Thursday, September 02, 2004

“I don't think you can win it."

Much has been said and written about the president's comments to Matt Lauer about winning the war on terror. Democrats have seized the quote by the president and are now parading it around as some sort of serious admission by the president, as if all that has been said and done to fight terrorism is just some ploy setup by Vice President Cheney and his Halliburton buddies. (By the way, I do not understand why anyone would think we need a war to make money. There are so many ways for folks in America to make money, but Americans are being fooled if they think Halliburton only makes money off of war.) Does anyone truly believe that President Bush will not or has not led our nation to significant defeats of terrorism since 9/11? Though you may disagree that Iraq was just another facet of the war on terror, can one seriously think the president after winning this battle we should just give up now? Did the president misspeak? Maybe. Did he mean that we can not win it in a way that Matt Lauer suggested? Most likely. Read the whole answer in context below.


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.”

Lauer: “Your daughters are how old now?”

If this was the admission that Senators Kerry and Edwards, other Democrats and the liberal media believe it is, why did Matt Lauer not jump on this supposedly incredible revelation instead of asking about the president's daughters? Because he knew then, that it was not what it is now being made out to be. We will win the war on terror. I believe as the president does that God is on our side. Terrorism will not be defeated like Japan and Germany were in 1945, but the world can be changed so that people will not use terror as a weapon. This is a different kind of war and it will have a different kind of victory.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Define 'terrorism'. Japan attacked us- we nuked them, twice, and then took over a bunch of their territories. War on Terror = Attack the crap outta Iraq? It's ALWAYS a different kind of war. Which war was NOT different for us? Please read this link:

10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tell me, who would we sign the peace treaty with? How do we ensure that, say decades after we are told the war is won, some nut with a bomb will not show up in a train station or movie theater or shopping mall and yell "Praise Allah!" before he blows himself and hundreds of Americans up? This is not the kind of war we have ever fought before. The president sees that and understands it, probably so much so, that when he talks about it he assumes we all do to. Is that a fault? Maybe. Is it enough for Senators Kerry and Edwards to deride him over? No.

I read the blog link you provided. It's the same stuff you said in your post but took me 5 minutes longer to read.

7:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this the first time we've been attacked? How is this 'war' different from past conflicts? Define 'terrorism'. What exactly does war on terrorism mean? Define how our president was right by attacking Iraq instead of Iran/Pakistan/N. Korea/Syria. Our president tells us that the threat of nuclear weapons is the greatest threat- Iraq didn't have them and we knew it. Is there nothing wrong with killing people based on mistaken information, then stating after knowing the information was wrong, that killing those people was still justified? Justify it, and you will have just convinced me to vote for Bush.

8:37 AM  
Blogger David said...

Justify it? Could I ever really justify it for you? I'll work on it.

2:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home