"I Probably Needed To Be A Little More Articulate"

[andyfox]

President Bush on Monday, on the war on terrorism: "I don't think you can win it."

Vice President Cheney, on Tuesday: "[T]he president never intended to convey the notion that we can't win."

Maybe Kerry ain't dead yet.

[vulturesrow]

Read this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=980612&page=2&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#980612) for the complete context of Bush's quote.

[Michael Davis]

"Maybe Kerry ain't dead yet."

Can I stop looking through Vancouver apartment listings?

-Michael

[Stu Pidasso]

Mr. Fox,

President Bush on Monday, “I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaida as we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. You know there's some who say well, ‘You know certain people can't self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.”

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe Kerry ain't dead yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not, but the fact that Kerry has to latch on to a quote from Bush taken out of context is a good indication that his campaign is on life support and failing fast.

Stu

[Duke]

Even out of whatever context it was in, that statement seems to be a lot wiser than I figured Bush capable of being.

To claim that "terror" is something that he could succeed in defeating is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather have him say something like this that admits that the task is impossible.

~D

[MMMMMM]

Actually, the public Democratic response/attack on this shows, IMO, a lack of intelligence or common sense--or else a desire to find a bone--any bone--to pick at and wave about.

Anyone who cannot discern that Bush meant "I don't think we can 'win' it (completely)" has no business doing anything other than bringing their reading/listening skills up to par. Is Bush to be royally roasted for not making himself perfectly clear even to nitwits?

Also, Edwards harping on this like a trial lawyer shows, IMO, a very slippery nature.

I am sure you instantly perceived what Bush meant, Andy--but apparently, even the great Andy Fox likes to stir the pot once in a blue moon.

[GWB]

It's not that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so. -- Ronald Reagan

[adios]

Don't you understand the electorate is too dumb to view statements in context. They have to have the liberals interpret for them /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[andyfox]

No, the president needed the vice president to interpret it for him, as well as others in the administration, including himself. The president took pains to call Rush Limbaugh and the vice president to call Sean Hannity to interpret for us. Perhaps the president thinks the public is too dumb to understand his admittedly inarticulate statement. The statement needed no interpretation and was not given additional or different meaning by the context. In fact, the context emphasized the president's clear meaning.

[andyfox]

I agree that Kerry's campaign is in trouble. I posted yesterday in another thread that, despite having made a bet on Kerry earlier this year, I think he's likely to lose.

I don't see how the context changes what Bush said. He's explaining why it can't be won. But then the next day Cheney says the president didn't mean it.

Like Kerry, whose swift boat troubles were (IMO) self-inflicted, Bush has made the War on Terrorism his leitmotif. And after all this talk of being tough and not waffling and being relentless, now he says it can't be won but you can hope to create conditions whereby terroristic tactics are less acceptable in "parts of the world."

[andyfox]

Of course a war on terrorism can't be won. Terrorism isn't an enemy--it's a tactic. What Bush said about it to Lauer is more intelligent than anything he's said about it since 9/11. But he's been spending all his time telling us he's gonna win it. To then say it can't be won is shocking.

The attacks on the statement do not show a lack of intelligence or common sense. They show political opportunism. What do you think the Republicans would have done if Kerry had said the war can't be won? Bush knew he said something stupid, that's why Cheney called Sean Hannity to say Bush didn't mean to say what he said and why Bush himself called Rush Limbaugh to plead inarticulateness. Which is clearly false, because he was extraordinarily articulate in saying the exact opposite of what he's been saying since 9/11. Read the entire statement to Lauer. It's not inarticulate at all.

[andyfox]

Reagan was indeed the expert par excellence on ignorance. Ask any Republican who worked with him.

[ThaSaltCracka]

...

[MMMMMM]

"Of course a war on terrorism can't be won. Terrorism isn't an enemy--it's a tactic."

The "War on Terrorism" should be renamed the "War on Islamic Terrorists".

"The attacks on the statement do not show a lack of intelligence or common sense. They show political opportunism."

What I wrote:

"Actually, the public Democratic response/attack on this shows, IMO, a lack of intelligence or common sense--or else a desire to find a bone--any bone--to pick at and wave about."

I think most of them are acting opportunistically about this, but it is a stupid point to try to attack since everyone should easily perceive what Bush really meant. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them actually are that stupid (as to not perceive).

[MMMMMM]

But somehow he came up with the right answers depite his 'ignorance', where more 'knowledgeable' men failed to do so (especially re. the USSR and arms agreements/arms race).

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
but it is a stupid point to try to attack since everyone should easily perceive what Bush really meant.

[/ QUOTE ] Thats not the point, most people know what he meant, but this is far different that what he has been saying. He said we would win the war on terrorism, not "we will make it harder for them to carry out terrorist attacks". This is a very veiled backtrack by the president. He is basically saying something that he should have been saying all along.

[MMMMMM]

I think Bush's meaning was just that it can't be won completely, as in the sense of stamping out terrorism--but it can be fought and managed and dealt with. Terrorists can be reduced in number and effectiveness, and terrorism can be made to be seen less acceptable in certain parts of the world.

IMO it was obvious that the President was not trying to say it can't be won to some extent but rather that it can't be won definitively or completely. No clarification needed IMO (except for certain elements of the populace).

[andyfox]

I think you're missing my point. (Maybe I'm not making it very well.) Bush has all along said we won't be deterred, we won't give up, we're going to WIN. And then he says it can't be won. While it's high political season and of course the opposition will pick up on this, it's a significant statement. It was significant enough that the administration realized that it doesn't jive with what he's been saying since 9/11.

IMO, it's not a stupid point to attack. Either what he's been saying all along is a crock, or what he said to Lauer is. (I think what he said to Lauer makes a lot more sense than what he's said previously, but they're not going to run on the idea that the war against terrorism can't be won.) So they needed to explain what he meant to say and put a different spin on it. What he actually said is clear and doesn't require interpretation: he said the war can't be won and he gave reasons why (which were clear and cogent IMO).

Both Rove and whoever is Rove for Kerry should keep them both of them on a tight leash. Speeches, public appearances without questions, the debates, and plenty of commercials.

[andyfox]

I agree with your assessment of what he meant in your first sentence. But that is completely at odds with what he has been saying since 9/11. Which is why Bush and Cheney and others in the administration needed to interpret what indeed was not in need of interpretation.

[MMMMMM]

It all hinges on the definition of "win".

If "win" is defined as completely stamping out terrorism, then no, the war on terrorism can't be won. If "win" is defined as greatly reducing terrorism, makinbg it harder to accomplish and less acceptable, and crippling the ability of terrorists to operate, then yes, it can probably be "won".

Since "win" was not previously defined in this regard, and since Bush in the statement was obviously addressing the "stamping out" version of "win" as not being achievable, I don't think his statement was unclear or even really contradictory. I think anyone could realize that he was addressing a different definition of "win" when he made that remark, since "win" in this context has two such different meanings.

Anyway, it was obvious to me in reading it that that is what he was trying to address. And if it was obvious to me I think it should have been obvious to everyone else, too ;-)

[andyfox]

The idea that Reagan won the Cold War is ridiculous. The Cold War was started by Democrats who dragged the head-in-the-sand Republicans along kicking and screaming. After some loud talking and little action by the Eisenhower administration, the Democrats Kennedy and Johnson revved things up by taking stands, especially in Southeast Asia and against "Red" China. Nixon then initiated an era of detente. It was the Democrats who were the foreign policy hard-liners. Meanwhile, trying to catch up with our defense spending (passed by Democratic congresses), the Soviets went broke. Gorbachev did away with the entire mess while the new leader was out cold drunk at the meeting disbanding the country.

[MMMMMM]

It's just two different meanings of "win", Andy: total stamping out and absolute victory on the one hand, or reducing terrorism and winning for the most part on the other hand. Hence the war on terrorism cannot be "won", but it can be won.

[andyfox]

"Anyway, it was obvious to me in reading it that that is what he was trying to address. And if it was obvious to me I think it should have been obvious to everyone else, too"

I agree 100%. That's exactly why they needed to backtrack and say he didn't mean to say that at all the next day.

[andyfox]

"Hence the war on terrorism cannot be "won", but it can be won."

That must be why Kerry voted for it before he voted against it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

I didn't say Reagan won the Cold War; I said he came up with the right answers regarding the arms race and arms agreements where more knowledgeable men failed (or advised worse strategic alternatives).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"Anyway, it was obvious to me in reading it that that is what he was trying to address. And if it was obvious to me I think it should have been obvious to everyone else, too"

I agree 100%. That's exactly why they needed to backtrack and say he didn't mean to say that at all the next day.

[/ QUOTE ]


No need for that since it was all obvious anyway;-)

[MMMMMM]

Brilliant, Andy;-)

[ThaSaltCracka]

your spinning is absurd here.
when he said win he meant win. Now they are redefining what they meant by win.
Like I said earlier, its obvious what he meant when he said this to Laurer, but it is also obvious he and the admin are backtracking.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not spinning anything, and Andy seems to agree with me.

"Win" means different things here...obviously ;-)

[andyfox]

Reagan was consistently and colossally wrong about the arms race and arms control throughout his public career. He told us we weren't spending enough, that the Russians were beating us, that we were pussies and that unless we changed course we were headed for extinction. He was exactly 180 degrees wrong.

[MMMMMM]

Reagan may have been wrong about how the Soviets were doing, but he was right as to the best strategy to counter them.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the context changes what Bush said. He's explaining why it can't be won

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you point out to me where he explains why it can't be won? I read that passage and thought Bush was completely lacking in that regard.

Stu

[andyfox]

By explaining his two-prong strategy to miminize terrorism being acceptable, he's implicitly explaining why a war on terrrorism can't be won, but rather terrorism only caused to become unacceptable and unappealing.

[andyfox]

He was wrong about the best strategy to counter them. Unless you believe the United States' policy from the beginning of the Cold War was wrong. He was critical of every administration before his in regard to their Soviet policy. He saw Soviet influence all over the world without regard to any other consideration, largely because of ignorance of other countries' and regions' histories. This manifested itself in his characterization of the contras in Nicaragua as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers, and the Sandanista state as a totalitarian dungeon; again, 180 degrees removed from reality.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
By explaining his two-prong strategy to miminize terrorism being acceptable, he's implicitly explaining why a war on terrrorism can't be won, but rather terrorism only caused to become unacceptable and unappealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Bush is implicitly saying that winning the war on terror is not defined as eliminating terror, but minimizing it and making it unacceptable and unappealing.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

Er, Andy, I was speaking to his means of countering the Soviets directly, i.e., massive military build-up, no nuclear freeze, SDI. I feel that those programs helped force their hand and since they held the losing hand that was a good thing.

[Chris Alger]

One can guess what's going on here. Bush wondered aloud how many more "high-ranking al Qaeda operatives" need to be dropped into Guantanamo before he gets to declare victory. So one of his handlers patiently explained that the war can't be won, and that's the whole point. But they forgot to warn him that this wasn't for public consumption. No wonder he couldn't explain himself to the 9/11 panel without Cheney next to him.

Someone needs to rerun an old National Lampoon cartoon. The first panel shows several men in shirtsleelves, chomping cigars and playing cards in a nondescript backroom. In the corner is a man in a cage, gibbering and evidently severely retarded or deranged. A rat runs by, and the man in the cage grabs it. Next, the door opens and someone announces "okay, it's time." The man in the cage is led out of the room, to much applause while someone announces: "LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES." Then the man in the cage is smiling and waving on stage, balloons dropping, music, cheering. But he still has the rat in his hand. He then bites off the rat's head. Final panel: one of the handlers asks: "do you think anyone saw him eat the rat?" "I dunno, but it was a damn stupid thing to let happen."

[anatta]

"The idea that Reagan won the Cold War is ridiculous"

You would think that the men who fought in Korea and Nam would gets some credit. But Conservatives actually have justified in their minds that the massive deficit spending during the Reagan years is the main cause of the fall of the Soviet Union (ignoring Gorbie and the plain fact that the system was corrupt and flawed and bound to fail). Sort of like Bush's "trifecta" justification for HIS deficits. This rationalization is easier than admitting that they just want to loot the Treasury for their corporate buddies and spend their asses off to show short term economic growth, thereby increasing chances they stay in office.