portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

human & civil rights | imperialism & war

Bush admits He Can't Win the War on Terror

In an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show, The W himself admitted that the "War on Terror" cannot be won. So what does he say to the thousand of grieving family members of solders who have died in this "unwinable war?"
Lauer: "You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?"

President Bush: "I have never said we can win it in four years."

Lauer: "So I'm just saying can we win it? Do you see that?"

President Bush: "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-Qaidaas 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.

homepage: homepage: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/

is Bush out of the loop? 30.Aug.2004 16:23

curious george

Is Bush completely unaware of his own campaign strategy? He says the war on terror can't be won and that Kerry's service in Vietnam was more heroic than his.

"I think him going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in harm's way and I wasn't."

- George W. Bush

w. is in my opinion a psychopath. 30.Aug.2004 16:42

this thing here

so, you're not going to find him sticking to one story for very long. as he lacks any conscience, any kind of core principals, he'll change positions a million times, or say a million different contradictory things, to suit any situation. and he'll be a real charmer about it.

i keep coming back to this, but there is no clearer example in my mind:

he gave so many speeches about WMD's, about "all the evidence" of their existence, about the threat they posed. then, he sent men to die to protect "everyone" from these weapons. sure enough many men died alright. well, it turns out he was full of shit.

but just as the criticism was building, there's georgie making a joke of his critics and the criticism by looking for WMD's behind the curtains in the oval office for a fund raiser. nooo, none there, right georgie. yeah, you're a real funny sick sick bastard...

how fucking sick and heartless can one person be to make speeches describing a terrifying threat one minute, spend 100's of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and then turn around the next minute and make a joke about the whole fucking thing? is it just me?

the man is a monster. a master of deceit and pain and the hurting of others, hidden by a bountiful charm. as all psychopaths are...

Bush is a puppet 30.Aug.2004 17:17

L

Bush is just following orders. I just can't believe someone as inarticulate and braindead as he is can possibly have a grip on the situation (or reality for that matter.). Just saying things like "bring 'em to justice" is flat out embarressing. This guy went to college?
If they were really interested in ending terrorism, then, as Chomsky has said, maybe they should stop supporting it. A quicker solution would be to get rid of them all together. Bingo, no more terrorism.

Bush Suggests War on Terror Cannot Be Won 31.Aug.2004 00:27

By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

Mon Aug 30,11:02 PM ET

NASHUA, N.H. - 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."

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."

"The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable," Edwards said later on ABC's "Nightline."

"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."

"To suggest that the war on terror can't be won is absolutely unacceptable," said Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), 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 John 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.

Later, in Taylor, Mich., he acknowledged at a rally before thousands of supporters that that state's "recovery has lagged." July's unemployment rate of 6.8 percent in Michigan was tied with Oregon for second-highest after Alaska.

He charged that Kerry's longtime support for raising automotive fuel-economy standards would worsen the state's unemployment. Kerry's campaign rejected that.

Bush "is trying to mislead Michigan voters on Kerry's plan to increase fuel efficiency," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer. Kerry would provide $1 billion to help plants convert to make the autos of the future, Singer said.

"Kerry will ensure that the energy-efficient cars of the future are made in Michigan. Lee Iacocca knows this that's why he's supporting John Kerry this year." Iacocca, the former Chrysler Corp. chairman, campaigned for Bush in 2000 but backs Kerry this year.


It's true... 31.Aug.2004 14:10

Wyatt

Any one with a damn ounce of common sense would come to the same conclusion. No matter how intensive the searching, there will always be pockets of terroristic islamics hiding here or there. The only way to snare them all would be a door to door search of every town and village from here to BFE. Nigh impossible as anyone with any damn brains can see.

The best bet is containment and/or education. Fortunately the terrorists are education the world as to their M.O. The more and more bombings and executions that the terrorists engage in, the more the world looks down on them. The recent execution of 12 Nepalese civilians (if confirmed) is just a glaring example. Here you have a nation that by and large didn't care about what was going on in the middle east, and now I think it's safe to say that they will become actively anti-terror, if not anti-muslim. So I hope the terrorist keep up their activities. Eventually they will sign the death warrant of their own cause.

And, no there is no way to be an apologist for these cockroaches. There is no excuse. Save your breath.

umm... 31.Aug.2004 16:24

this thing here

>Any one with a damn ounce of common sense would come to the same conclusion. No matter how intensive the searching, there will always be pockets of terroristic islamics hiding here or there. The only way to snare them all would be a door to door search of every town and village from here to BFE. Nigh impossible as anyone with any damn brains can see.<

right, but you see, there are many many people in this country who really do not see the point in engaging in an endless war that cannot be won. what the hell does it prove. in fact, they said the same thing years ago that george "suddenly", with a stroke of presidential "genius", figured out now.

So do nothing? 31.Aug.2004 16:43

Wyatt

Just because you can't eradicate it doesn't mean you do nothing. Nice talk and appeasement will do nothing. These scumbags only respect power. The best you can do is try to contain the amount of terror attacks by pre-empting them, and not waiting for them to happen.

To sit back and do nothing in the hopes that the islamic terrorists will go away is folly on the grandest scale.

no, the grandest folly 31.Aug.2004 16:51

Patriot

Is to wage war on Muslim countries in hopes of "winning" a war on terrorism. Though I wouldn't advocate doing nothing, at least doing nothing wouldn't be creating a large number of terrorists.

That being said, George has had a 24 hour flip-flop and now believes the war on terrorism can be won. As does Kerry. As for me I usually have faith in the basic intelligence of people but this is really making me wonder when 2 candidates are fighting over which can display the lowest level of common sense in order to appeal to voters.

wyatt... 31.Aug.2004 17:20

this thing here

please show the part where i said we should do nothing to prevent or fight or defend against terrorism.

the question is WHAT is effective.

we've been fighting a "War on Drugs" for most of my life and sure as hell, the drugs, the dealers, and the addicts are still there, not about to go anywhere. hmm, maybe this should tell us something. is what we're doing effective? does it help? how MUCH does it help? what are the costs, the benefits? what might be a better approach?

as for george w. bush's "war on terrorism", he seems to think bullets and bombs are all that the world needs. wave a big stick around, that'll solve it. but then he comes out and says that the war, his literal war of bullets and bombs, can't be "won". and if you paid attention to the huge protest in new york city on monday wyatt, you would've seen signs that had a picture of george w. bush II with the words "al qaeda recruiter of the year" beneath it.

Sorry,,,,, 31.Aug.2004 17:54

Wyatt

I didn't mean to imply that you said that. However, I've thought about this whole situation for quite a while now. And I can think of only 2 "solutions":

1. Like I said, strike pre-emptively and strike hard against terrorist targets of opportunity. Sharing intelligence not just with close allies but with others as well (Russia, etc..)

2. Build "Fortress America". This is the approach I am in favor of, but I realize that it is just a dream. I would seal the U.S. border tight as a drum. Cut the number of immigrants into this country by 90%. Cut ALL current foreign aid and military aid immediately and re-direct these billions into American educational, health care and technological sectors. Cut American dependency on middle eastern oil by at least 80%. With our technology, it should be possible to find alternative energy sources. Withdraw from the United Nations. It is an outdated body that does no where near what it should do.
Pull ALL troops home from all countries. The U.S. has the means to conduct tactical strikes from the U.S. to anywhere in the world on a moments notice. The era of a massive Soviet land invasion is outdated at best. Israel is more than capable of defending itself as is South Korea.

If I were president I would go for number 2. But like I said, that'll never happen. It's nice to dream though...