Dubya yesterday: We can’t win the WOT.

Dubya today: We’re winning the WOT.

If we can’t, then how can we?

Like in that commercial for satellite TeeVee: I think George is confused.

Posted by: Don at August 31, 2004 01:51 PM

Seems like the only time that Bush says something sensible, i.e. that the War on Terror cannot be won, he detracts it a day later.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6116134

Terrorism has lasted a few thousand years, global terrorism since the invention of the airliner, the normal Rep jingoistic rhetoric isn’t going to change that.

—

He seems to have been doing a lot of flip-flopping lately.

Posted by: symptomless at August 31, 2004 02:27 PM

I’m not sure why this is so hard. We can never totally win the war on terror, because there will always be terrorists someplace, and there’s no way to totally prevent them from ever getting anybody. It’s not like a war on a foreign government that can be toppled.

On the other hand, we can be (and are) “winning” the war on terror, in that we’re reducing the level of terrorists and terror attacks, and making it much harder on them.

Posted by: samuelv at August 31, 2004 02:34 PM

yes, Bush misspoke, no doubt about it. And of course the running dogs of the left fell on this misstatement much as they would fall on the carcass of a run over oppossum. Some things don’t change.

Now Bush must clarify and he’s spending a fair amount of his time doing that. The media outlets I listen to have given the president ample opportunity to achieve this goal.

S-less and the Don have both chimed in, anybody shocked by that?

Posted by: skip at August 31, 2004 02:58 PM

Yep, he did misspeak and he has acknowledged it as much, though I doubt the left will give him any slack on this either. His speech at the American Legion and recent interviews today have clarified what he meant to say. I suspect most people will accept that because it makes sense. The left will never accept any explanation on it so we shouldn’t be surprised by rabid spins attacking him about it.

I also recommend those interested to read the ABC News article about the poll on the ABC News.com site. ABC co-sponored this poll with the Washington Post… same numbers and trends, but the ABC article is less kind in it’s analysis than the Post as far as what if any good data might be there for the Kerry campaign.

I’m curious to know if Kerry will try to apologize ala Jane Fonda to the vets about his anti-war activities tomorrow at the American Legion. It might take away some of damage from the current ads on his anti-war activities and dampen the current positive news coming out of the RNC and recently updated polls for the Bush campaign. It may well capture the headlines for the day, too.

Posted by: steve at August 31, 2004 03:19 PM

You liberals are something else - supposedly intellectual, but what is intellectualism when in a vacuum?

Bush has explained this 3 times since and yet The Don and symptomless can’t hear and couldn’t quite grasp the concept in the first place. Since past wars have had a head of state and a uniformed army, there are official documenys/agreements of surrender to be signed. So in a classic definition of war, there will be no definitive win/surrender, steady progress and many isolated battles. The general trend is what is important over time.

When terrorists like Arafat do not make political gains from exploiting the reckless slaughter of civilians, then the necessity for terrorism decreases. If you reward the terrorism by giving the terrorists a larger voice, obviously there will be more terror. There is a single solution - as Rudy Giuliani said - offense - Kill and punish those using, supporting and exploiting terror instead of rewarding it. When you hear the news out of Israel today of the needless slaughter - call the murderous thugs what they are murderers!!! Also listen to what you hear, this was the first “successful” attack in over 6 months. Why did we not hear more of the Isreali success at thwarting attacks, instead we hear that the UN said their safety barrier was an obstacle for peace!!! I believe that the lack of a successful attack in 6 months showed it was an obstacle of peace!

When you see that article showing that despite all of the media attention on war, that actual war casualties have dropped wordwide, lowest since WWII,

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=515&u=/ap/20040829/ap_on_re_af/war_and_peace_1&printer=1

it is an indication that the media is what has given people a disproportionate coverage of the horrors of war, while not giving the full perspective of the fact that many of the conflicts are leading to greater peace through the creation of stable, accountable representative democracies.

The WOT is being won through vigilance every day, but there will never be a formal surrender. There will always be an individual who can commit an act of terrorism, but the WOT is about organized, sponsored terrorism and it is clearly being defeated. You can now look in the histoy books for the brutal Taliban regime, the sponsorship of terrorism by Khadafy, the sponsorship of terrorism by Saddams brutal regime. You can also look at the success in getting Muslim countries ( far more critical allies in this war than France and Germany) like Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, now the Afghans and the Iraqis to help in this conflict. This is how we win, every day, every terrorist leader eliminated and in the larger view, through educational opportunities in schools that were not available in Iraq or Afghanistan just a few years ago! These fertile young democracies will help to spread the seeds of democracy in the region, much as what happened in the former Soviet Union - give people an opportunity !Does anyone think that the successes as they continue in Iraq and Afghanistan will not help to effect change in Syria and Iran and even North Korea. There will soon be the leverage necessary to secure diplomatic victories as we did with Libya.

Posted by: I collect political items at August 31, 2004 03:22 PM

Posted by: steve at August 31, 2004 03:19 PM
I’m curious to know if Kerry will try to apologize ala Jane Fonda to the vets about his anti-war activities tomorrow at the American Legion

Steve,
Seems that ALL like-minded and honorable men (such as yourself!) are asking that very question. I would be willing to make a wager on it…the answer being a resounding no, as that would require the one thing that even the likes of Kerry can’t fake: Integrity.

“John Kerry complains, ‘Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: “Bring it on”.’

Dear John, Bring it on. As usual, you have it wrong. You don’t have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He’s been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign. I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn’t about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I’ve never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved. This really isn’t about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, ‘the job isn’t finished.’ Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren’t in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn’t really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff ‘seared’ into your memory — especially since you want to have your finger on our nation’s nuclear trigger. … The trouble you’re having, John, isn’t about your medals or coming home early or getting lost — or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John. When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote ‘The New Soldier,’ which denounced those of us who served — and were still serving — on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me — and all of us who served in Vietnam — of committing terrible crimes and atrocities. On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops ‘had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam.’ And you admitted on television that ‘yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed.’ And for good measure you stated, ‘(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions … the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners.’ Your ‘antiwar’ statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here’s what some of them endured because of you, John: Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements ‘were proof I deserved to be punished.’ He wasn’t released until March 14, 1973. Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors ‘repeated incessantly’ your one-liner about being ‘the last man to die’ for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973. Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations ‘were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) … and a prime reason the war dragged on.’ He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973. John, did you think they would forget? … One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: ‘I would like to say something … to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I’m … very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families.’ Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?” —Oliver North, Lt. Col., USMC

Posted by: DevilDoc at August 31, 2004 03:34 PM

Bush didn’t miss speak. He said something that I believe was sensible enough, though, it seems at odds with the party line. By admitting that the war on terrorism cannot be fully won accepts a truth, a reality. Though in the binary logic of the Republican faithful, to accept that truth and immediately translates America’s position into defeat. In reality it need be neither.

I stayed up late here to listen to Rudy and he left us in no doubt last night that unless the US wages war on, well, anyone it sees fit then you won’t ‘prevail’. That’s jingoism, fear mongering and absolutely incorrect.

I for one have had enough laughs at the President of the United States’ expense that’s to his wonderful gaffs and appaling attempts at chumy, ad libs. But their content is not worth scoring any political ‘points’ over. It’s their context which is the hilarious and, in equal measure, frightening aspect, being as he is in charge of the US Military machine.

This wasn’t an error though. He for once was quite correct.

Posted by: symptomless at August 31, 2004 06:26 PM

“In reality it need be neither.”

Of course, the DNC’s total inability to express what “neither” translates to, much less how whatever-that-is is going to be an improvement, is a big reason why they’re distrusted on defense by the public. The Republicans may not be nuanced, or whatever, but their message has a clarity that I didn’t hear from the Democrats a few weeks back.

Posted by: tagryn at August 31, 2004 06:52 PM

“An elite unit of American soldiers mutilated and killed hundreds of unarmed villagers over seven months in 1967 during the Vietnam War, and an Army investigation was closed with no charges filed, The Blade reported yesterday.

Soldiers of the Tiger Force unit of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division dropped grenades into bunkers where villagers — including women and children — hid, and shot farmers without warning, the newspaper reported. Soldiers told The Blade that they severed ears from the dead and strung them on shoelaces to wear around their necks.”

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/20/vietnam_atrocities_revealed_in_report_boston_globe/

“The Toledo Blade articles represent some of the best reporting on a Vietnam War crime by any newspaper, during or since the end of the conflict. Unfortunately, the articles tell a story that was all too common. As a historian writing his dissertation on U.S. war crimes and atrocities during the Vietnam War, I have been immersed in just the sort of archival materials the Toledo Blade used in its pieces, but not simply for one incident but hundreds if not thousands of analogous events. I can safely, and sadly, say that the “Tiger Force” atrocities are merely the tip of the iceberg in regard to U.S.-perpetrated war crimes in Vietnam. However, much of the mainstream historical literature dealing with Vietnam War atrocities (and accompanying cover-ups and/or sham investigations), has been marginalized to a great extent – aside from obligatory remarks concerning the My Lai massacre, which is, itself, often treated as an isolated event. Unfortunately, the otherwise excellent reporting of the Toledo Blade draws upon and feeds off this exceptionalist argument to a certain extent. As such, the true scope of U.S.-perpetrated atrocities is never fully addressed in the articles. The men of the “Tiger Force” are labeled as “Rogue GIs” and the authors simply mention the that Army “conducted 242 war-crimes investigations in Vietnam, [that] a third were substantiated, leading to 21 convictions… according to a review of records at the National Archives” – facts of dubious value that obscure the scope and number of war crimes perpetrated in Vietnam and feed the exceptionalist argument.

Even an accompanying Blade piece on “Other Vietnam Atrocities,” tends to decontextualize the “Tiger Force” incidents, treating them as fairly extraordinary events by listing only three other relatively well known atrocity incidents: former Senator, presidential candidate and Navy SEAL Bob Kerrey’s raid on the hamlet of Thang Phong; the massacre at Son Thang – sometimes referred to as the “Marine Corps’ My Lai”; and the war crimes allegations of Lt. Col. Anthony Herbert – most famously chronicled in his memoir Soldier. This short list, however, doesn’t even hint at the scope and number of similar criminal acts.

For example, the Toledo Blade reports that its “review of thousands of classified Army documents, National Archives records, and radio logs reveals [the “Tiger Force”] … carried out the longest series of atrocities in the Vietnam War [from May and November, 1967]…”. Unfortunately, this seven month atrocity-spree is not nearly the longest on record. Nor is it even the longest string of atrocities by one unit within its service branch. According to formerly classified Army documents, an investigation disclosed that from at least March 1968 through October 1969, “Vietnamese [civilian] detainees were subjected to maltreatment” by no less than twenty-three separate interrogators of the 172d Military Intelligence (MI) Detachment. The inquiry found that, in addition to using “electrical shock by means of a field telephone,” an all too commonly used method of torture by Americans during the war, MI personnel also struck detainees with their fists, sticks and boards and employed a form of water torture which impaired prisoners’ ability to breath.”

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/turse1.html

Sounds to me like Kerry was telling the truth.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 31, 2004 07:00 PM

So the jingoism and fear mongering are fine as long as they’re clear?

There may not always be a ‘clear’, straight-forward solution to political issues, except though the tactics of re-election, e.g. jingoism and fear mongering.

Posted by: symptomless at August 31, 2004 07:21 PM

rdelephant,

What possible point do you have with this extremely off-topic garbage? Why does the left hate the US is my question. The horrors of war are exactly that. When you confront an enemy that uses women and children and does not observe any rules of conflict, what exactly do you expect, especially when you have the administration putting them in harms way tying one hand behind their backs (Johnson) and calling it a police action? These wounds need not be opened, we have learned from history, we used technology to develop better weapons, techniques etc and those are the exact tools we are using in the WOT. Kerry opened up the past trying to paint himself as a war hero, he pointed at Pandora’s box and the Swift Boat Vets Brought it On and then he cried foul when his lies are being exposed. The questions here are very simple - they are about whether Kerry is qualified to be CIC, he listed that period of time as a qualification and it should therefore be scrutinized. We need not scrutinize all other behavior as others are not attempting to become CIC. Kerry made the conscious decision that his last 20 years of elective office were nothing to run on, but run from - a very sorry statement. A 4 day DNC convention and I heard of a sum total of zero legislative accomplishments on his part. I guess Dukakis’ lt gov. didn’t do much and the Jr. Sen from MA has pretty much just done what the senior senator told him to do. Don’t rock the boat with Uncle (hic) Teddy around.

Posted by: I collect political items at August 31, 2004 07:23 PM

symptomless - If one cannot explain how one is going to solve a problem, its often indistinguishable from looking as though one doesn’t have a solution. Like it or not, clarity usually does trump ambiguity in the political process.

Posted by: tagryn at August 31, 2004 08:00 PM

“What possible point do you have with this extremely off-topic garbage?”

You are kidding right ?? DevilDoc just posted a lengthy, scathing piece from Oliver North on precisely the question of whether Kerry was wrong to have stated that there were Vietnam atrocities. My post addrressed that pretty squarely. Yet I am the one who is off-topic ?? To hear you guys tell it, Kerry’s conduct when he reteurned from the war is why he is losing the edge to Bush in recent days (the topic of this thread) so I am on topic anyways.

I don’t hate the U.S. But if you guys are going to do what the North did and what the SwiftBoat guys did in their second ad, you are just begging us to stand up and say that John Kerry was speaking the truth about Vietnam.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 31, 2004 08:24 PM

I did some quick checking on this Toledo Blade article and found it dates back to 2003 and has been making most of the anti-war, anti-Bush and anti-U.S. web sites frequently over the past year. The only main stream media to cover it was a brief report in the Boston Globe, a NY Times owned company. No other major media or cable news outlet has reported on it.

From a basic research of the article, it appears that after some 30+ years, a single vet who could “no longer live with the shame” brought the story to the Blade’s attention and two reporters claim to have spent several months interviewing dozens of vets and surviving members of this single 45 man recon platoon. A formal request was made to the Army to reopen the investigation to see why only 18 men were brought up on charges from several months of action in 1967 when the “atrocities” were supposedly committed. A reading of the Boston Globe article cites many conflicting accounts and lack of hard evidence in trying to prove the validity of the reported atrocities.

It appears in the World Socialist Web Site as gospel and is linked to other atrocities committed by the U. S. in Korea and Iraq. It is also echoed in the Democracy Now web site verbatim from the original Boston Globe report and posted along side a report on Bush’s war on women.

A check of the various Vet web sites, including the 101st Airborne/Tiger Force vets web site does not mention anything about what the article reports as actually happened.

Posted by: steve at September 1, 2004 01:05 AM

I do believe the Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer prize for this series. I have seen no denials.

Posted by: rdelephant at September 1, 2004 04:22 PM