. . . Monday August 30, 2004

Winning the War on Terror?

So for the first time in a long time, President Bush made a reasonable and realistic comment on the ridiculously named war on terror. When asked about winning the war on terror, he explained:

“I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.”

(He should have answered: “It will not be officially won as long as we can keep selling it to win elections!”)

So, of course, the Dems blasted away at Bush. But not for making the stupid assertions over the past few years. Instead they pretend, as John Edwards repeated throughout the day, that the notion that we can’t win the war on terror is “dead wrong.”

That strategy is dead wrong. No thinking person believes we can ever totally win a war on something like terrorism. Will there be a day when the last suicide bomber lays down his explosives-belt?

Of course not. Calling it a war on terror is stupid. The three years of tough talk and dumb claims have been stupid. And jumping in and saying we can “win” a war on terror just because W shifted his talking points is a waste of time and comes off as desperate counterpunching.

Don’t get me wrong. The White House reaction to all this has been even more pathetic as they’ve tried to nuance the President’s statement. White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett began his lengthy dissertation on what W really meant by explaining to Ted Koppel that, “The President was being interviewed on a moving bus.”

In that case, let’s put the Oval Office on wheels. Maybe he’ll make sense more often.

Concentration is important!