12 responses to “Winning the War on Terror”

1. 

   vdibart

   August 31, 2004 at 4:44 pm

   “Of course, if the Democrats would like to wage this campaign on the basis of which candidate has had the most consistent policy statements, to coin a phrase: Bring it on.”

   By this do you mean real political policy statements or a battle fought using politically spun sound bites? I mean are we talking on the order of “I don’t care where Osama is” or “I voted against the bill because I didn’t want to increase deficit spending and I wanted to send a message to W.”?

   I can think of only one or two Kerry statements that are truly worrisome (Cambodia is the most obvious one). The rest are all spin and can be proven as such. Can W say the same about steel tariffs, finding Osama, nation building, etc.?
2. 

   Russ

   August 31, 2004 at 4:50 pm

   The terminology in use surrounding the “war on terror” has bugged me from the outset.

   “Terror” is an emotion.

   “Terrorism” is a methodology.

   To frame it in such terms is like saying we can win the “war against suicide bombing,” or that we can win a “war against high-speed low-level strafing runs.” Such a war would be, by definition, unwinnable. Those are just tools in the enemy’s inventory (the former), or in ours (the latter).

   It’s long past time the people in high places start calling the enemy by its real name instead of by its methods and tactics.
3. 

   James Joyner

   August 31, 2004 at 4:52 pm

   Russ: Agreed. It’s a losing battle until they do, though. It’s like the liberal/conservative thing. We’ve used the language incorrectly for so long that going against the tide is just confusing.

   I have recently heard Condi Rice talk about “jihad,” so maybe a shift will occur.
4. 

   James Joyner

   August 31, 2004 at 4:54 pm

   vdibart: Bush has thousands of statements on the public record–the hazards of office. His message has been pretty consistent, however. I disagree with him on steel tariffs and such but don’t recall contradictory policy positions on them.
5. 

   vdibart

   August 31, 2004 at 5:06 pm

   “Bush has thousands of statements on the public record—the hazards of office”

   And this doesn’t apply to Kerry? My point is that there’s the appearance of consistency enforced or undermined by partisan attacks and then there’s genuine consistency. I believe much of the “flip-flop” attack on Kerry is the partisan attack nature and when you really look at what he said in most cases there is as legitimate reason for his statement as any excuse W, Cheney, etc. use.

   The steel tariff debate is that he originally spoke out in favor of free trade (no tariffs), then he imposed tariffs on foreign import of steel, then he repealed the tariff. There is room for various interpretation of the sequence, just as there is for most of Kerry’s infamous “flops”, but Bush doesn’t get skewered nearly as much as Kerry does.
6. 

   Dave

   August 31, 2004 at 5:55 pm

   I can’t wait until the Kerry campaign does a commercial using GWB’s own words and saying, Well George, are you for winning the war on terror or against it? You still have time to change your mind again before Nov 2nd.

   Dave
7. 

   Bob

   August 31, 2004 at 8:22 pm

   I think vdibart is right to worry about Cambodia. Here’s why:
   http://wethefree.blogspot.com/2004/08/cambodian-case-closed-conclusively.html

   Best of luck vdibart — you’re going to need it….
8. 

   Meezer

   August 31, 2004 at 8:41 pm

   Nothing Bush has said beats this from Kerry (which conservatives haven’t really made use of much).
   In New York: Don’t build the nasty wall
   In Israel 3 weeks later (not 33 years, mind you):
   The wall is dandy.
9. 

   Joseph Marshall

   August 31, 2004 at 8:45 pm

   This was not particularly a significant comment on the President’s part, but it is a hoot to see everybody squirming over it.

   Terrorism is a means. Period. It cannot be warred upon, only defended against. Keep that firmly in mind, and ask yourself, truly, how well this Administration has shored up our defenses against Terrorism, as compared with how well it has made war abroad against two countries. If you do this we will be well on the way to FINALLY thinking straight about what has happened to us since 9/11.
10. 

    Dave Schuler

    August 31, 2004 at 10:02 pm

    I was upset by the first of the two quotations cited and blogged about it here

    http://www.theglitteringeye.com/archives/000222.html

    Could the Cold War be won? For forty years we apparently didn’t think so. Then Reagan came along and by gum we won the Cold War.

    If the objective is merely to manage it, not only won’t we win. We will lose.

    I am very glad that Mr. Bush re-stated today his intent to win and glad that Kerry-Edwards took him to task for the earlier statement. I’d rather have both sides bidding on who can be tougher in the War on Terror than bidding on a prescription drug benefit (for example).
11. 

    vdibart

    September 1, 2004 at 11:38 am

    Here’s a little difference between the average Kerry comment and the average W comment:

    Kerry: I was in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968. Big Whoop. He exagerrated at best, possibly lied, possibly for political gain and was caught in it. He looks like an a$$.

    W: I don’t care where Osama is. Uh…isn’t he at the very least the figure-head of the “War on Terror/Terrorism”? His whole administration looks incompetant.

    I love how Republicans explain that if Kerry made Vietnam the basis of his reelection he should expect to take criticism on it. Well, if Bush is going to try to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, he should expect to be called out when he does the same.
12. 

    Beldar

    September 1, 2004 at 7:14 pm

    Dubya doesn’t always have that real-time simultaneous mental transcript feature running when he’s speaking. In this case, he wasn’t on guard against how differently his words might look in print than they actually sounded. If you listen to a tape of the interview, his voice inflection put the word “it” into verbal italics and quote marks; my guess is he was thinking at that moment about how he’s been criticized — by the same folks who are now chortling about his miscue — for calling this a “war” at all.

    There wasn’t anything like the signing ceremony on the Missouri at the end of the Cold War, either. Indeed, it’s somewhat hard to point to the ending date or event. But something over a decade later, now that the Cold War is over, does anyone doubt that we still, ultimately, won “it” — Cuba and North Korea notwithstanding?