Bush: 'I Don't Think You Can Win the War on Terror'

xpost: This quote tells you everything you need to know about the two candidates' approaches to terrorists. On the one hand, Bush has unilateral aggression and Cold-War style heavy military tactics, taking over entire countries, etc. That's his only strategy. And I think he's right that "terror" tactics can never be defeated this way.

Speaking of ultra-liberals at CNN (which is now solidly behind moving-left MSNBC in the ratings). Also, ABC has already decided to give more coverage to the RNC than the DNC, breaking into Monday Night Football tonight for a convention update.

I expect to see a lot of Zell Miller protege Paul Begala.

two things annoy me right now:

1. the AP keeps referring to this anonymous "NY official"'s estimate of 120K protesters yesterday, which is waywayway off - despite that the NYPD did not release (and won't release) an official estimate!

2. Ed Koch endorsed Bush today.

Is this an example?

the NYPD did not release (and won't release) an official estimate!

the NYT today cites a police official as concurring in organizers' 500K estimate

Ed Koch endorsed Bush today.

big surprise. he also said he disagrees with Bush on every domestic issue. how much are they paying him?

This is the best of possible conditions for the president and his adversary. It means a forever war, one that will keep building up the military industrial infrastructure on the backs of taxpayers.

If Bush loses the election, it will almost certainly because of Iraq. Thus far, the military industrial infrastructure (complex!) has been a horrible drain on the Bush presidency. And it doesn't look to improve much with Botox Johnny.

wow. he turned right at some point i presume?

then again, we have TWO months of this shit left, so who knows where its gunna go.

president candidates talking like method man = definitely something to hope for

Botox Johnny

You see, it doesn't matter what the candidates' positions are, it matters whether it's been alleged (incorrectly) that they have used Botox.

I'd also like to nominate "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" as a weapon in the war on terror.. because terror is something you hold inside.

x-post

Agreed! Perhaps he find his own specials stamp to put on the forever war effort. As Bush has ballistic missile defense and burrowing nuclear weapons, perhaps Kerry can greatly overfund space bomber development and the airborne tactical laser or staff ten new secret intelligence agencies. Building up the navy would be good, too, because you never know when al Qaeda will start buying U-boats.

Cry me a river Gabbneb. My my my your political skin is thin these days. Don't worry, you still have at least 64 days to hate President Bushco with every fiber in your body.

P.S. "Democracy and Distrust" has been a fantastic read so far. Thanks again for the tip

P.S. "Democracy and Distrust" has been a fantastic read so far. Thanks again for the tip

uh, what?

The first two sentences were sarastic, obv.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/books/review/29POSNERL.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Democrats Decry Bush Comments on Terror
47 minutes ago

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - Democrats criticized President Bush's record on national security and military matters Monday, seizing on the president's comment that he doesn't think the fight against terrorism can be won.

"I don't think you can win it," Bush said on NBC's "Today," when asked, "can we win" the war on terror. "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."

Democrats responded quickly at a morning briefing a half-dozen blocks from the Republican National Convention.

"I decided a year ago that he cannot win the war on terror," Gen. Merrill McPeak, a John Kerry supporter, said of Bush.

The former Air Force chief of staff said he supported Republican Bob Dole in 1996 and Bush in 2000.

"Iraq is a much bigger mess than it needed to be if we were competent to the task at hand," McPeak said.

Democrats said a key to preventing terrorism is doing a better job protecting the country and its ports, railways and borders.

Kerry "will put Americans' security first and foremost," said Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, the first union to endorse Kerry's presidential bid.

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Democrats distorted Bush's comments. Kerry, he said, has been indecisive on his approach toward fighting terrorism.

Democratic vice presidential hopeful John Edwards assailed Bush in a speech in Wilmington, N.C., saying the president miscalculated a host of foreign policy decisions.

And, the party prepared a new 15-second TV ad criticizing Bush for pursuing a "go-it-alone war in Iraq" that found no weapons of mass destruction and has cost taxpayers "$200 billion and counting." The ad, which says Bush has "no plan to win peace," will start running Tuesday in New York City.

I don't get this. Never have, from a security standpoint. The only way you can fulfill it is to put the country in a steel box with only one entrance and gunports. It's a particularly stupid statement with regards to reality in southern California.

Next, how do you "protect railways?" How do you disrupt railway traffic? The only way to do it is through strategic bombing. al Qaeda doesn't have an air force.

The subsidiary threat, which doesn't impinge railway traffic in any significant way, is bombs on passenger trains or at busy embarkation and debarkation points, of which there are not relatively many in the US, outside of a few urban centers. So the threat to the average citizen of being blown up in a terrorist attack on a railway or a subway is nil. And even where such attacks to occur, the damage to the infrastructure of transportation would be miniscule in the grand scheme.

Terrorism isn't capable of bringing down the United States at this level. People have more phlegm and backbone than such news statements give them credit for.

This leaves worst case scenarios having to do with smuggled atomic weapons. And a good way to attack that is to keep strictly controlling access to processed bomb-grade uranium and plutonium metal
Unless one is going to go to war, the best that can be hoped for is that a country like North Korea or Pakistan does not sell a readymade bomb. This is an exceedingly tough one but it has little to do with protecting ports and railways.

Madrid, March 11, 2004.

One of my points is, there is no way to do away with this type of attack.

Anyway, very cute to give a patina of propriety to an allegation by suggesting that the other side is covering-up what is (and is likely to soon be more widely) alleged. Here's my volley - BushCo routinely accuses its opponents of its own sins. Who does "everybody here" refer to?

You just can't help yourself, can you Gabbneb? Stop making shit up.

Stop making shit up.

I'm not making this up...

we wonder if the Kerry camp is engaging in a bit of pre-emptive news management

And how about this disgusting passage...

he had $9,000 in unreimbursed medical and dental expenses. Just what sort of health coverage is the Senate offering, and what sort of coverage might be enjoyed by folks who are not married to billionaires? If Kerry wants to extend the plan covering him to the rest of us, he ought to show us why he got stuck with $9,000 in bills.

Heard of prostate cancer?

Yes, you are. You are attributing assumptions to me that are a figment of your imagination--it's an annoying habit of yours. Unlike Tracer, you didn't get the joke and instead, launched off into a smarmy comment and rhetorical nonsense. Your link of armchair diagnosis on Bush's former alcohol problem (a self-diagnosed problem at that) and propensity to either reoccur or have measurable effect on policy making is just as loony as the link I provided.

sorry if I don't think the future of our country is a 'joke'

Who does?

I guess the thing with the muck-throwing amongst candidates is that there is no reason (other than moral, and who are we kidding?) not to engage in such a practice. A rumour you engineer in order to smear your opponent is either reacted to, or ignored. Reaction, of course, just lets the story grow, whilst if it is ignored it may die, and only a few people or no-one will believe it. But in the latter case the accuser has lost nothing. It might be nice to think that the public would bet sick of the offending party and be turned off by their dirty tricks - but I see no evidence that this occurs. If anything the disaffected public have a vague sense that 'politicians are liars', and don't vote for want of a decent discourse. But lower voter turnout isn't that big a problem for politicians anyway, I guess.

(Inside the mind of an undecided voter.)

Below, a sample of homeland security needs, along with Bush's budget allocations, compared with the time it takes to burn through the same amount in Iraq.

Amount needed for basic security upgrades for subway and commuter trains in large cities: $6 BILLION
(Iraq spending equivalent: 20 days)

Bush budget allocation for train security: $100 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 8 hours)

Amount needed to equip all U.S. airports with machines that screen baggage for explosives: $3 BILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 10 days)

Bush budget allocation for baggage-screening machines: $400 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 32 hours)

Amount needed for security upgrades at 361 U.S. ports: $1.1 BILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 4 days)

Bush budget allocation for port security: $210 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 17 hours)

Amount needed to buy radiation portals for U.S. ports to detect dirty bombs in cargo: $290 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 23 hours)

Bush budget allocation for radiation portals: $43 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 3 hours)

Amount needed to help local firefighters preparefor terrorist attacks: $36.8 BILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 122 days)

Bush budget allocation for firefighter grants: $500 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 40 hours)

Amount needed to get local emergency medical crews ready for terrorist atttacks: $1.4 BILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 5 days)

Bush budget allocation for emergency medical training grants prior to eliminating program altogether: $50 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 4 hours)

(Sources: American Public Transportation Association, FY 2005 Budget, Government Accountability Office, Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Coast Guard, House Appropriations Committee)

Of course, price gouging doesn't help: Halliburton may have billed $186 million for troop meals that were never served"

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040829/capt.wvcs10808292249.bush_w_va_wvcs108.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040922/capt.nhjc10209222134.bush_visit_nhjc102.jpg

I'm thinkin' that R's need to chill out on the botox remarks, lest they be judged demselves.

this scares the shit out of me

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/28/l-todd-wood-isis-planning-nuclear-tsunami/

lol where are they going to get these from

Israel? France? North Korea?

it only takes one...

and a rocket, and a targeting system, and highly technical knowledge etc etc

fear is the mindkiller

prob just an NSA plant doing his job

heh yes

Washington Times? Really?

um, yeah, I'm just not gonna click that link mmmkay bye now

Oh really? Because when I clicked on it, I somehow managed to accidentally click on "20 times kate middleton showed more than she should have". It's a helluva link.

Seems like only yesterday when the president and media were lying about WMDs to get us into a war. Now ten years have passed. Remembering is hard!

hey we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud amirite

Should we make the check out for $1 trillion or just leave it blank like usual?

hey we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud amirite

Worked on the boomers for 50 something years. Still afraid of socialism.

25 Celebrities Who Smell Bad, Have Arm Pit Hair, and Fart Often

now, according to the NYTimes, the intel community is lying to "us" about ISIS. How things change!

Well in that case they really know what they are talking about.