How about Bush’s quote:

“I don’t think you can win it. [the war on terror]”
- NBC’s Today Show 8/30/04

Posted by: Mark at August 30, 2004 01:32 PM

I’ve come to the depressing realization that we’re going to have Bill Clinton with us for the rest of his life. Jimmy Carter’s been bad enough, but he’s old and that will end soon enough. Clinton is worse than Carter (yes, we finally found somebody worse than Carter), and he’s young. Bummer.

Posted by: TL at August 30, 2004 03:09 PM

OMG!

Bill Clinton referenced the Bible!

The Democrats must be all over TV pointing their fingers at him wearing his Christianity on his sleeve, taking to the streets in protest, planning new 527 ads comparing him to some far left wing Jesus freak!

Ohhh.. I guess not.

Posted by: TexasGal at August 30, 2004 04:19 PM

If Bill Clinton says you are a liar, you must be honest. But still, what gall for hime to call someone a liar. Keep it up Bill, and thanks for the Congress.

Posted by: jones at August 30, 2004 05:54 PM

Bill Clinton swamped your boys in two pretty big elections. I know that’s hard to get over, but try.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 30, 2004 06:51 PM

TGal —

The Dems don’t mind either one of the Clintons speaking in church or quoting the bible. To them it’s just their version of Nixon going to China.

There’s no danger of them actually succumbing to the message so it’s a total pass.

Posted by: ter0 at August 30, 2004 07:09 PM

“Swamped?” In 1992, he got 43% of the popular vote. In 1996, it was 49%. That’s not “swamping.” That’s not a landslide. That’s not even a mandate. In both 1992 and 1996, the majority of American voters cast their ballot for somebody else.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at August 30, 2004 07:10 PM

It was a landslide in the electoral vote both times. get over it.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 30, 2004 07:26 PM

Yes, that’s true, President Clinton decisively won the electoral college both times he ran. I should hope so; I voted for him both times.

But just as President Bush was elected in 2000 without a mandate from the majority of Americans, President Clinton was elected without a mandate from the majority of Americans.

It’s not really reasonable to call 43% of the vote “swamped” no matter how many states a candidate wins.

(Please note that this is not an indictment of the electoral college. I’m a huge supporter of the electoral college. But it’s important for us to remember that winning the electoral college does not mean getting a mandate, and failing to get a mandate does not mean that the candidate has not won the election.)

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at August 30, 2004 09:23 PM

OMG!

Bill Clinton referenced the Bible!

The Democrats must be all over TV pointing their fingers at him wearing his Christianity on his sleeve, taking to the streets in protest, planning new 527 ads comparing him to some far left wing Jesus freak!
Ohhh.. I guess not.
Posted by: TexasGal at August 30, 2004 04:19 PM

Wonders never cease, do they?
Did you see the pic of Bill and Hillary in Church?

Bill should be ashamed of himself, making a mockery out of the church like that; and that is all it is, tounge and check satire.

Clinton, like Kerry, has never told the truth in his entire life.
It must be a Democrat membership requirement.

And Bill isn’t that young, in fact, he’s looking quite old in that church pic.
I wonder if Hillary saw that pic of Bill walking arm and arm with that (young) blonde bimbo Blinda Stronach?
He had a smile on his face in that pic…

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 30, 2004 10:26 PM

Mr Clinton:

It is wrong to bear false witness.

As in lying under oath.

I suppose it depends on what your definition of “is” is.

Posted by: aebrain at August 31, 2004 10:31 AM

Those who are so gleefully quoting Bush saying the war on terror is unwinnable—would they be honest enough to provide the rest of the exchange?

Oh, no, of course not. Much more convenient to take things outof context.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at August 31, 2004 12:57 PM

LAUER: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you’ll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war of ter—on terror? For example, in the next four years?

Pres. BUSH: I have never said we can win it in four years?

LAUER: No, I’m just saying, can we win it? Do you say that?

Pres. BUSH: I don’t—I don’t think we can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the—those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in part of the world, let’s put it that way. I have a two-pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us. And that’s necessary. I’m telling you it’s necessary.

The country must never yield, must never show weakness. Must continue to lead, to find the al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda affiliates, who are hiding around the world and who want to harm us and bring them to justice. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally, and my dad—and I don’t know about your relatives—but fought against the Japanese. And here Koizumi, Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.

Did Lauer ask him, “Can we win the war on terror at all” or did Lauer ask, “Can we win the war on terror in the next four years?”

———————————————————————————————————-

Lauer asked both questions in a few seconds, possibly without realizing they were different questions. Which one did Bush think he was answering? Did he even realize Lauer asked a different question a second later?

Reading the exchange at your leisure and parsing each sentence to yourself is one thing, having to do it on TV impromptu is another.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at August 31, 2004 02:53 PM