Replies

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.

Exactly. Lauer was asking the question in the sense of a game, you can win or lose. Bush said it wasn't a game. All he (President Bush) said was we can create conditions in the world that don't harbor and aid terrorists, and that in essense is President Bush's views of "winning".

Pretty simple. Of course the Democrats can't figure it out, but what's new?

He was pointing out that there is no "winning" the War on Terror in the conventional sense.

The problem is President Bush did not say it that way. When Matt Lousy asked him if we can win the war on terror, the first complete line of his answer was "I do not think we can win it".

Now, we can all say what he really meant, but to be honest, that has to be one of the worst possible answers he could give. What a soundbite. You can bet that will be in a commercial pronto. I mean, the President of the United States saying we cannot win the war on terror. Of course, Bush just did not say exactly what he meant, but the soundbite is now out there. And you know how these things work.

Edwards is already pounding away on the stump. His line is: "We believe we can win the war on terror, they do not".

If the Republicans are smart they will squash this one at the convention, possibly tonight (maybe Giuliani?).

Hopefully this too shall pass. But, I have posted the following many times here:

"Republicans only have themselves to fear".