Does Mr. Kennedy agree with the Presidents statement that America could not win the war on terror?

New York Times Headline: "Bush Cites Doubt America Can Win War on Terror."

"President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday, said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually prevail." (New York Times, 8/31/04)

Like a certain syndicated host says (paraphrased), place a bag of excrement near liberals and they'll surely step in it.

It's about time our leadership spoke up. Here's the latest GOP video on Dean, et. al: http://gop.com/

I wonder if Dean and Murtha's "new strategy" includes mandatory Arabic classes?

Doug,
The NYT will dig eternally for any supposed contradiction by Bush. Put it up against the thousands of times he has said "We can and we will win the global war on terror."
You are being silly.

Kermit,
Are you really from Sesame Street?
Is this the same NYT with senior 'journalists' skiing, drinking and buddy-buddy with the current administration?

The quote is not from the NYT itself, it was taken from an interview that morning that Bush did with Matt Lauer. It was the kickoff of the GOP Convention. So, when Bush went on the Today Show and said ""I don't think you can win it," in reference to the war, I guess that was defeatism speaking. Well, it certainly has shown.

-------------In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program "Today," conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign.

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."---------

To me, that sounds reasonable and a line he probably should have stuck with. Dean mouths a version of this and he's un-American. That's how ridiculous you guys are.

Like Korea and Vietnam, defeating an ideology among a homogenous population is NOT the same as kicking the shit out of an enemy nation-state. It's not a conventional war. Most ou you dunder-heads can't discriminate between the two.

I was an average student in my military science class and got as far as college ROTC would take me- so I'm no expert in no means. but when this war took off, I was hoping that we utilized our human intelligence and special ops were set to kill (assasinate if yuo will) the many heads of Al Queida, so that as we roll into Iraq, the opposition could easily be handled without direction.

Now, we know that terrorists are:
1. Coming from all over the world to snipe at our troops
2. A-Q was not active in Iraq before this
3. Many more have JOINED the movement since we took on Iraq.

So, maybe Murtha is right that we pull back to the outskirts of Iraq, let them try to run their own country and remove our boys and girls from being sitting ducks since you can't visually tell the differenc between friend and foe within the borders.

You got a better idea? DO the GOP have a better idea? You know, aside from scoring political points with the rhetoric?

Eric
----------------------------------------------------

Now, we know that terrorists are:
1. Coming from all over the world to snipe at our troops
Who can shoot back. Seems reasonable, and it keeps them occupied (little pun there).

2. A-Q was not active in Iraq before this
No, but there was a "Gentlemans Agreement" between Saddam and OBL, and you have no idea what support WAS being provided, or would have been in the future. Unless you're psychic.

3. Many more have JOINED the movement since we took on Iraq.
And they all loved America before the invasion. Now that darn Bush has got them Really mad at us.

To totally win the war on terror, we have to kill or imprison anyone who even planned to commit a terroristic act.

To win the war in Iraq, we have to kill or imprison enough terrorists so that the country is stable enough to finish rebuilding, finish setting up its government, and handle its own security.

And Bush saying that the first isn't possible and Dean saying the second isn't possible are exactly the same?

Kermit,

Republicans like yourself will dig eternally for any opportunity to misrepresent what a Democrat says.

The statement that Dean made that has all of your undies all bunched up was prefaced by the interviewer saying that the key to eventually getting the troops home is getting the Iraqis to do a better job of defending themselves. Dean clearly enunciates that this was ultimately what we had to do in Vietnam and that the strategy cost the lives of 25000 Americans.

He says he believes we've made the same mistake in Iraq that we made in Vietnam and that because Mr. Bush didn't pay attention to the lessons from Vietnam, we're now in a war that can't be won.

It's pretty clear to us what Dean was saying because, guess what? It's the same thing that the President and Mr. Rumsfeld have said numerous time since the war started.

You either:

A. Understand the distinction between what Dean said and how it's being represented in the right-wing controlled corporate media but are so loyal to your parties ideology that you stick to the script anyway.

b. Don't understand the distinction in which case is a pretty sad statement about the educational system in which you were raised.

c. Subscribe to the Rush Limbaugh theory of critical analysis which at it's core says, "if it's coming from a Democrat, I don't believe it."

Dean never said immediate withdrawal. Murtha never said immediate withdrawal.

The only argument you guys can offer is a strawman argument. Murtha says re-deployment within 6 months and you interpret that as immediate withdrawal and surrender and then you proceed to knock down your own half-witted interpretation.

Roger Ailes was entirely correct when he said FOX would fill in the void of a missing market. That would be the "too stupid to comprehend what someone says and incapable of thinking our way out of a wet paper bag" demographic.

"The only argument you guys can offer is a strawman argument. Murtha says re-deployment within 6 months and you interpret that as immediate withdrawal and surrender and then you proceed to knock down your own half-witted interpretation."

Doug,

Rubbish, and moreso than usual.

I've attacked the actual substance of Murtha's "proposal"; the six month delay (as good as "immediate", since it gives the terrorists a big date to circle on their calendars), and the most cretinous part of all, the "idea" that we can withdraw "over the horizon" - his words - and go and take it all back if we need to. Ludicrous at best, a very cynical attempt to deceive the people at worst.

"Roger Ailes was entirely correct when he said FOX would fill in the void of a missing market. That would be the "too stupid to comprehend what someone says and incapable of thinking our way out of a wet paper bag" demographic."

Because all the *even dumber* people already had three networks.

"No, but there was a "Gentlemans Agreement" between Saddam and OBL"

Really? A gentlemans agreement? Did it look anything like this?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

Then of course there is the link between the CIA and the military support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. BTW, what was that guys name that was setting up training camps in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion?

Oh yeah. It was bin Laden. And didn't his brother have some connections to some guy named George Bush and HIS father George senior who was ironically, the former director of the CIA.

Wow. What a strange "coincidence" eh Kermit?

Doug,
It's not the statements that Dean, Kerry, Murtha or any of these people say, it's the strategy of demoralizing. If the roles were reversed Republicans like Limbaugh would be criticizing just as furiously ala Somalia and Kosovo.

The only "mistake" we made in Vietnam was allowing the partisan opposition to cut support for the south after they had already won the war. (Don't make me go into this, you know it's true). A million dead Vietnamese and Cambodians just so a bunch of democrats and communist wannabes could join hands and sing Kumbaya.

Hey, way to change the subject there, Doug! I guess that must mean you won the debate... right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy

(And that's only one of the many you've committed in this thread.)

"Murtha never said immediate withdrawal."

Try telling that to CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq.ap/

Or to the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700794.html

How 'bout the San Francisco Gate

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/17/MNGV2FPT755.DTL

Or lefty bloggers

http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/2005/11/murtha_calls_fo.html

As for Dean, I guess the World Peace Herald got it wrong too

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051207-113507-4896r

Since that position is too "fringy" for the average Democrat

"Sixty-one percent of Democratic voters favor an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, compared with 18 percent of Republicans, according to a Quinnipiac University poll of 1,230 voters surveyed Nov. 28 to Dec. 4."

Doug, Bush said victory in the WoT wouldn't look like victory in past wars, with a armistice agreement drawn up on board ship somewhere.
You're comments make no logical sense:
1) See! See! Bush said we can't win the war!
2) Wait! Wait! Dean didn't really say we can't win the war, how dare you misinterpret him thusly!
So... what you're saying is that Bush thinks it's hopeless and Dean believes in our efforts? That's idiotic on its face. The track record of both men clearly indicates Prez Bush believes we can and will win, and Dean doesn't, simple as that. We can debate who is right and who is wrong but any other characterization of their core positions is ludicrous.
If anyone is bent on repeating the mistakes of Vietnam it is the Dean/Kerry Surrender Cabal. Yes, we lost 25,000 soldiers in Vietnam. The Kerry surrender with honor strategy then cost hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of Asian lives. They are set to do it again.

"it's the strategy of demoralizing."

WOW! I did not realize that our troops are, as you are suggesting, a bunch of thin skinned pussies.

These guys are trained to kill, are put in harms way on a daily basis, get shot at, blown up, make life and death decisions in fractions of a second but the real threat to our troops isn't the enemy in Iraq or Afghanistan. No - It's those awful Democrats who dare attempt to question the strategy that the President has followed.

Strategy of demoralizing? God that's pathetic.

No Chriss -

Bush said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world.

Those were his words. If you have the luxury of interpreting the Presidents words and telling us what he meant, wouldn't it follow that I could explain the deeper context of Deans comments?

Of course not. That's not the way it works here in ShotInTheDarkVille.

I know what the President meant when he said he didn't think we would win the war on terror. You don't have to explain what he meant. Really.

It's the smartest thing the man has ever said because it's true and he was and is 110% correct but remember, it certainly wasn't our side that got all upset about it. It was yours. In fact, I remember thinking at the time how refreshing it was to hear some honesty for a change but then, the scrambling started to clarify for the retarded masses what he was saying.

"Those were his words. If you have the luxury of interpreting the Presidents words and telling us what he meant, wouldn't it follow that I could explain the deeper context of Deans comments?"

No problem at all Doug. But when your "deeper context" includes statements such as:

"Murtha never said immediate withdrawal."

When in fact:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats.

- well, don't be surprised when one of us retarded types calls you on it.

Steve G,

Since you seem concerned with the subject of logical fallacy, maybe you can have a stab at this gem... (which, by the way was the seed from which this discussion sprouted)

Ready?

"No, but there was a "Gentlemans Agreement" between Saddam and OBL, and you have no idea what support WAS being provided, or would have been in the future.

And go...

Doug,
Check out some soldier's blogs and find out what they think about the press reporting. They wonder why none of the positive things they've achieved get reported, only the idiots who blow themselves up.
I'd recommend the Mudville Gazette as a good starting point.

Mike,

What I find amusing is that in the alleged leftwing media that you cite, they all repeat the same distortions of what Murtha said. I thought the media was controlled by the left.

For the record, here's what Murtha said.

"My plan calls:

# To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
# To create a quick reaction force in the region.
# To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
# To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

Murtha Resolution To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq:

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2005

MR. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on _____________________

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it

I) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

2) Congress assembled,

3) That:

4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is

5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable

6) date.

7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines

8) shall be deployed in the region.

9) Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq

10) through diplomacy.

Mitch,

Why is it whenever you don't have anything valid as a counter point you resort to calling it irrelevant or Rubish?

Eric and Doug made some damned fine points, perhaps actually discussing them would help you appear concious, maybe even rational?

Or maybe, your lack of actual knowledge and depth will get exposed, and so resort to insults.

Me, I'll bet on the insults.

Mike - I caught that too- I heard Murtha, I think perhaps it's an interpretational view. Doug sees starting immediately terminating in 6 months as not quite tomorrow. You see the word immediate, and infer it means tomorrow. I knew Murtha said immediate, but let's use just a bit of sense ok? Clearly there is NO chance we could pull our troops out tomorrow. Doug's comment was factually innacurate, yours is wilfully shallow, whom do I trust then? I know, where the hell is Ross Perot.

And further, Doug is 100% right that Bush was very clear about what he intended, that the war would never be done, he was speaking out of school, he hadn't been prepped, and his staff and handlers spent the next 3 days having him deny it, including a complete reversal a few days later.

On another point.. Kermit said..

No, but there was a "Gentlemans Agreement" between Saddam and OBL, and you have no idea what support WAS being provided, or would have been in the future. Unless you're psychic."

This has been TOTALLY REFUTED by the investigation into the pre-war intel, but don't let facts bother you. It's also completely illogicial. Finally, before the war, Bush issued a report that said it was HIGHLY unlikely OBL and Houssien were cooperating or would cooperate in any meaninful way UNTIL HIS REGIME WAS IN DIRE DANGER OF COLLAPSE. Now I didn't make that up (nor is it from my faulty memory) - so sorry Kerm, but you gots that one 1000% bassackwards.

Steve said...

To totally win the war on terror, we have to kill or imprison anyone who even planned to commit a terroristic act...

Truer words were only spoken by Bush when he said you can't ever win, because to do what Steve suggests will require killing most of the world's population. It involves thought police and killing the children of the current generation and their children too. See, that's why Bush's words were erudite, a wonder coming from President Wilfull Ignorance, but still true.

I've yet to see anything from any of the Rightie posters on this thread that amounts to a cogent argument. Eric took you apart. Outside of being wrong on "immediate" Doug did too. Is there a rational response outside of pissing about whether it's 6 months or 6 weeks? The point is we are the lightning rod. Are you disagreeing that we cause most of the unrest?

PB

PB

Doug: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

And before you counter with the "no 'collaborative relationship'" quote from the 9/11 commission, you would do well to read Frank Gaffney: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13909

And PB, you'll NEVER see a "cogent argument" from anyone right-of-center, because you never actually comprehend any of it; you just grab a phrase you think you can argue against and run with it, regardless of context.

PB,

"I caught that too- I heard Murtha, I think perhaps it's an interpretational view. Doug sees starting immediately terminating in 6 months as not quite tomorrow. You see the word immediate, and infer it means tomorrow."

Believe it or not, I agree with at least the sentiment behind that statement. As a point of fact, I made no inferences as to the definition of "immediate". You've done that for me. I simply challenged Doug's assertion that "Murtha never said immediate withdrawal" with contradictions from every contemporary news source I could find and the man's own words.

But like you, I'm not interested in a "depends on the meaning of 'immediate'" arguement. The question of why we hold different interpretations is the interesting discussion. (hint - it isn't because one side is "irrational","unconcious" or "retarded")

PB - point of clarification. My issue is not with the tomorrow versus 6 month interpretation. It is with the issue of what constitutes a redeployment versus immediate withdrawal.

If you or anyone reads Murtha's statement, he states:

The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Earliest practicable date. NOT immediate.

In addition, he calls for A quick-reaction U.S. force AND an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines.

Special forces units with regular military over the horizon isn't withdrawal. That's special forces to get the job done, presumably inside the country, supported by Marines.

Further, you and I know that in 6 months to a year, the Pentagon and the President will initiate a plan to down size the military presence in Iraq.

It will be esentially the same thing that Murtha called for but because Mitch and company has done such a good job of misrepresenting Murtha words, all of Bush's supporters will fall for it and hail his decision as a bold display of leadership.

Doug,

Murtha's resolution is as you have stated. I think it represents a "fine-tuning" of his initial statements and responses when questioned. Clearly, the Republican driven withdrawal vote attempted to exploit the distinction, as you could argue that "earliest practicable date" has been the Bush plan since Day One.

"Further, you (PB) and I know that in 6 months to a year, the Pentagon and the President will initiate a plan to down size the military presence in Iraq."

I agree. We have already committed to this path (post election draw downs etc). "As the Iraqi's step up, we'll stand down" presumes this (a down size plan) to be the case. If we agree that the goal is to return our troops "as soon as practicable" that would seem like the best way to get there. I don't give a damn who gets "credit" for it.

The other option is to get there with our tails between our legs.

Steve G

Sorry to burst your bobble but...

From your referenced article...

During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence

From TODAYS New York Times...

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida on detailed statements made by a prisoner in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

Better luck next time...!

OK, Doug, that's one down, and thirty-something more to go.

Steve G - a key / critical and allegedly reliable piece of intel connecting Iraq to AQ turns out to have been fabricated (and allegedly coerced to avoid getting the ClubGitmo full body massage and hydration treatment) and you put faith in the other highly dubious connections?

War is peace eh Steve G?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/politics/11propaganda.html?ex=1291957200&en=3b2903137c652493&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss