Sorry, did not mean to say you did say that. I was just asking.
Stop right there. No, he is not saying there are two different wars. He is talking about the same war in two different contexts. Is this really so hard to get. The war on terror is a military war. The war on terror is a diplomatic effort. Which of these two sentences is false? Neither. They are both true in slightly different contexts. Notice I did not say that the war on terror was only an X war.
No, the simplest answer is that he answered a question off the cuff and did not mean it to be a new policy direction.
I really don’t understand the confusion on this issue. The context of the quote was obvious to me from the very first article posted in the OP. You would have had to take the reporters characterization of Bush’s comments at face value in order to believe otherwise. Not only that, you would have had to ignore everything Bush has ever said about the war on terror in favor of this reporter’s characterization. Maybe you have enough faith in this particular reporter. I don’t.
Why? Can you give me the qualitative difference? If you do not assume some idiotic meaning of the win semantics, what is the difference?
Actually, I’m more interested in the implications. You did not list them.
Yes, also note that they do not mean that it will come to an end soon. And that it does not mean that it will come to an end in the conventional sense that wars do. There is a point when we will be able to stop using our armed forces to curtail terrorist activities. The problem will shift dramitically then to one of activities closer to law enforcement. In one sense, the goals of the war on terror will have been achieved at this point. However, it will not involve the colapse of any nation states, nor, perhaps any particular terrorist organizations.
So, you can defeat the threat (lower the danger to acceptable levels) without defeating any particular army. You can complete work without ever ending your efforts.
Ok, now you are claiming admissions. Do you have more than the one sentence on the Today show? Just checking.
And that construction of a statement that; a) the war will end; b) but no time estimate of any kind is what I call evasive. To me it is exactly like saying, “I’ll pay you back.” Then when called to account you say that you didn’t say when.
I don’t think GW or anyone else can give a precise statement but is he talking months? Years? Decades? And how does he determine winning?
His whole line is that he’s firm and steadfast in some sort of a war on terrorism. However the parameters of said war are ill defined and we are without a method by which progress can be measured.
As far as I believe, the “goal” that they have proposed for the WoT (just like the goal associated with the War on Drugs) is unattainable. The “war” is not winnable, and the goal is unrealistic. Better yet, since the war is not a “conventional” one, we (the public) will not know when the war is over, until we are told it is. So, in my not-so-humble opinion, Bush could drag this war on for as long as he “needs”.
Let me direct you to a couple of quotes:
There are countless other things that people have said, that revolve around the premise “Well, we can’t expect to do this sort of thing, in the middle of a war.” These, I fully believe, are the results of the implications of the “We will win”, etc. phrases. Out of one side of his mouth, Bush is saying (paraphrased)“obviously the war cannot be won”. I fully agree with this. But out of the other side of his mouth, in almost a whisper, he is playing this WoT as if it were a “conventional” war.
Are you auditioning for Presidential Press Secretary or something? It seems your position is that every word out of Bush’s mouth is correct, and when there are contradictions you can find some “context” to explain them.
Notice that my position was exactly that there is only one war, fought on different virtual fronts, so that saying that you can win the war on one front and not the other is absurd. The Today Show quote kind of gives a definition of winning, do you have another? Certainly one would expect the general public’s definition to be not having to worry about terrorism much again (with some safeguards, like baggage screening.) The Today Show quote says that this is not a realistic expectation in the foreseeable future, and it seems we non-Bushies agree with him for once. No, it is not a new policy direction, it is in fact a relief to see that he understands this. What it is is a bit of reality getting out through the never admit weakness or mistake field.
Kerry had to jump on this. Imagine what would happen if Kerry said he agreed. The very next day there would be a Republican ad saying that Kerry thinks we can’t win, and dumping the Bush quote down the memory-hole. Such is the state of American politcs in the 21st century.
As for me, I think I’ll stick to saying nasty things about the guy. Say that Bush did something intelligent once, and you get jumped on by his supporters. :rolleyes:
