QandO

Daschle will come to regret this ad. Bush is quickly demonstrating he is a pussy who cannot win the war and got it wrong at the beginning. Daschle will look weak when this is all over. In the heat of August, November seems cold and far away. Know what I mean, Vern?

According to Bush, here is what we know: Iraq is a "catastrophic success" - and yet he does not think "you can win" the war on terror, and he may have actually "miscalculated" the post-invasion situation before we invaded.

These are not his critics speaking. These are not his honest supporters speaking truthfully. This is the man himself speaking.

And yet this site - at least some of the bloggers who post on it - support Bush. WTF?

Imagine for a moment - just imagine - that Kerry - a man who is currently NOT PRESIDENT - had said the war on terrorism could not be won. Imagine that for just a moment. Would the Bush apologists jump all over him? Wouldn't rhe Bush apologists go ape-sh**? Wouldn't they claim that is a sign of weakness to the enemy THAT THE WAR CANNOT BE WON? WHAT THE HELL WAS BUSH THINKING? DOES HE WANT AMERICANS KILLED?

Remember Bush's credo: We Cannot Show Weakness. Tell me, my sensible conservative friends, how in the hell does saying we cannot win not show weakness? ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know you will spin this; you will say Bush was quoted out-of-context. You will spin what he said. You will say this shows his wisdom and "sensistivity." You will even say that Bush is answering his critics.

But that's not in the playbook people. Bush is steadfast and certain. He is strong, certain, and principled. Nuance is not his game. There is no nuance. There is good and evil. Republican resolve and Democratric wishy-washiness.

We cannot win. We miscalculated. It has all been a catastrophic success.

Bush has made us look weak. We will suffer.

Posted by: mkultra at August 31, 2004 12:32 AM

I suppose I could argue with you but what exactly does Kerry stand for this week, no this day, er, I mean this minute, second?

With Kerry, weakness is his everyday suit. I am sure that if elected, Iran and North Korea will tremble. Oh wait, Iran and North Korea want him in office. so much for that.

;)

Posted by: capt joe at August 31, 2004 01:10 AM

mkultra,

IMHO there really CAN'T be a win in the war on
terror. There will ALWAYS be some wingnut that
wants to fuck up the party. Like the Unabomber
or Guy Ffolkes, terrorist to be sure and most
certainly 'at war' with their own enemies ...
even if they are lone wolves the damage done
will be perceived to be as if it was a deed
done by an 'organised' entity.

I really think Bush was very intellectually
honest and forthright. We will never squish
all the bugs but maybe ... just maybe we will
stomp enough of them to keep the breeders from
over-populating.

He gave NO comfort to our enemy in so saying.
They know what he meant. I paraphrase ...
'We might not get allya, buy we're gonna get
most of ya.'

We did miscalculate. No battle plan survives
the first contact with the enemy. Don't change
much though does it? They're still screwed.
We can recalibrate and THEY ARE SCREWED MORE.

The explanation for the 'catastrophic
success' is, and I find it very reasonable,
the advance of our troops was SO FAST that
the enemy didn't even have a CHANCE to fight.
They were flanked and double flanked and
rather than to commit hari kiri, they opted
to disperse and blend back in.

BUT, now that we have been there awhile, we
present a target they CAN deal with.

We thought they would at least put up a fight.
Such was not the case. They couldn't but now
they can.

I'll tell ya, we don't look none too weak
if you happen to be staring down the barrel
of an M1A or have the uncommon bad luck to be
within a few blocks of a 1000 pounder. And
besides, who gives a rat's ass what the fuckers
think? They gonna be just as dead. Ain't that
right?

And if your're worried about what anybody
besides the objects of our wrath think ....
well, I'll just ask again, who gives a fuck?

Buck up. Be glad that W is an honest man
who tries his damnedest to articulate the
truth. If it was Kerry ... your head would
spin so fast it would unfuckingscrew. Count
your blessings and cowboy up.

As for that Daschle dude, why he be the only
asshole around that rivals Kerry in pure and
unadulterated slimeatude. He ain't gonna win cuz
he pissed off a whole bunch of ... gotta be PC,
'native Americans' in his home state. He won't
even be able to live in S.Dakota. Or is it N.
Dakota? Well one them Dakotas anyway. Fuck him
too.

Feel better now? Good. Seeya

Steel Turman
Reno NV.

Posted by: Steel Turman at August 31, 2004 04:07 AM

Steel!

I feel so much catastrophically better! Well done!

Posted by: Scott Wilson at August 31, 2004 04:38 AM

John Edwards last night on Nightline told Ted Koppel that they could win the war on terror. I think we need to hold them to that if elected. I want to see a signing of a surrender by the "terrorist", I think they need to be asked about it everywhere they go. John Edwards stepped in it last night!

Posted by: The KGB at August 31, 2004 08:15 AM

MK: Here is Bush's full statement. Tell me which part of it is incorrect:

"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."

As a Democrat--Nuance in 2004!--I'd think you'd grasp that.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 31, 2004 10:58 AM

You need to emphasize the word "it" as Bush did when he said it. He was making the point that "terror" isn't a single entity which can be defeated and will show up an sign a surrender agreement. "It" is a tool and he addressed it as a tool. His point was he wants to make it less and less an acceptable tool, and that is how we'll beat terrorism.

As you point out, apparently its to subtle or nuanced a statement for some who love to pretend their intellectual superiority when it comes to Bush (but are unable to grasp this particular concept).

Posted by: McQ at August 31, 2004 11:12 AM

Holy flippity-flop, now Bush says that ha CAN win it. Which is it, guys??? lol, you guys make me laugh so much. I come here when I need to be reminded why Reps and the rest of the right are so...cold? evil? heartless?
And after months of saying Iraq was a success and that Rummy did a "superb job", now he admits to 'miscalculations'. Flippity-flopped again???
lol
You guys are priceless, lol. It's funny because I first came here thinking this site was unusual in that it wasn't about Dems or Reps but boy was I wrong. I've been chewed out even in instances where I agreed, lol.

Posted by: DannyBoy at August 31, 2004 11:58 AM

Always glad to provide comic relief for the needy, Dannyboy. I assume youi didn't get 'it' either.

Posted by: McQ at August 31, 2004 12:04 PM

McQ - GW has you guys running all over the place, lol.
Taken from the right's playbook..."Did he or did he not say that "you cannot win it?" Then did he not say "we will win?" Looks like a flip-flop to me."
C'mon, you know this is how the 'game' is played. And you guys are definitely good at it.
And KGB..."John Edwards last night on Nightline told Ted Koppel that they could win the war on terror. I think we need to hold them to that if elected." -- are you going to hold GW up to that now, too?
LMAO, Bush has you guys dizzier than a mofo.

Posted by: DannyBoy at August 31, 2004 12:21 PM

Danny....you haven't answered the question. What part of Bush's statement--cited above--is incorrect?

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 31, 2004 12:25 PM

See that, I didn't even know that I was being asked a question, but apparently I've been asked. Well, here's a try at answering it...I'm not sure what question was asked of Bush but I suppose it was...
Can you win the war on terror?
"I don't think you can win it."
There, I did it. That's incorrect, unless you really think you CAN'T win it.
Now, you guys are like, "yeah, but 'it' means blah, blah, blah." That wasn't what Bush said. Because if that's what he meant, why did he then turn around and say that "we will win"?

Posted by: DannyBoy at August 31, 2004 12:48 PM

So you're contention is we can defeat terrorism to the point that it will never, ever be used by anyone anywhere?

Cool. Hey if Kerry can do that I'll vote for him.

But if you actually can get past your partisan spin you might note that terrorism isn't an entity or an enemy. Its not going to sign a formal surrender. It is a technique or a tool.

The only way you can win the war on terror (at least as it applies to the US) is to make the ROI for using terror against the US too high to contemplate. That's what he's proposing.

IOW we'll never win against terror (you can't and won't irradicate it), but we can win the war on terror by making terrorism to expensive a tool or technique to use against the US.

Which is why he followed the cited sentence with:

"But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Context dannyboy ... it makes all the difference in the world.

Well that and the fact that you have to think a little about what is being said and not focus on what's not.

I'd have figured all you "nuanced" lefties might have been able to figure that out.

Can't believe old dumb George was able to out nuance you guys.

Posted by: McQ at August 31, 2004 12:54 PM

McQ, it was not taken out of context, Jon asked what PART, he didn't ask for the whole thing again. Exact quote from Jon..."What part of Bush's statement--cited above--is incorrect?"
So I gave him the first part.
I mean, he says you CAN'T win, then you CAN win??? Is this not flip-flopping? And please, both of you, answer that question. It's ok, as I've always said, we flip-flop everyday on all kinds of decisions.

This is what all this campaigning stuff is about. Like I said, you guys are good at this, the masters at this.

Posted by: DannyBoy at August 31, 2004 01:04 PM

Flip-flop? To some degree, perhaps. In the sense that he's using different rhetoric...yes.

Neither is incorrect, depending on the implications. I'll list the possible implications, and where I stand on them.

FALSE: we can put an end to terrorism.

TRUE: We cannot put an end to terrorism
----------------

FALSE: we cannot beat Al Qaeda, et al.

TRUE: "we will win", because Al Qaeda, et al, will not achieve their goals through terrorism.
-----------------

TRUE: we can lower the utility of terrorism, so that it becomes a far less common occurrence.

Now, I assume that Bush's implications coincide with what I list above as "true". Which of those do you assume Bush meant?

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 31, 2004 01:15 PM

"We can't win.""We will win." -- yes, I guess that's different rhetoric, how stupid do...forget it, I'll let it go.
Jon, funny thing is that I agree w/ your TRUTHS. But this is what you ASSUME he meant not what he said. He didn't say any of your truths or false. I'm not going by what you're saying.
And by the way, is there a transcript of the interview anywhere?

Posted by: DannyBoy at August 31, 2004 01:33 PM

The interview is on video at MSNBC, right here.

Go see how you interpret it.

Posted by: McQ at August 31, 2004 02:09 PM

Thanks, McQ. I'll have to check it when I get home (at work right now). And the thing is, it probably isn't what he meant, but those words should've never left his lips after so much "we're going to win the war on terror." I'm sure you guys can agree on this one.

Posted by: DannyBoy at August 31, 2004 02:19 PM

I can understand your point, Dannyboy, but then the first time I knew about it was when I heard it. The audio puts it into a completely different context than the written version.

I knew exactly what he was saying. You'll see how his emphasis on 'it' makes the difference, something which does't translate at all in the written word.

Posted by: McQ at August 31, 2004 02:27 PM

I wonder if DannyBoy's employer(s) are concerned with his goofing-off on company time ("(at work right now)").

Posted by: Mikey at August 31, 2004 03:00 PM

I'm usually at work when I blog--and many, perhaps most, readers seem to read blogs from work--so let's not go around reminding the boss to put a stop to this, ok? :)

Danny: yes, I am making an inference. I think it's a reasonable inference, because I believe he and I have a roughly similiar understanding of terrorism and Al Qaeda. Am I right? We can only guess.

You're certainly welcome to make the case that he was advancing the beliefs that I labeled as "false".

We can agree that, while it's nice to occassionally hear blunt, truthful talk from a politician, it's very often bad politics, precisely because critics try to make hay out of it.

For the record, I think Kerry gets a bad rap for the "vote for it before I voted against it" remark, which was indicative of a perfectly fair and consistent approach to the bill in question. He didn't flip-flop....he addressed the "nuance" of the situation. (I wish we had more of that in political discourse, but the rhetorical environment won't allow it)

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 31, 2004 04:45 PM

Hey, where the hell you think I'm writing this stuff from ... my bedroom?

Heh ...

Posted by: McQ at August 31, 2004 04:57 PM

Mikey, don't snitch, I always go home thinking "I wonder if they're monitoring me." Scares me to death, I have to stop, lol.
And Jon, you touched on exactly the point I was making by bothering w/ this "we can't win, we will win" nonsense. I still haven't 'heard' it (McQ, thanks for the link but my pc seems to suck right now) but I had an idea that he didn't mean it literally. But he did say it and it through off some good lines like, "The president has gone from mission accomplished to mission miscalculated to mission impossible on the war on terror" and "George Bush might be able to read a speech saying we can win the war on terror, but as we saw (Monday), he's clearly got real doubts about his ability to do so, and with good reason." It got played the same way Kerry's flip-flopping 'I voted for it before I voted against it' flap. Man, Jon, this is the first time you've ever conceded that.
But back to what Bush said, the name "War on Terror" was the biggest mistake. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, he's actually said that to someone recently. It's a matter of common sense to know that all terrorism won't be irradicated. Are we suppose to go after the Chechnyan rebels too?

Posted by: DannyBoy at August 31, 2004 08:15 PM

Man, Jon, this is the first time you've ever conceded that.

But back to what Bush said, the name "War on Terror" was the biggest mistake. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, he's actually said that to someone recently.

In fact, the 9/11 commission said WoT was a misnomer, too, since it should be called the war on Fundamentalist Islamic terror. (or, something like that...it's too late to look these things up)

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 31, 2004 08:21 PM