...and this is the thanks he gets?
In an interview on NBC-TV's Today show, Bush vowed to stay the course in the war on terror, saying perseverance in the battle would make the world safer for future generations. But he suggested an all-out victory against terrorism might not be possible.
Asked "Can we win?" 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."
...
"The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable," [John] Edwards said later on ABC's Nightline.
...
"To suggest that the war on terror can't be won is absolutely unacceptable," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Hey John? Hey Joe? Go (to paraphrase the Vice President) fuck yourselves. Not only was the President correct in stating that the "war" cannot be won, but to "suggest" that the "war" should be won, on the terms the Democrats find "acceptable" (bombing, shooting, and torturing innocent civilians; occupying sovereign nations and re-writing their economic laws while serving as de facto guarantor of Israel's 37-year occupation of Palestine; firing off hundreds of tonnes of radiological munitions and developing a new generation of "useable" nuclear weapons for future use against the "bad guys"; destroying homes of "suspected" "insurgents"; holding detainees indefinitely without charge, or simply offing "suspected" "terrorists" on sight; laying siege to whole cities, and razing them to the ground; "allying" with savage dictators, warlords, and fundamentalist regimes -- even those responsible for wanton nuclear proliferation; "spanning the globe" with dozens of military bases; staging coups d'etat against elected leaders; destroying peasants' lives and livelihoods via chemical warfare, in the name of fighting "narco-terrorists") is a fucking travesty.
You want to "win" the "War On Terror", Joe? How about putting on Dubya's fucking flight suit, setting your ass in a bomber, and getting to work using these methods against the world's most dangerous terrorist state -- namely, the USA? You think that would be "acceptable" to the American people, fuckhole?
No? Then why should it be "acceptable" to any other people? Why should we be surprised when they resist?
Eddie, good to have you back. Great post.
It's such a drag. Every thinking person -- and the president too -- understands the "war" can't be won, but neither Bush nor the Democrats can *state the obvious* because of the perceived political cost. It's like the new 3rd rail of politics. Say you're not going to kick ass on the WOT and you die.
Posted by: dack on September 1, 2004 12:19 AMI'm inclined to cut Edwards and Biden a little slack. You play the hand you were dealt, and in this political climate, you have to say the right thing to the population of war-happy idiots that seem to comprise a good 50% of the American population.
Now, I personally think a Kerry administration will fight a much smarter battle against terror, using special forces, diplomacy, alliances, etc. We don't know for sure, granted, but they'll be better than the moron in the White House now, and as far as I'm concerned they can say whatever they need to say to effect a regime change here in the US -- particularly since the Republicans have built their own campaign on a foundation of lies and smear, and it appears to be working well enough to keep the race close.
Edwards and Biden didn't make the rules. You say what you need to say to win. The Democrats have a long way to go before they can even approach the level of amorality and dishonesty so intrinsic to their opponents.
Posted by: Thom on September 1, 2004 02:59 PMEddie:
I wouldn’t have really followed this issue through the mainstream media this week, because I’m currently boycotting their flaccid coverage. I’d like to echo Dack. Great post. I’ve been following the coverage on the blogs, and nobody else has mentioned the sad response of the Democrats. Bush gives the Dems an opening they could drive a truck through and they fumble!
There was a recent piece from an AP columnist saying that the Democrats are the Boston Red Sox of American politics (and the Republicans, of course, are the Yankees). My initial response to this was that the big difference is that Red Sox fans are much more loyal to the team than Democratic voters are to the party. Red Sox fans really have no choice but to be emotionally ravaged year in and year out. I haven’t made any commitment to the Democrats yet, and painful gaffes (and unlike pretty much all of the gaffes that get play in the media, this is of an incredibly substantive nature) like this don’t bring me any closer to the Kerry/Edwards camp.
Thom:
I’m sorry, but I don’t really see the logic behind your position. If you’re going to look at such a huge issue from a pollster’s perspective (I wouldn’t), and if you’re saying that 50% of the country is a bunch of war-happy idiots, then it seems that there should be an equal 50% of the country (give or take a few “I don’t know” responses) to go along with a contrary position. So, this should really have been a chance for the Democrats to show that they have some principles.
If enough people who didn’t support the war on Iraq are willing to cut the Democrats slack for their pathetic display of political leadership, we really don’t have much hope of changing the discourse, do we?
Posted by: JD on September 1, 2004 07:01 PMJD, it doesn't follow that 50% of the country takes the opposite position. And even if it did, you couldn't necessarily win an electoral majority by being the favourite of that 50%. To win in this country, you can't just appeal to the thinkers. You need votes from the extremely simple people who think a successful war on terror means bombing the bad guys -- because one look at the nature of our most popular media shows those simpletons to be a huge part of our population.
And no, we don't have much hope of changing the discourse. If Kerry says anything remotely complex that suggests killing the bad guys hasn't worked, Cheney and Bush will take him out of context, mock him with a Karl Rove one-liner, CNN and Fox News will provide some free advertising for the RNC by carrying the mocking and ignoring the original context, and when the dust settles you're worse off than you were before. That's the way it is and I don't think the DNC should stick their collective head in the sand.
Posted by: Thom on September 2, 2004 10:07 AM