Will W meet Cindy Sheehan

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

"we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror"
W

"THESE WORDS NEEDED TO BE SAID."
-Kristol


Okay, first off, I think Kristol must be deaf, as I've heard pretty much this speech at VERY least once a month for over a year now.

He said it that time on a military base. Sort of the choir, no? It seems like he says it a lot to you because you track him, Max. But Kristol's point is that Bush needs to talk about his plans, about winning, about logistics, and he needs to do it more. He doesn't do that, he talks in grand statements and hyperbole.

I think I heard Kristol support thisd point on TV by saying that Bush needs to essentially do fire-side chats, he needs to make his case to the people, and try to define the argument, rather than letting his silence do that. Unfortunately, his handlers might not have faith that he could be capable of that. I dunno.

Far from thinking this is just bad grammar, I think it's deliberate. Crafting a ntional and foreigbn policy with a nebulous forever war at it's core is quite deliberate. We don't know really what the war on terror is. No one has bothered to say what winning it would mean, or how we would get there or even if it's possible. War time presidents are granted extraordinary powers. This administration intends for those powers to be held by the office of the presidency indefintely, and it's wider constituency believes their party can hoild on to that office from now on.

Well, I disagree with this. I think the Bush team has certainly exploited the political benefits of being at war, but every president would do that.

I think Bush has in fact stated a plan to combat terrorism, which is what has made this iraq war so questionable. People bought it when he said we'd fight terror by stopping the states and institutions that supported it. He told the American people Saddam had weapons, that he was best buddies with Osama, and that he supported terrorism (which he did, btw, on the latter). Now, with no WMDs showing up, and no clear ties to the Islamo-fascists that threaten us, people are finally beginning to wonder why we went in there in the first place, and does it indeed relate to the war on terrorism.

War on poverty? No one argued for war powers. War on drugs? No one argued for war powers. No one thought they were wars in anything but a rhetorical sense. There is an Iraq war. It could one day be 'won'. Does anyone think the war on terror is analagous?

Nobody ever held the illusions that the war on terror would be quick and clear. I am one of those of the opinion that Iraq has now become a part of a broader war, thus making it crucial.

Winning in iraq however is a bit clearer than you assume-- that's why Kristol mentions bombing border villages in Syria. It may sound crazy to you (and probably is), but he is pointing out that a big part of this problem in iraq has nothing to do with actual IRAQIS.