[Imaverygooddriver]

What did he say?

[Rutles4Ever]

He was pointing out that there is no "winning" the War on Terror in the conventional sense. There won't be an Armistice signed with Osama bin Laden or anyone else in Al Qaeda, and even if there were some ceremonial "end" to the way, the ideology will live on. The reason we were able to do so differently with Nazism is the fact the Nazism was inextricably associated with Germany, and not a hodge-podge of disaffected Muslims littering the globe.

The best we can do is to de-fang them as efficiently as possible.

[mabelkitty]

You were surprised to hear it, but you didn't repeat them in your vanity.
So, you must be trying to draw alot of people in, where you will drop the "bombshell", and accomplish your goal of attempting to drive everyone into a frenzy?

Do I have that right?

Thought so.

[dr_who_2]

What he said might have been true, but that's immaterial here. Bush must have a death wish. Today Show interviews are not a good place to spout profundities.

[JohnRam]

I think it was the perfect response. You can't ever beat hate. Terror is Hate. As long as people in the middle east hate us, we will always be fighting terror. We can contain it. We might be able to stop it happening on our soil. But we can never beat it.

[Bahbah]

It was an awkward and I can wish he had said it differently. His point was that this can't all be done militarily. There won't be a peace document signing on the decks of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, so to speak. He meant it is not to be won in the ways that we traditionally think of wars being won. It makes a crummy soundbite though. Just my HO.

[Republican Red]

Makes perfect sense to me. Anyone that believes Kerry/Edwards when they say they can totally defeat terrorism isn't living in the real world.

Terrorism could be a single nut-job with a suitcase bomb.

[Callahan]

Bush said that America is not going to "win" the War on Terror in the traditional sense, meaning we're not going to sign a treaty and have a parade one day and announce that it's all over. It's an on-going struggle where "victory" means making certain societies less accepting of terrorism.

[Americanwolf]

it is an important point that we know Bush understands that there is no peace treaty... no appeasment...no surrender possible in the war on terror. I think that is the point that he was trying to get across. If we relent even on bit it opens the door to terrorist trying to do harm in this country.

This is the nature of the world today. And if John Kerry wants to wage a more sensitive war, that will surely do this country more harm then good. There is no sensitivity to be given to these terrorist. they only view it as weakness, and for the life of me I cannot understand why people cannot see that. The french are currently trying to appease the terrorist in Iraq to save 2 journalist lives. They will lose on both accounts the journalist are not likely to survive, and if France doe give in the they will only be besieged by more demands form other terrorist groups. Spain is a prime example the reacted to the 03/11/04 attack by changing government as a form of appeasement, and not ETA their home grown terrorist are really racketing up the pressure on the Spanish government. This is a fight to the end. And I don't plan to be on the loosing side and i understood exactly what bush meant.

[marty60]

It's the truth. No flashy treaty signing. No summits at Camp david (Clinto, Araftmouth, Peres) these people are committed ideologues. Just like commie/fascist/socialist/evil dums, they are adaptable to any fight. they are always thinking about new ways to attack and kill as many infidels as possible.

It is in fact the fianl battle of godd and evil. We can not afford to lose, but winning will not be under the rules of conventional WAR.

[Maria S]

This is kind of like asking if you're rid of cockroaches forever...you can keep on fighting them and keep them under control, but they're always going to be there if you slack off.

[clintonh8r]

I think if he could get those words back and answer the question a different way, he would certainly do so. It doen't pay to give the enemy a juicy sound bite to chew on during your party's convention.

[PokeyJoe]

W is a master of taking away the other guy's talking points and making them into mush.

We loved watching him do this to the democrats in Texas.

He is, basically, making them look like ungrateful boobs if they keep attacking him. He's being nice.... and he's being humble.... and honest....

And the democrat's are gonna blow a gasket.... unable to respond.

[Kornev]

He meant we can't beat islam.

[bluecollarman]

I did not have a problem with his answer. That's what dummies question was to the Pres. "Do you think we can win it"? Instead of the meaning of "is" the President gave us the meaning of what "it" is.

I agree with the President we will never be completely free from terror it will be a continious struggle. We can win the war against nations that support terror, but not fundi Islomaniacs.