September 02, 2004
Bush in Translation
In this election season with the charges of John Kerry flip-flopping on the issues, it seems surprising that President Bush has apparently done some of the same thing, the week he is to accept the nomination as the Republican Presidential nominee.
In an interview with NBC's Today Show host Matt Lauer (reg. BugMeNot), when President Bush was asked about the war on terrorism, Mr. Bush replied, "I don't think you can win it." However, later in the week, in an interview with radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, he attempted to elaborate on his earlier comments by saying: "Really what I was saying to Lauer was, is that this is not the kind of war where you sit down and sign a peace treaty. It's a totally different kind of war. But we will win it." When you have a Presidential nominee, who also happens to be the sitting President overseeing current war on terrorism efforts, who is basing most of their campaign strategy on showing how effective they
have been in combating terrorism comes right out and says it is unwinnable, why should we be reassured and reelect him to office? There is one thing I do agree with the President about, and that is when he says, "I probably needed to be a little more articulate".
Yeah, probably wouldn't hurt.
Posted by Beau Wade at September 2, 2004 01:10 AMRead the transcript, not the NYT’s selected excerpt. Bush was asked if he thought the war could be won in four years—not if it could be won at all.
Matt Lauer: Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”
Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”
Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”
Bush: “I don’t think you can win it.”
By the direction of the questioning, he clearly never meant to say it couldn’t be won and clarified himself quickly. He meant that there was no panacea for winning it quickly within a set timeframe. This ought to be obvious, but with Kerry collapsing the media is willing to cut, paste and decontextualize in the tradition of the cheapest sort of journalism imaginable. Bush has said repeatedly he intends to win the war, and made that point clearly when asked for clarification.
Posted by: Martin at September 2, 2004 01:35 AMYou know, when I read that he said “I don’t think you can win it”, I thought it was a sign of real intelligence and ability to think something through. Then, poof! 24 hours later he dashes the whole moment of hope. Terrorism has been with the human species from prehistory. The only way to eradicate terrorism is eradicate either the human species, or struggles for power among them.
It was intelligent to admit that we cannot eliminate terrorism. That opens the door to setting realistic goals of defending against terrorist acts aimed at us, and minimizing the conditions that give it rise.
Failure to recognize the inevitability of terrorist acts among divided and hostile people, is to fail to understand from whence it springs and why. And failing that, effectively dealing with it is compromised in the most serious of possible ways.
But politics are obviously more important than dealing realistically with the greatest external threat facing us besides the proliferation of WMD throughout the world.
Posted by: David R Remer at September 2, 2004 01:35 AMSo, did you feel that Kerry and Edwards were unintelligent because they came out the next day saying that the president was wrong and we CAN win the war on terror and have never said that we can’t win it?
Rhinehold, Absolutely. That is why I am voting for Nader and belong support the Green Party.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2004 02:22 AMI think Bush had, what you call, a truthful moment. the problem is that truthful moments make for good talking points for the other side, as the Kerry camp quickly responded with the “well BUSH doesn’t think he can win the war on terror, but JOHN KERRY WILL” total garbage. Of course Bush goes and retracts the statement and looks like an idiot.
David is exactly right. Even if we could win the war with radical Islamic terrorists (which, if we do win it, is a long way off), there will always be a new group to use the tactic of terrorism to push whatever agenda it has.
What we need to do is kill as many terrorists as we can, but in the broad view, we must change the world in a way that stops MANY terrorists from being created. I believe that this can only be achieved if as many countries as possible have the freedom, democracy and security to allow their people to prosper economically. But even if we succeed in making the world even more democratic than it is now (if you compare the world now to 30 years ago, this has been a truly amazing revolution), there will always be SOME terrorists out there and they will always be a threat to us.
I actually believe George W. Bush shares this view of how the war on terror needs to be fought- but instead he goes around saying WMDs this, eminent threat that, and declaring how we will win the war on terror. Comments the ones me made in his “truthful moment” and what I believe his true intention for the Iraq war are make me think that Bush could really have been a really good president, if he hadn’t always worried about pleasing the potential “swing voters” and had just done what he believed and sold it that way (which led him to support his disastrous spending policies, Medicare, illegal immigrant amnesty ect). People don’t WANT to hear that there is no fully winnable war on terrorism- they want to hear the garbage that Bush and Kerry have been saying for the last two days. We get the presidents we deserve….
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at September 2, 2004 02:25 AMBush either got lost in his questions or he really doesn’t understand the problems it takes to win the war on terror.
Matt Lauer: Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”
Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”
Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”
Bush: “I don’t think you can win it.”
The fact that it is the same group that is commenting terror acts and has been for over forty years tells me that the war is winnable in a short period of time. However, like America’s fight on the mafia and gangs our leaders must make a firm stand and attack the source of the problem. It does no good to take out the individual without eliminating those who encourage and promote terror. But, if Bush wants to fight this war like the War on poverty, drugs, and literacy than he is right.
The war on terror can not be won for unless America and the rest of the world leaders change this race to the bottom mentality to one that will allow everyone to meet their basic needs the world will always lose. For what good is gold, it can neither feed you or keep you warm. The highest currency in the world is not of this earth or even man made. It is the feelings and aura when people care for one and other that is the most powerful currency of all. For if you could bottle that emotion felt when around family and friends, what price would you put on it?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 2, 2004 07:35 AMCan you say “flip-flop?” This was the first honest statement out fo Bush in his 3.5 years in office, and then he spoiled by dishonesty. But then again I have come to expect nothing more from Bush.
Posted by: V Edward Martin at September 2, 2004 11:41 AMI think that we are all united in the belief that terrorism is bad and should be stopped, at whatever cost. Where I think we are divided is the reasons for going to Iraq. The Bush administration is claiming that we are there to stop terrorism, even though Iraq has never shown itself to be a breeder of terrorists in the past. I think the real problem is that the Bush administration cares more about their hidden agendas than they do about the people of Iraq. I’m sure that if Sudan has trillions of dollars worth of oil under the ground, we’d have a 150,000 troops there “liberating” their people. Instead, we sit by and watch as hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered. Compassionate conservatism, my ass.
Posted by: Cameron Barrett at September 2, 2004 12:47 PMCameron, you raise the one of the hugest flaws in the Kerry campaign in my mind. The failure to differentiate the invasionan of Afghanistan and ‘battle with terrorism’ and the invasion of Iraq. Failing to differentiate the two was pointed out on MSNBC last night has opened the door for Republicans to attack Kerry and Democrats on not supporting and being weak in ‘battle with terrorism’.
It is an excellent point you raise, and those on the left really should seek every opportunity to make the truthful case that they absolutely support the effort to battle terrorism, but, they don’t support Bush like quagmires and occupations in countries like Iraq which simply wastes our resources desperately needed to go after the terrorists targeting the USA.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2004 12:56 PMA good point Cameron, and back on the home front Kerry needs to do something to set himself apart from Bush, to show that he has leadership potential and vision. Perhaps when most Americans are concerned about homeland security and first responders, Kerry should announce that he will do something that no other President has ever done—at least as far as I know—and that is to convene (shortly after he is sworn in) a summit of the nations governors to discuss their homeland defense needs and concerns. Invite Secretary Ridge to stay on as head of Homeland Security and make it abundantly clear that his department will speak for the executive in ALL matter concerning homeland defense. Formulate and announce initiatives to boaster first responders and finally give them the money they need to really protect Americans.
Kerry needs to show bold and decisive leadership; banish the rhetoric and give us his unapologetic vision for America. And one more thing: the gloves need to come off; Kerry needs to hit Bush and hit him hard on his record (such that it is), and do so with a passion that underlies and speaks to his desire to be our President. Thus far his speeches have lack soul, have lack enthusiasm; note to Kerry, show some emotion, some spark, warm up to your topic, make us believe that you believe is what you are saying. If you don’t you will lose and we will be stuck with four more year of the worse President in American history!
No ties to terrorism? Wow.
Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true.
Furthermore, reading the ‘Undeniable Truths’ section of this testimony provides what is known to be true, as opposed what might and might not be true. Such as:
Beginning in the early 1970s, Saddam provided safe haven, training, arms, and other forms of assistance to Palestinian and Arab extremists.Baghdad hosted the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and the Hawari faction of the PLO.
Baghdad created the Arab Liberation Front (ALF) as its personal surrogate in the wars against Israel. Although the ALF conducted no terrorist operations, Saddam used it in the 1970s and resurrected it again in the current Palestinian intifada as a means to recruit Palestinians and, in 2001, to win praise for offering $25,000 to the family of each Palestinian “martyred” in an Israeli attack.
While enjoying safe haven in Iraq, the ANO conducted a number of terrorist attacks on Jewish and Israel targets in the 1970s and 1980s, including murders at synagogues and attacks on El Al airline passengers in Turkey, Austria, Belgium, and Italy, and the hijacking of a Pan Am airliner (Pan Am 73) in Karachi, in which 22 people (2 Americans) were murdered. ANO also attacked PLO representatives in Europe, murdered Jordanian diplomats, and attempted to assassinate Israel’s ambassador in London. (This attack became the cause celebre for Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982.) When ANO leader Sabri al-Banna refused to conduct operations against the Syrian regime ordered by Iraq, he was cast out of the country, only to later be allowed back. He died in August 2002 in Baghdad from 4 gunshot wounds to the head, a suicide according to Iraqi security officials. I assume Saddam had decided to remove evidence of his links to one of the most notorious of international terrorists at a time when the United States was increasing pressure on him to reveal his WMD programs and was accusing him of sponsoring al-Qaida.
Palestinian terrorist Mahmud Abbas, known as Abu Abbas, and his organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), enjoyed safe haven and support in Saddam’s Iraq. Abu Abbas was responsible for the October 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly American confined to a wheelchair. In October 2000, following the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, Abu Abbas announced from Baghdad that the PLF would resume attacks on Israel.
In the 1970s Saddam aided Palestinian radical factions that conducted terrorist operations on Israeli, Jewish, Western, and moderate Arab targets. In the 1980s, he sheltered the Kurdish anti-Turkish terrorist group, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) at the same time he allowed Ankara hot pursuit of PKK terrorists across its border. In the 1990s, he provided safe haven and supported attacks by the leftist anti-Iranian Mujahideen-e Khalq on targets inside Iran, including rocket attacks on government office buildings in Tehran.
Yaphe may not feel that Iraq and al-Qaeda worked together even though the commission does agree that they did meet and discuss possible efforts, but that is a HUGE leap to say that Iraq had NO ties to Terrorism.
It’s clear that he did and was one of the major proponents of using such methods. Iraq also vowed to attack the US and as we find out recently was planning to do just that after the 9/11 attacks, before the Iraqi invasion.
People can disagree with attacking Iraq, that’s fine and well. But please let’s not reinvent history to suit our political agendas.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2004 02:22 PMNo ties to terrorism? Wow.Please point out a context to this, since the rest of the post seems to be a load of strawmen. No one, to my knowledge, has said that Saddam has never, in his entire life, aided any guerilla or unconventional militant group which may be described by certain parties as terrorists, even in a passive way by failing to crush them utterly. No one has denied that Saddam has benefitted from terrorism, and had be selective in dealing with it. Every nation in the world does it - no doubt the Hussein government called them freedom fighters, and so on. The US for example harbours groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, and numerous anarchist groups, Britain has various animal rights extremists and sold weapons to various dubious foreign groups, but since they are not a threat, they are not dealt with.
The current Iraqi administration can be described as having ties to terrorism, using such language as above. With Osama bin Laden, the current US administration can be characterised as a primary sponsor of terrorism - and much more recently, and to a greater degree that Saddam.
Additionally, Yaphe is a witness at the inquiry - she did not make up its conclusions. A small quote from her, taken out of context, means nothing.
Posted by: Zhou Fang at September 2, 2004 05:41 PMCameron’s comments:
The Bush administration is claiming that we are there to stop terrorism, even though Iraq has never shown itself to be a breeder of terrorists in the past.
Iraq has not only shown itself to be a breeder of terrorists in the past, but it used them as Saddam’s will desired.
The assertions are quite valid and documented, which ones listed above do you disagree with?
No one, to my knowledge, has said that Saddam has never, in his entire life, aided any guerilla or unconventional militant group which may be described by certain parties as terrorists, even in a passive way by failing to crush them utterly.
See, this is the problem most of mainstream America has with those that try to defend Hussein. Terrorism is not a nebulous term that ‘can be used to explain anyone fighting for XXXX’. Terrorism is the use of TARGETTING innocent individuals or groups in order to create political change. Hussein created and supported terrorist groups since the early 70s and was doing so up until the time we invaded. We learned from Putin that he was planning terrorist attacks aganst the US and it’s interests. He was supporting the families of suicide bombers with $25,000 per. He was giving safe haven to terrorists from around the world.
Call a duck a duck and move on. If we can’t even agree that the actions of Hussein over the past 30 years, including NUMEROUS human rights violations and his support of terrorism, were reprehensible, what can we agree on?
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2004 06:17 PMSee, this is the problem most of mainstream America has with those that try to defend Hussein.
Who ever defends Hussein? The soccer players? First you create a strawman, then rail against it.
The point is that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Remember? Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Saudi’s, Yemeni.
That’s why we attacked Iraq. To destroy Al Qaeda, Capture Osama, to route the Saudi’s and the Yemeni’s remember? Why if we hadn’t invaded Iraq there’d be a mushroom cloud in N.Y right now. Besides the Iraqi’s welcomed us with flowers, remember?
By the way if anyone is interested:
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
How exactly do you defeat a tactic?
Just one more point.
What do you call carpet bombing, like Dresden, Berlin, North Vietnam, or say Nagasaki or Hiroshima? Isn’t that terrorism, too?
Oops, I forgot that’s just collateral damage. Oopsie.
Just one note, I’m not equating motives, just tactics.
Posted by: Greg at September 2, 2004 06:42 PMExcuse me, we never attacked Iraq because of Al Qaeda. We attacked Iraq because of WMD, Extreme Human Rights violations and their support and use of terrorism up to and including planning terrorist attacks on the US and its interests.
Who ever defends Hussein?
Well, I just responded to two other comments in other columns that did just that. They are saying that he had no hand in terrorism. This is completely wrong and a common misconception because it is not countered often enough. Just as your assertion that we attacked Iraq because they had a hand in 9/11 or were linked with Al Qaeda.
The war is against all of those that support and harbor terrorists, as well as against the terrorist organizations themselves. It’s a war we should have been fighting long before 2001 but instead we treated it as a ‘police activity’. 9/11 is the result of not seeing it as it was, a war against the west.
I have made no straw man arguments, I am detailing out specific facts that many people seem to forget when their rhetoric, partisanship and hate get in the way, refuting claims that have been made that are not true.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2004 06:50 PMRhinehold, the only problem with your analysis is that you are using your own view, opinion, and bias, to assess whether others have refutable claims. If a single person had truth, honor, magnanimity, justice, wisdom and an encyclopedic knowledge of history and current affairs, we would not need democracy. It would be a no brainer to just make that special person king, and go about our business confident that the king knows what’s best, what’s true, and what to do.
Unfortunately, King George proved in the last 4 years he was certainly not ‘the man’, so it is time to move and give someone else a shot at doing better than he did. Shouldn’t be too difficult.
Rhinehold said: “Call a duck a duck and move on. If we can’t even agree that the actions of Hussein over the past 30 years, including NUMEROUS human rights violations and his support of terrorism, were reprehensible, what can we agree on?”
I would guess from the above that you support reparations to Blacks and Native Americans. Or at least the Hatfields and McCoys was a noble cause fighting over insults neither side could remember.
The only justifiable reason for invading Iraq when we did in my mind was to prevent imminent threat of crimes against humanity about to take place or taking place in 2002, or stop the building of WMD capable of being delivered to our shores in a short period of time. Neither was the case. The $25K dollars offered to suicide bombers were directed to Palestinians attacking Israeli’s. Israel is a grown up country with a military quite capable of defending itself against Iraq. So that was a non-issue.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2004 09:29 PMWinning a war on terror is like winning a war on poverty, a war on drugs, or a war on the set-piece battle for that matter. The war on terror is not a real war in the first place, just a metaphor, and its a poorly chosen one at that.
It sounds as if George W. stepped to the brink of understanding that, and having peeked into the vacuum that his handlers have placed at the centre of his presidency, stepped away from understanding as quickly as he could.
John Kerry is, of course, both smart enough and sufficiently well informed to know both (a) what a metaphor is and (b) that is IS a metaphor. The sharp limits on Americans tolerance for people who speak uncomfortable truths instead of familiar lies ensures that there is no way to find out what improvement in the state of affairs he would hail as a metaphorical victory without actually electing him and then waiting to see.
Posted by: Bruce R. McFarling at September 3, 2004 02:23 AMBruce, it is a pleasure to see a new and intelligent perspective added to WatchBlog. Bush is starving me for eloquent, efficient, and effective use of the English language, and then you appear to satiate. Well said. Welcome.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 3, 2004 02:47 AMIraq has not only shown itself to be a breeder of terrorists in the past, but it used them as Saddam’s will desired.
I’d like to see Saddam’s cloning vats, please.
Read your source carefully. At no point was Saddam’s Iraq claimed to be a breeding ground for terrorism. Merely that he made his borders selectively permeable to terrorists, and allowed foreign terrorists to conduct operations there unmolested - in fact, the source accepts that just prior to the invasion, Saddam was in fact starting to clamp down on terrorists.
The breeding ground of almost all terrorist groups are areas of discontent, with usually young individuals, often holding radical beliefs, being especially vulnerable to recruitment. Post-Invasion Iraq is far more of a breeding ground in this sense than it was before.
See, this is the problem most of mainstream America has with those that try to defend Hussein.(Yawns.)
Terrorism is the use of TARGETTING innocent individuals or groups in order to create political change.To the palestinian extremists, the Israeli settlers they target are not innocent. Innocent is one hell of a loaded word, and a word that is open to subjective interpretation. Blowing up a factory that produces weapons - innocent? Blowing up a hospital that heals the wounded and lets them fight again - innocent? Blowing up a school that educates religious beliefs that help extremism - innocent?
Where does it say he created terrorist groups? Where did it say he planned attacks? I really think you should re-read your source.
Only the extreme fringes think Saddam is a nice guy. But many think (a) it wasn’t worth a war, and (b) his degree of involvement in terrorism was insignificant, and not at all current.
I have made no straw man arguments, I am detailing out specific facts that many people seem to forget when their rhetoric, partisanship and hate get in the way, refuting claims that have been made that are not true.
Erm… who are we supposed to be hating here?
Posted by: Zhou Fang at September 3, 2004 04:12 PMThere’s only one course of action to win the war on terror, and it requires two lengthy processes:
1) Stop being dependent on foreign oil by finding fuel alternatives;
2) Stop supporting oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia.
Without the need for oil, the 2nd step is quite simple.
When Saudi Arabia self-destructs, we’re probably going to be on the shit end of the stick. We need to cut ties as soon as we are economically able.
Posted by: Daniel Waldman at September 6, 2004 12:53 AMBy the way, killing more terrorists certainly hasn’t done much to stop the proliferation of terrorist organizations. If anything, it’s fueled them.
Posted by: Daniel Waldman at September 6, 2004 12:58 AM
