Jackson Free Press

AP is reporting that President Bush is trying to take back his earlier statement that the war on terror cannot be won, a statement that is causing a firestorm just as he is getting ready to accept his party's nomination in Washington. "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.' That statement 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 said on ABC's 'Nightline' program. "The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable.'"

Previous Comments

ID

137112

Comment

Terrorism's a tactic, not an opponent. So, what does it mean to win the war in the first place? Who are we fighting, when we fight terrorism? None of it makes any sense to me...

Author

kate

Date

2004-08-31T14:12:14-06:00

ID

137113

Comment

Exactly, Kate. Todd calls it a "war on an -ism." The problem, it seems, it that Bush has said repeatedly that the "war on terrorism" can be won, can be won, can be wonóthen he told Matt Lauer in an interview apparently filled with minefields for him (so much for easy Today Show interviews) that it can't be won. I guess the reasoning would be that he didn't think it was going so well. Or, perhaps he's realized that his administrations actions may just be spawning more terrorists around the region. (OK, probably not.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-31T14:34:25-06:00

ID

137114

Comment

Interesting comments about "winning" the war on terror by Newsweek's Middle East regional editor Christopher Dickey: So why has our victory become so much less than the sum of its parts? Because 18 months ago the goal should have been to calm the international scene and build cooperation. The cancer of Al Qaeda had largely been cut out. The challenge was to keep it from metastasizing. This was the moment for the war of ideas to begin in earnest and international cooperation to be at its height. This was the time when terrorist recruiters could have been isolated and their lies exposed. Instead, our impulsive, almost petulant invasion of Iraq did just what so many of our friends and allies warned it would do. It created a whole new hot-bed of fanaticism, and an inspiration to terrorist recruiters everywhere. By pretending the War on Terror is one all-embracing fight, Bush has created a war he has no idea how to win. At the same time, heís succeeded in pulling together many separate enemies. No, terrorism is not a force of nature. But we have done a lot to create the perfect storm. Full column To answer a comment from another thread: no, Bush has not made the U.S. safer. That's ideological dreaming.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-31T18:54:52-06:00

ID

137115

Comment

[loosely quoted from david cross:] fighting a war on terrorism is like fighting a war on jealousy. you're never, ever gonna win.

Author

Jay

Date

2004-09-01T12:30:58-06:00

ID

137116

Comment

NYT editorial today: President Bush was absolutely right when he said it was impossible to win a war against terrorism - it's like announcing we can win a war against violence. Terrorism can only be minimized and controlled, and that can be done only with a worldwide strategy, joined by all of the world's sensible and peaceful nations. We hope that when Mr. Bush accepts his party's nomination for re-election tonight, he makes that argument. The chances of a serious dialogue about terror took a blow, of course, when Mr. Bush retracted his completely sensible statement about terrorism after the Kerry-Edwards campaign attacked it. So far, this has been an election season of monumental simple-mindedness, in which the candidates start each day by telling us this is the most important election in the history of the planet, then devote the rest of their waking hours to meaningless sniping. But it's certainly not too late to elevate the conversation. Tonight we do not need Mr. Bush to remind us that he went to ground zero and spoke through a bullhorn. It was a fine gesture that any president would have made. As far as judging his leadership, it is as irrelevant as the famous extra minutes he spent in a classroom in Florida during a reading of "The Pet Goat" after the World Trade Center was attacked. We do not need to hear further justification of his invasion of Iraq. It seems clear to us that the whole war is a mistake, a detour from hunting down terrorists that was undertaken on the basis of wrong information and is likely in the end to do far more harm than good when it comes to ending fanaticism in the Middle East. But the president is certainly not going to admit any of that, and as far as the future goes, he and John Kerry are in agreement about staying the course in Iraq. What Mr. Bush should really talk about tonight is staying the course in Afghanistan, which is a case study in the perils of battling groups like Al Qaeda as if they were nation-states. The American-led invasion was a success to the degree that a government friendly to the United States and opposed to terrorist groups has been installed in Kabul. But armed opponents of the government are still all over the rest of Afghanistan, including Qaeda remnants and a revived Taliban. Full editorial

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-09-02T09:49:15-06:00