How about giving us a cite for this little gem? Can’t recall ever hearing anything of that nature from the Whitehouse.
And…who exactly decides what acceptable levels of terrorism are? Is there going to be a color coded chart like the terror alert?
Of course. Silly me. Say, you think he’ll have time to tell us some more about that really nifty national sales tax idea?
I know he never explicitly said that that day would never come, but he did imply that it would. When you hear a statement like “Scientists are working day and night to find a cure to this disease,” you get the impression that they will find a cure, it just may be some undeterminable time in the future. Even though G.W. didn’t explicitly say the day would ever come, it was certainly an implication.
Yes, anyone who thinks about the WoT will realize that it cannot be won. But when you are spoon-fed “we will win… we will win” for nearly 3 years straight, you’re likely to forget (or at least stop acknowledging) that little fact.
And the really frustrating part (as posters have already pointed out) is that whenever democrats (or anyone, for that matter) would bring up this simple little fact in the past, we would either be labeled as weak, or we would hear “What, so you would rather do nothing?”
LilShieste
Now Bush’ll have to update the title for his WOT plans in the 2005 budget:
WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR
Maybe to “BREAKING EVEN IN THE WAR ON TERROR”?
It seems that we’ve been told that we must wage a perpetual war if we are to have peace.
YMMV
[Emphasis added]
I just loved that part.
Dude, have some respect for the fact that, in matters of opinion, not everybody is going to agree with you all the time.
“You need propaganda to inspire the people”. Are you saying that, when Bush said “We will win the war on terror”, he knew this wasn’t possible?
IMHO, there is no sensible way to rationalise the words “We will win the war on terror” and the words “and we will not rest until the danger to America and civilization are removed” other than on the basis that the WoT was a finite proposition. Like, if we remove something, it isn’t there anymore, right?
Factoring in the “I don’t think you can win” to the earlier proclamations, we get “we will not rest until [we achieve something that I don’t think is possible]”, which simply does not make any sense… unless you’re pervert.
I’m afraid I couldn’t disagree more with your interpretation. Just because scientists say “we are working to find a cure for the common cold” doesn’t mean that they’ll ever find it. Just that they’re trying. Scientists are working day and night to try to cure AIDS, and all forms of cancer, and Parkinson’s Disease and a million other things. Do you believe that they’ll find complete cures for every single disease they’re working towards? Definitely 100%?
And that’s another thing - you CAN work towards an incomplete solution. Suppose they can cure AIDS, but only if it’s administered within 48 hours of exposure. That’s not a complete solution. AIDS will still happen. But it’s a result of that research, and a goal worth striving for. So it’s possible work to win the war on terror to its best possible outcome. That doesn’t mean that they WILL eradicate it.
I know we’re talking semantics, here, but I just don’t see the implications you’re seeing.
Is it too much to ask that the President occasionally say what he means? All this second guessing and bullshitting around over what he ‘meant to say’ is strongly reminiscent of the decoding process during the cold war, when proclamations from Brezhnev, or Podgorny, or Kruschev were batted around by kremlinoligists for weeks, until they found a form that was thought fit for consumption by us ordinary Americans.
Already quoted is this line from the President’s April 13 speech/press conference, but worth repeating:
What happened to the plan? Or was there a plan in the first place? Did the president plan to deceive us about the war on terror, or is he not a man of his word?
True. But what if scientists say:
“We will find a cure for the common cold.” Are they promising more than just trying? Yes, they are promising that they will do it.
Heard about it on the news about an hour ago, how the WH Press whore McClellan issued a clarification. What the President really meant to say was that the WOT wouldn’t have a formal end, like a surrender or a peace treaty, so it wouldn’t be “won” in the ordinary sense that we think of.
Oh, sorry, Pervert, didn’t mean to interrupt. You were telling me how full of it I was. Please, do go on.
What part of
don’t you understand? 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.
I’m not bashing Bush here - it is good he is being a bit more realistic. (aka flip-flopping.) But since the only thing he got these days is strength in the WoT, it is a major blunder, agree or not. I wonder if this is a case of
Cheney: I thought you were watching him.
Rove: No I thought you were! 
Slightly tangential question:
If Bush has now, lets say, added a more nuanced approach to his rhetoric regarding the ‘war on terror’ to admit it can never truly be over or never explicitly won, how does this fare for the so-called ‘illegal combatants’ (at Guantanamo, for example) whose future freedom seems inextricably linked to the ‘war of terror’ finding a conclusion?
Surely if this self-proclaimed ‘war’ is accepted to be an unending struggle, the status of these men held indefinitely has become entirely meaningless under the descriptions initially issued by the current Administration? Or will their status now change to suit this more recent rhetoric?
Except that this is precisely what those of us in this thread who listened to the context of the quote understood from the begining.
No, I was simply pointing out that context is important. You were doing fine with the other on your own. 
Let me give you guys a clue, ok? Do any of you know the 3 or 4 sentences which lead up to the question to which the “I don’t think you can win” answer was given? If so, then fine. If not, then you do not know the context of that answer, and you do not know what Bush meant. I really thought this would have been obvious. It is what the word context means, after all.
I have always understood the war on terror this way.
Note the lack of reference to traditional nation states. Note the reference to lifting a dark threat of violence. We could easily make jokes about rallying the world. Hell, we could even make jokes about freedom vs fear. But it is hard to hear this sentiment in the context of the terrorist attacks, and think that he meant we would bomb some Afghani huts until Al Quaeda formally surrendered. Would you care to find more than “We will wind the War on Terror” (taken out of context) to support your interpretation of Bush’s understanding of the War on Terror?
Of course, how could we have missed it? And McClellan’s context clarification wasn’t necessary, he just did it anyway because…well, because. It wasn’t as though the statement was muddled, or anything, he just didn’t have anything better to do, and issued a statement clarifying what was perfectly obvious.
Hey, thanks for clearing that up.
No, again, you drop the context. The clarification was necessary because of the way the article was written and the way you guys jumped at the chance to drop the context of the original quote. All McClellan did was inject the original context back into the national debate about the quote in question. Again, do you know the 3 or 4 sentences which lead up to the question to which your McClellan’s quote was the answer?
When you say “out of context” what do you mean? That I didn’t post the whole frigging speech?
When you post something that backs this claim:
then come back and bitch about quotes being taken out of context.
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.
President Discusses War on Terror in Thailand
Did you read the rest of my post. I did post a statement from Bush from september 2001 in which he mentions niether a strictly military victory nor an easy one. Would you really like more?
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”.
Do you need more?