steps that put yourself in the most advantageous position.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 6:59:08 PM EST
Nothing wrong with what he said. Like the poster above said. As long as there are humans on the planet then the potential is there so you haven't won. My beef is using the term war in the first place. War implies a engagement that can be won and declared 'over'. Terror is not something that can be declared over. So what if we kill Osama, or Kalid Al Hamari Sistani El Magal Mohammad, you don't think somewhere someone will be willing to pick up the ball and run. There are lines of them waiting.

You fight and put them off-balance, but that's about all you can really hope for. Subversives have been around forever and GWB isn't going to wipe them all out.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:03:34 PM EST
Did GW articulate that THAT poorly, or is NBC deliberately taking him out of context?
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:10:00 PM EST
Tolerance of other cultures (God, that sounds like liberal shit) is a two way street.

If we "leave them alone" in order to achieve peace they have to leave us alone too.

Since they will NEVER leave us alone, the war is not something one can win unless the opposition is wiped out.

So W is right.

Four more years!

- BG
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:14:00 PM EST
he is right it cant be won completely ts impossible
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:14:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:19:45 PM EST
Sheesh, have some faith guys! Have you never heard of a set-up before? Let the morons run with it for a couple of days and see what happens when GW makes his speech!
BTW, he had that smirk on his face when he said that crap All is well!
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:22:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By 2sonmike:
Sheesh, have some faith guys! Have you never heard of a set-up before? Let the morons run with it for a couple of days and see what happens when GW makes his speech!
BTW, he had that smirk on his face when he said that craphr


Speaking of speechs, anyone see the ones today from McCain and Guiliani?

Damn shame the networks ain't running them. Those were some good speeches on the war on terror and so on.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:22:34 PM EST
"Winning" implies complete victory. Some things can't be completely"won".

Terrorists are like bacteria: We'll never completely eradicate them; all we can strive to do is reduce their numbers to the point where their impact on our day-to-day lives is trivial.

I agree that this shows a lot of insight and courage on Dubya's part.

Naturally, the Left will insist on framing this war in absolute win-or-lose terms, thereby automatically making Bush's war a "failure", by definition.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:22:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Unfortunately, I don't know that a total victory could be achieved without a full blown campaign of genocide against the Arabs. As long as there is Islam, there will be militant Islam, and there will be terror.

He shoud have kept that quiet until after the election though!



+1
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:28:11 PM EST
It's a trade off. How far can we go before the world is panics at our power and ruthlessness? The world is already realigning alliances to counter our power. In the history of the world, unstoppable military machines rarely stop.
Top Top