# Bush says war on Terrorism Unwinnable **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2004, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229 "2004-08-30T14:10:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/61 "2004-08-31T15:38:12Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We will win the war on terror. The war on terror can’t really be won. We’re talking about the same war here, and winning means the same thing in both places. No, it doesn’t. The context of the two quotes makes it pretty clear that it does not. Winning the war on terror means making the world safe from international terrorism. Not winning the “war” means not doing so through exclusively military means. If you could find the 3 or 4 sentences which lead up to the question in question I’m sure it would clear this up. > [@](#): > > it is a major blunder, agree or not. I’m sure it is playing out as a major blunder politically. The article was written as if Bush has changed his mind. We are discussing it in that context, and I’m sure the WhiteHouse is very concerned. ( **elucidator** mentioned that they felt the need to release a clarification). But the fault for the misunderstanding is more the reporter’s and ours. We are so hungry for quick soundbites with which to nip at our politicians, that we are willing to commit agregious logical errors to do so. At the same time, I’m sure Bush’s handlers wish he would not be so casual with reporters. > [@](#): > > I wonder if this is a case of > Cheney: I thought you were watching him. > Rove: No I thought you were! 😃 I’m not sure if those were the speakers, but I’m sure some conversation like this occured. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/62 "2004-08-31T15:43:25Z")
Do I want more??? Yeah try posting something that supports your claim that Bush wants to “reduce terrorism to acceptable levels”. When did he say anything even remotely of the kind? So I ask again; what are “acceptable levels of terrorism” and who makes that decision? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/63 "2004-08-31T16:02:35Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > Do I want more??? Yeah try posting something that supports your claim that Bush wants to “reduce terrorism to acceptable levels”. When did he say anything even remotely of the kind? So I ask again; what are “acceptable levels of terrorism” and who makes that decision? Both of the quotes I gave you mention making America and or the world safer. Making the world safer means reducing terrorism to levels where we feal safe. Is that really so bizzare a position? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/64 "2004-08-31T16:04:28Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > No, it doesn’t. The context of the two quotes makes it pretty clear that it does not. Winning the war on terror means making the world safe from international terrorism. Not winning the “war” means not doing so through exclusively military means. If you could find the 3 or 4 sentences which lead up to the question in question I’m sure it would clear this up. [The White House’s explanation of what he meant](http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbush313948967aug31,0,3404568.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines) is at odds with what your interpretation is. So now do you say that _you_ always meant the war was winnable, too, in all your posts in this thread? Or that you’ve misinterpreted Bush both for the last three years, and yesterday, and you actually realize you’ve disagreed with him? Or is there a third option? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/65 "2004-08-31T16:13:53Z")
> [@bup](#): > > > [@pervert](#): > > > > No, it doesn’t. The context of the two quotes makes it pretty clear that it does not. Winning the war on terror means making the world safe from international terrorism. Not winning the “war” means not doing so through exclusively military means. If you could find the 3 or 4 sentences which lead up to the question in question I’m sure it would clear this up. > > [The White House’s explanation of what he meant](http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbush313948967aug31,0,3404568.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines) is at odds with what your interpretation is. It is? From your cite: "\*White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan fired back, saying the statement didn’t convey the full context of the interview. “Well, he was talking about winning it in the conventional sense,” McClellan said during a news briefing aboard Air Force One. “We face an unconventional enemy. And it’s - I don’t think you can expect that there will ever be a formal surrender or a treaty signed, like we have in wars past.”\*" This sounds exactly like what I said. Can you explain to me the difference? > [@](#): > > So now do you say that _you_ always meant the war was winnable, too, in all your posts in this thread? Or that you’ve misinterpreted Bush both for the last three years, and yesterday, and you actually realize you’ve disagreed with him? Or is there a third option? Yes, there is. This is not the pit, so I’ll leave it up to your imagination. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/66 "2004-08-31T16:19:56Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > No. Just the few sentences before the question was asked which garnered the “I don’t think we can win” response. Context does not require a thesis for each and every quote. But it cannot be garnered from a 7 word soundbite and some reporters comments. At least not reliably. If you have information that this reporter is reliable in the way he reports on the context of quotes like this that might do as well. [The context in question](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/): > [@](#): > > **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. 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/67 "2004-08-31T16:46:34Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > It is? > > From your cite: "\*White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan fired back, saying the statement didn’t convey the full context of the interview. > > “Well, he was talking about winning it in the conventional sense,” McClellan said during a news briefing aboard Air Force One. “We face an unconventional enemy. And it’s - I don’t think you can expect that there will ever be a formal surrender or a treaty signed, like we have in wars past.”\*" > > This sounds exactly like what I said. Can you explain to me the difference? > > Yes, there is. This is not the pit, so I’ll leave it up to your imagination. 😉 Now I’m hecka confused. I was just about to write that not even I think Bush is dumb enough to even be discussing a conventional military victory in the WoT, but Scotty McClellan seems to say he is. **Zut** ’s cite gives a far more reasoned explanation for what he said. But he seems to have [flip-flopped](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush_29) back , saying that we will win it again. I agree that he hasn’t changed his mind. I think it is a case of poetic justice - he says something nuanced, for once, and actually appreciates the complexity of a problem, and gets all sorts of crap for it. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/68 "2004-08-31T18:27:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Now I’m hecka confused. I was just about to write that not even I think Bush is dumb enough to even be discussing a conventional military victory in the WoT, ? Can you explain what you thought his position was? How did you understand the war on terror when you thought Bush had been advocating an easy victory? > [@](#): > > But he seems to have > [flip-flopped](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush_29) back , saying that we will win it again. Except, again, this is in a different context than the original quote. Here he is talking about the war on terror as a campaign to make the world safe from terrorism. In the original quote, he was talking just about that aspect of the war on terror which consists of military actions. > [@](#): > > I agree that he hasn’t changed his mind. I think it is a case of poetic justice - he says something nuanced, for once, and actually appreciates the complexity of a problem, and gets all sorts of crap for it. Fair enough. But I think this is not the first time. Go and look at some of his speeches reproduced on the white house or his campaign’s web site. This is the exact same “nuanced” message he has been talking about all along. * * * Let me see if I can explain what I am talking about. The war on terror means many things. It means the military action in Afghanistan (I’ll ignore Iraq for a moment in order to be more clear on the nuance question). However, it also means diplomatic efforts to maintain and convert other nations to a larger cause. There are many nations which did not send money or troops to Afghanistan (or Iraq) but which are nonetheless allies in the war on terror. When a person uses the phrase The War on Terror, they can mean either individually or both without being contradictory. For instance, If I say “We will fight the war on terror with bombs and infantry divisions.” Or if I say “We will fight the war on terror with intelligence gathering capability.” Or if I say “We will fight the war on terror with money, expertise, and diplomatic endevours.” I am talking about the same war, but in different contexts. For the first type of war, I can say that we will win the military conflicts, but we will not win the war this way. For the second, I can say that we will win because of our superior intelligence technology, but we will not win that either. Finally, for the last statement, I can say we will never “win” this type of war because it is a never ending struggle to make the world a better place. By altering the context of the statement, I can say we will win and we will never win the war on terror. It is only by dropping the context (or perverting it) that such statements are contradictory. I’m not sure that makes it clearer, but I hope it helps. Thanks very much **zut** for the cite. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/69 "2004-08-31T19:53:28Z")
The shrub is back at it. Now he is saying we’re gonna win again: _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. “In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table,” Bush said. “But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win.”_ But thanks to pervert we all now know that “winning” in Bushwa means “acceptable levels of terrorism”. I just wish he’d hurry up and define “acceptable levels of terrorism”. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/70 "2004-08-31T20:49:47Z")
Pervert: > [@](#): > > When the president ways we can win the war on terror, he means we can decrease the threat to terrorism to acceptable levels. When he says we cannot win the war on terrorism, he means we cannot stop every single act of terrorism from occuring without fail. So, “we can win the war on terror” and “we cannot win the war on terrorism” are both true statements? Ridiculous. And if you’re ging to come back at me with “yes, in proper context” then we might as well just accept any statement like A = Ā as being true in proper context, and nothing can be taken at face value until clarified by press secretaries. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/71 "2004-08-31T21:44:07Z")
> [@Attrayant](#): > > So, “we can win the war on terror” and “we cannot win the war on terrorism” are both true statements? Ridiculous. And if you’re ging to come back at me with “yes, in proper context” then we might as well just accept any statement like A = Ā as being true in proper context, and nothing can be taken at face value until clarified by press secretaries. You are correct. [I guess A=A regardless of the fact that the words have multiple definitions and not all of them apply to each and every use.](http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/equiv.htm) ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/72 "2004-08-31T21:47:35Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > The shrub is back at it. Now he is saying we’re gonna win again: > > _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. “In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table,” Bush said. “But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win.”_ And this is the exact same thing he has always said. Thank you for noticing. > [@](#): > > But thanks to pervert we all now know that “winning” in Bushwa means “acceptable levels of terrorism”. I just wish he’d hurry up and define “acceptable levels of terrorism”. Your welcome. If you would like to argue that the War on Terror does not have dfinitivie enough goals for you liking, I can respect that. The problem I have is your insistence that this is some sort of change on the part of President Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/73 "2004-08-31T22:10:15Z")
When I first saw the interview/quote in question, I was impressed. I thought Bush may actually have more sense than I thought he had. When I saw Kerry say “Absolutely” when a reporter asked him after the bush interview if we could win the war on terror, I thought Bush had him trapped for sure since the war on terror is something that we likely can’t win since there will always be nutjobs with explosives or ideas. Now that he’s gone back to the “We can win” notion… there just aren’t enough :rolleyes: to express how I feel. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/74 "2004-08-31T23:12:15Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > The shrub is back at it. Now he is saying we’re gonna win again: > > _"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. “In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table,” Bush said. “But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win.”_ As pervert wrote, this is called “nuance” and in case you haven’t noticed before, GW is noted for his superb nuance. In fact I don’t think terrorists or terrorism can be defeated by the GW method of attacking the handiest and easiest target. I think terrorism is an activity taken to further an idea. The idea in the case of the US seems to be that we support Israel to the detriment of Arabs generally; that we are stomping all over the holy places in Saudi Arabia; that we are exporting our Hollywood culture to the detriment of good Islamic traditions; etc.; and all orthodox attempts to get the US to correct what are seen as abuses have been to no avail. It seems to me that military force will only exacerbate those feelings and will mean a constant need to use military force into the future. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/75 "2004-09-01T00:53:46Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > ? > Can you explain what you thought his position was? How did you understand the war on terror when you thought Bush had been advocating an easy victory? I have never thought that Bush was advocating an easy victory, and have never said so. So let’s eliminate that line right now. A conventional military victory is the defeat of an army. That’s usually not easy, but even if it is, Bush did not mean that in his quote, and I don’t recall him ever saying anything to make me think that we could win the WoT in this way. McClellan was just putting the best spin he could on it. > [@](#): > > Except, again, this is in a different context than the original quote. Here he is talking about the war on terror as a campaign to make the world safe from terrorism. In the original quote, he was talking just about that aspect of the war on terror which consists of military actions. That’s absurd. Conventional wars, especially today, have a large intelligence component also. Should we separate the intelligence effort in WW II from the battlefield effort? The war in Afghanistan was fought with intelligence, with proxies, with special forces, and with a limited amount of direct American military involvement. How many wars was it? The act of sitting down at the peace table is irrelevant. I can’t imagine anyone seeing that as an indicator of winning the WoT. There is one measure of how well the war is going, which is the number of terrorist acts, and, to some extent, the threat level. Military action, covert action, intelligence, proxies, all contribute to reducing these. The trouble with the invasion of Iraq is that it is not clear the military victory actually helped in the WoT - the invasion of Afghanistan did, and the argument there is that resource in Afghanistan would have reduced the threat more than moving them to Iraq. In WWII, attacking Spain, while perhaps justified on human rights grounds, would have done nothing to further the war against Naziism. If Bush is really saying that there are two different wars, and it makes sense to say you can win one but not the other, then he is deluded. I don’t think he is. The closest thing sensible I can get out of your attempt at justifying this is that you can win a battle and lose the war, or vice versa. That’s also obvious. Perhaps the simplest explanation was that Bush was moving his own goalposts. I don’t blame him for not defining the victory conditions - it wouldn’t go down well to say we win if there are only ten bombings a year, or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![buns3000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c89c15/32.png) [@buns3000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buns3000)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/76 "2004-09-01T00:57:53Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Again, note the mention of the unusual nature of this war. Note the mention of multiple countries. Note the mention of fighting on many fronts. Note the mention of defending our safety. Finally, not the “no matter how long it takes”. Note the reference to staying on the “offensive until the terrorist threat is fully and **finally defeated** ” (bolding mine). Note the mention that “we will push on **until our work is done** ” (bolding mine). Note that these words inescapably imply that the war on terror will come to an end. Note that it will be just plain silly to try and reconcile these statements with shrub’s recent’s admissions that the war on terror will be never-ending. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2004, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/77 "2004-09-01T02:59:27Z")
> [@buns3000](#): > > Note the reference to staying on the “offensive until the terrorist threat is fully and **finally defeated** ” (bolding mine). Note the mention that “we will push on **until our work is done** ” (bolding mine). As **pervert** said, GW’s utterances are nuanced dammit! You’re missing the nuances. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2004, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/78 "2004-09-01T03:13:24Z")
I thought nuance was a class 1 controlled substance. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2004, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/79 "2004-09-01T03:27:56Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > As pervert said, GW’s utterances are nuanced dammit! You’re missing the nuances. This appears to be a major problem in this thread. I can’t speak for **buns3000** (or, obviously, anyone else) but I think we _are_ getting the nuance. We’re not arguing (at least I’m not) that there actually is an end to the WoT. The main beef I have is with Bush repeating the phrase “We will win” when we cannot “win”. If you were to ask me if “We will succeed” would be a better phrase, I would say yes. Is it a matter of semantics? Yes. Do semantics really matter in a case like this? You betcha. There are implications involved with the phrasing that Bush (and company) have chosen, and he is trying to ignore them, while reaping their benefits. What benefits you ask? I think that the main reason people feel more comfortable with Bush’s “plan” on combatting terrorism (opposed to Kerry’s) is centered on the above phrase droning on inside their heads. “Well, Bush has been saying ‘We will win’ over and over again, and Kerry is just saying we can fight terrorism. Obviously Bush has the better plan.” :dubious: LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2004, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229/80 "2004-09-01T04:50:22Z")
> [@buns3000](#): > > Note the reference to staying on the “offensive until the terrorist threat is fully and **finally defeated** ” (bolding mine). Note the mention that “we will push on **until our work is done** ” (bolding mine). Note that these words inescapably imply that the war on terror will come to an end. No, they don’t. Not to me, anyway, and I’m hardly a lover of this Administration. (In addition to my explanation in my earlier post on this thread, note the word “until.” It’s a goal. Just because the goal exists doesn’t mean you’re going to reach it.) If the posts on this thread are correct, he HAS said, directly, that the War on Terror is winnable. That would be a foolish thing to say. You don’t need to read in stuff on his vaguer remarks this way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-war-on-terrorism-unwinnable/262229.md?page=5)