Um, WTF?

[heidi]

When asked "Can we win?" the war on terror, 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."

I don't think you can win it. - President George W. Bush, August, 2004



Hokay.

December, 2003:

President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.
- The Daily Telegraph

September 11, 2003:

America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism.

Bush's statement at the end of the day, 9/11

April, 2004:

"I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they'll stay with me.

- George W. Bush, April 2004


Er, George? Your brain is flip-flops are showing.


Feel free to gack!

Comments

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

Isn't that supposed to be the BIG REASON why we're supposed to (re)elect him?!!! Because HE CAN WIN THE WAR ON TERROR?!?!?!?!? *headdesk* Oops, he did it again.

[shelaghc.livejournal.com]

I'm with Randi Rhodes - how the heck can we win a war on a bloody *emotion*?!!!!!!!

[ashesofautumn.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I remember seeing this on one of the Kerry feeds earlier. Edwards had a nice response, I guess.

Isn't his re-election relying heavily on this? His war on terror, I mean. We're supposed to re-elect him for something that he doesn't even believe he can do?

One giant

[alexathain.livejournal.com]

Personally, I take this as a good sign that Bush is a dynamic individual who is able to analyze data in front of him/listen to those advising him (especially the latter) and modify his way of thinking. It's better than his being absolutely rigid and delusional about things methinks. And I think the second bit, after he said that, is altogether very rational and something that he should have been gunning for all along. I'm just happy that he's approaching the problem differently. And I think it would make sense that his thinking just prior to Sept. 11 and even in early 2003 would vary greatly from his thinking now, considering the many revelations that have come about since. If he stayed completely rigid, ala Johnson during the Vietnam War, we'd be in quite a hopeless state.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

One of those quotes was from April and referred to his presidential campaign. And someone posted a comment here as well about a quote from July 30 or 31 (I'm the one who can't recall at the moment and I'm on my handheld so I can't switch between windows) where he also promised a plan to win.

So I think he's been lying since at least April or, at a minimum, making vaporware promises. And when software companies' big projects are revealed as mere vaporware, their shares usually go down in value. Oops!

[misako.livejournal.com]

While I think there's some sensibility involved in this new statement of his, I find it ironic that he's a) saying this when he's running on "winning the war on terrorism" as his strongpoing, and he just conceeded that it's not quite possible, and b) he's flip-flopping and he was JUST accusing Kerry of flip-flopping and how it's bad...

Misako

[dreamcoat-mom.livejournal.com]

Actually, I've been damned annoyed with the whole concept of "flip-flopping." It appears that candidates on either side are crucified for modifying their ideals in light of new information. Personally, I look for that kind of flexibility in a leader. It serves Dubbya's camp right to be fed a little of their own medicine, but I do wish that this were not a campaign issue to begin with, because in the end it's a childish game of semantics. Is a candidate "principled" or "rigid," "flexible" or a "flip-flopper?" Depends on whether you're riding the elephant or the donkey, and who's the current talking head. For heaven's sake - can't they stand on their own? Why must they be reduced to name calling? I know what Bush's principles are, and I won't be voting for him. I also know what Kerry's principles are, and I will be voting for him. It is doubtful that either side can win votes from the other by going "nyah nyah NYAH!" That said, I will childishly point to Bush and whine, "But he started it!"

[misako.livejournal.com]

I agree - there needs to be a certain amount of flexibility needed when running a country to adapt to different and changing situations. I just found it ironic that they were JUST discussing how Kerry "flip-flops" and how it's negative, and they do so themselves. Of course, one major reason as to why "flip-flopping" is even an election issue at all is because a certain percentage of the nation wants a leader that stays upon the ideals of which he first proclaimed himself, which a lot of people say Bush is...he doesn't give much leeway in his policies for change, and this appeals to some percent of the voting public. This sort of "single-mindedness" that he exhibits makes those that care for this sort of thing make "flip-flopping" such an issue - he's appealing to those voters when he says he doesn't "flip-flop"...but of course the rest of the voters think "flip-flopping" is to some extent positive (shows flexibility)...ergh. Being a PS major, I'm always attracted to debating and discussing elements of politics...and then I always get on random tangents, sorry...

And lol, to "That said, I will childishly point to Bush and whine, 'But he started it!'"

Misako

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

Agree with the earlier comments about the media's use of the term 'flip-flopping'. It's just a media label to make a quick point so that idiots don't have to listen to the facts. I also agree that a President AND a Senator have to be able to view each choice they make at the time they make it as to what's best for (in order): 1) The Country, 2) Their constituents, 3) Their own conscience. To use the term 'flip-flop' to describe the deliberative style of the Senate is absurd and demeaning to all the Senators. I am starting to wonder...I intend to vote for Kerry, but a small part of old spiteful me almost wishes these....uh....people would get the 4 more years of Bush that they deserve.

Recently saw a "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me" bumper sticker. Would have been impressive, except that that it was on the back bumper of a circa 1975 POS Ford. Thinking GWB is doing well for ya there huh guy? Happy with that $300 tax rebate check??? Enjoy getting cut off by the guy with his second Mercedes that he bought with his tax cut instead of hiring more workers? Grrrrrr! :-)

[dreamcoat-mom.livejournal.com]

I'm always attracted to debating and discussing elements of politics...and then I always get on random tangents, sorry...

No no no - don't be sorry, hon...it was an interesting point, and an ironic coincidence that should be addressed.

...a certain percentage of the nation wants a leader that stays upon the ideals of which he first proclaimed himself, which a lot of people say Bush is...he doesn't give much leeway in his policies for change, and this appeals to some percent of the voting public.

You can certainly say THAT again...especially in my neck of the woods. (Rural Wisconsin - swing state extraordinaire)
...even if said ideals are leading them to lives of abject poverty. Many of the folks around here (where the median income is $26,500) are voting Republican solely because the GOP have set themselves up as the voice of religious conservatism. Doesn't matter if we have no jobs, no insurance, and a bizarre dog 'n' pony show instead of public education - Dubbya will keep this great nation safe from gay marriage, everyone can keep their gun, and we can continue to make war in the Middle East because God wants it that way.

Bush says probably the first intelligent thing I've ever heard him say and everybody screams, "Fliiiiiiip Flopper!!!" It just gave me a bit of a turn, that's all. I'm Okay now. Really.

And he DID start it. ;)

[shelaghc.livejournal.com]

I just emailed this to twistedchick (gave you credit, of course). I'd love to see it in her blog and at her concatenation site.

I also posted it to the Unfiltered Blog. I didn't think you wanted your LJ posted all over AAR-land, so I just said it was from a "friend of mine from Live Journal."

If you haven't already, I'll also post it to the Franken show blog. Hopefully *someone* there will see it.

[misako.livejournal.com]

Ugh - it only reminds me of a guy my friend met who was merely a Republican because he liked the "R" next to his name and his parents were Republican as well, but he himself knew virtually nothing about politics. Also is sort of reminiscent of one of the Baldwin brothers, who said that he was voting for Bush because Bush has the "stronger faith". What? That's not a reason to vote for someone who runs a COUNTRY. Perhaps if this was to elect a POPE or another religious authority, but I don't believe religious beliefs should factor in that much at all, to be the sole factor in the reason one casts a ballot for one candidate or another.

It's true how he really hasn't done much in terms of domestic policy at all - pretty much solely focusing on foreign policy, but there needs to be an equal balance or so, and it's a choice he has to make...but he hasn't.

Strangely, someone commented somewhere about how Bush is more deceptively intelligent than one thinks...he goes the Jessica-Simpson-way, perhaps, allowing others to think that he's idiotic, and slips right beneath with things that he wants. It's could be true, maybe.

The majority of people in my city are Republican as well, which is bizarre as I live in the Bay Area, CA, and we're sort of notoriously liberal, but in my city, it's fairly upper-middle-class so I'm sure monetary issues have a lot to do with people's political beliefs, along with the many retirees in my area as well. I don't have anything against Republicans, myself, as I'm a right-leaning moderate, but I simply don't support Bush or his policies. But if figure, if someone wants to say "Bush is great!" to my face, they'd better have a good response as to WHY he's great. I'm not the hugest Kerry fan either, but I find that he's pretty much the lesser of three evils, if you include Nader. The party system in this country has both helped and turned this nation into an illiberal democracy - not quite the equal representation the founding fathers were probably dreaming, and there are a lot of facts which go into making this sort of illiberal democracy. Either way, the political system at this point has reached a stage where I think it really needs to change at least somewhat, whether abolishment of the electoral college, the lessening of the importance of funds needed to even run a campaign (but that's very unlikely)...either way, it's not QUITE the way it used to be, and it really only serves to turn off voters.

ergh. On a tangent again. I apologize. :)

I haven't had a proper PS discussion for about a month now - glad to have one. :)

Misako

[musikologie.livejournal.com]

Did you hear that he says the war can be won now?

When I say "flip", you say "flop", okay? Flip...

[phoenix8185.livejournal.com]

I have actually heard the audio clip from the interview in which Bush made the comment. The thing I have yet to see in type is the emphasis he put on the words 'win' and 'it' as in, "I don't think you can win it." Meaning that it wouldn't have a traditional peace treaty signing and that there would never really be an end to the war on terror, in the sense that people will no longer want to kill us. That there will always be people out there willing to wage a terror war on the United States is what I interpreted from it. Not that we are fighting a hopeless war.

When I heard the audio clip it was before I heard any commentary on it, and I also heard what else I have yet to see in print. The man who was doing the interview asked Bush if we could win the war on terror, and before he let Bush answer he repeated his question and started to badger the President a little bit. What he did was ask the President a question then get him flustered, and cause him to misspeak himself.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

"I don't think you can win it." Meaning...


Your meaning is spin. Your meaning is a parroting of the claims the Republicans have been making over the past two days, trying to restate what he said in a way that's palatable to the American public, and in a way that doesn't make millions of us go, "Man, what a hypocrite, or liar,or flip-flopper."

Now, the thing is, I don't think what he's saying that it wouldn't have a traditional peace treaty signing and that there would never really be an end to the war on terror, in the sense that people will no longer want to kill us. That there will always be people out there willing to wage a terror war on the United States is what I interpreted from it. Not that we are fighting a hopeless war.

I'm sorry, are you trying to say that it's a hopeful or optimistic battle because someday terrorists will be unliked and unappreciated, or something? Look at the second sentence that he said:

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."

Well, duh. I mean, back on September 12, those who'd used terror as a tool were less acceptable in almost every single part of the world (except perhaps in Afghanastan). The reason those who use terror as a tool are no longer looked at as so wholly unacceptable in certain parts of the world is because Bush engaged in aggression without a need for self-defense in Iraq. It's not because we invaded Afghanastan, although, yes, it is in part because we have troops in Saudi Arabia.

When he said that, this weekend, he really did mean that he did not think that the war on terror is winable. Now, that, in and of itself, is not a preposterous thing. But in response to almost identical questions in July, June, April, and even further back, as I posted, he said we could win. No clarifications, no disclaimers. Just stuff where he said he had a plan to win.

What's the difference in the question this weekend versus the questions before?

You suggest...

The man who was doing the interview asked Bush if we could win the war on terror, and before he let Bush answer he repeated his question and started to badger the President a little bit. What he did was ask the President a question then get him flustered, and cause him to misspeak himself.

You mean Matt Lauer? Matt Lauer of the Today Show is so scary and rattling-causing as to fluster the President of the United States? This isn't Bill Moyers, this isn't Jeff Greenfield, this isn't even Graydon Carter. This is Matt Lauer! He's just not that scary! And if the president, who has been in public office for ten years now, can get flustered from Matt Lauer - well, that's about as preposterous as the notion that he could need seven minutes to collect his thoughts after learning that the US was under atta... oh. wait.

Erm.

[phoenix8185.livejournal.com]

So let's see, it's September 11th, 2001. As the President of the United States, who is barely eight months into his term, you just learn that an unprecedented attack on the citizens you have sworn to protect and defend is occuring. Wouldn't you need a little time to collect your thoughts? What did you do as soon as you learned the WTC was being hit? You were speechless weren't you? The President is a man just like any other man, he doesn't shed his humanity when he takes the oath of office and enters the White House. Attacking a man because of a human reaction is just underhanded. What you have rather had the President do? Immediately order an airstrike on all unfriendly nations? Do something rash like that? Just so people could have another way to attack him. He really is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't with his opposition isn't he? Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch the President address the RNC. I may come back later and make a rebuttal against your other statements.