In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program "Today," conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign.
"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
never mind that bush has repeatedly used the phrase "win the war on terror" over the past two and one-half years. and never mind that in bush's press conference last april bush specifically said:
One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we are asking questions, is, 'Can you ever win the war on terror?' Of course you can.
(incidentally, the april press conference is when bush famously could not come up with a single mistake he made since he became president. i wonder if he can think of one now?)
it may have taken bush a few months, but at least he's finally recognizing the obvious. the war on terror (with or without the "ism") was never more than a catchy slogan designed to dress up an aggressive foreign policy. after 9-11. a more honest administration would have declared a war on bin laden or al-qaeda, but that doesn't get us to iraq. so bush moronically declared war on a tactic rather than a culpable party and relentlessly repeated it, drowning out those who noted that declaring war on terrorism after 9-11 was like declaring war on planes after pearl harbor.
(and its also worth noting that the bush administration has not seriously pursued terrorists in all forms, despite their sweeping rhetoric. they are remarkably tolerant of terrorists who happen to use the tactic to pursue the right goals. for example, they classified the anti-iranian terrorist organization mujahideen-e khalq as "protected persons" after encountering them on the iraqi border with iran. they also appointed ayad allawi to be prime minister of iraq, a man who was best known for allegations that he was behind a series of terrorists attacks directed against saddam hussein's government in the 1990s)
so i am pleasantly surprised to find that bush may finally be recognizing the obvious about the "war on terror." bush's advisors, meanwhile, are already trying to undo the "damage" by respinning his statement that the war is unwinnable to mean that, in fact, it is winnable (the article i cite about with the bush quote notes: "White House officials said the president was not signaling a change in policy, and they sought to explain his statement by saying he was emphasizing the long-term nature of the struggle.")
but the real depressing part of all this is the kerry campaign's response (also from the above article):
"After months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on their singular ability to win the war on terror, the president now says we can't win the war on terrorism," Senator John Edwards, Mr. Kerry's running mate, said in a statement. "This is no time to declare defeat. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but we have a comprehensive longterm plan to make America safer. And that's a difference."rather than hammering bush on his flip-flopping about the winnability of the war or the way the bush administration framed its response to the war in the first place, edwards seems to be adopting the "war on terrorism" slogan whole-heartedly. winning the war on terror(ism) is not a matter of having the right leadership, it's a loser from the get-go simply because of the way it defines the battle. i just wish the democrats (or any major politician) had the guts to state the obvious here.
Mr. Edwards elaborated on his criticism in an interview Monday with the ABC program "Nightline.'' Mr. Edwards said the battle against terrorism was "absolutely winnable" with the right leadership.
