Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Joe Bauers
Yesterday, George W. Bush said that the war on terrorism could not be won. Today, he insists that it can, and that we will win it.
Those who are so enamored of pointing out John Kerry flip-flops take note. This one's a doozy.
Perhaps it occurred to one of Bush's handlers that it might be a tad difficult persuading the Congress to turn over hundreds of billions annually on an enterprise that could not work; not to mention that it might be difficult to convince the American public to continue offering support to a leader who was convinced that something he was advocating was a lost cause.
Joe B.
|
I think we need to define terms. Is "terrorism" synonymous with the "war on terror"? What is the "war on terror"? How do YOU define the "war on terror"? And do YOU think it can be "won"?
I thought Lauer's question was stupid, and the president should have been quick enough to ask Lauer what he meant.
Frankly, I don't think we'll ever be able to prevent terrorism. If that's not winning the war on terrorism, so be it. But I think we can neutralize Bin Laden and al Qaeda. If that's winning the war on terrosim, so be it.
I don't think you should hang your ideological hat on a few words taken out of context in response to a dumb quesiton. To do so indicates that you're just looking for an excuse to vote against Bush.
If that's what you want to do, go ahead. Me, I'll pay more attention to the overwhelming body of evidence and actions since 9/11. That seems more reasonable and offers a better basis for how I cast my vote. (For Bush.)