Les Jones: Bush's "We Can't Win It" Quote

August 31, 2004

News > Bush's "We Can't Win It" Quote

Donald Sensing has the skinny and the full context:

Lauer: �You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?�
President 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?�

President Bush: �I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world �- let's put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I�m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and � harm us and bring �em to justice �- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaida as we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. You know there's some who say well, �You know certain people can't self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.� I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work.

The context sure changes the quote, which I had heard all day as "We can't win it."

Posted by lesjones

Comments

The context sure changes the quote

I agree. Bush said something perfectly consistent and reasonable that only sounds stupid when taken out of context. Sort of like "'I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it", right?

Posted by: Steve K. at August 31, 2004

As I recall, Kerry's reason for voting against it was because he didn't want the $87 billion funded with deficit spending, and instead wanted to raise taxes to pay for it. I've been wondering how many other appropriations bills Kerry vetoed using the same logic. My guess is zero.

Posted by: Les Jones at September 01, 2004

As I recall, Kerry's reason for voting against it was because he didn't want the $87 billion funded with deficit spending, and instead wanted to raise taxes to pay for it.

So, in other words, saying "'I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" is in no way evidence of a flip-flop on the issue of appropriations for the war. Correct?

If so, why doesn't it offend you when the Bush campaign repeatedly lies and says that it is? I certainly offends my intelligence when Edwards lied and said Bush's remarks were a flip-flop, especially when I didn't have to have any context at all to figure out what Bush meant. But maybe your tolerance for stupidly blatent lies is higher than mine.

Posted by: Steve K. at September 01, 2004

"So, in other words, saying "'I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" is in no way evidence of a flip-flop on the issue of appropriations for the war. Correct?"

Incorrect. He did vote for it before he voted against it. I just explained his stated rationale for doing so.

If he's for it, then he should support it, and shouldn't try to politicize it by tying passage to a tax increase. Hey, you could argue principle if Kerry consistently vetoed appropriations bills all year long because they were funded by deficits. Near as I can tell, he didn't.

Look, if he wants to vote against something, that's fine. I'm just tired of hearing Kerry opportunistically using the "I was for it before I was against it" line whenever it benefits him politically. See here, here, here, here, here,
and here.

If Kerry has any principles, he should try figuring out what they are and then sticking to them. And when he's challenged on a vote, he should explain his vote in terms of those principles, rather than straddling the issue in order to appeal to both sides.

Posted by: Les Jones at September 01, 2004

If he's for it, then he should support it, and shouldn't try to politicize it by tying passage to a tax increase.

That's a legitimate argument, and although I disagree, it is intellectually honest.

you could argue principle if Kerry consistently vetoed appropriations bills all year long because they were funded by deficits. Near as I can tell, he didn't.

You're putting words in my mouth, and setting up a straw man. I wasn't arguing principle or making any claim at all about whether Kerry had a good reason for voting the way he did on the appropriations bill. All I said is that the Bush campaign is lying about the details of this particular vote. Nothing more. But otherwise, even though it's irrelevant to what I said, that was also a legitimate point, ond one I actually agree with.

I'm just tired of hearing Kerry opportunistically using the "I was for it before I was against it" line whenever it benefits him politically.

And that's also a legitimate criticism. I'll go one further and say that I'm tired of hearing Kerry opportunistically use the "purpleheartvietnamIwasawarhero" b.s. whenever it benefits him politically. I'm not here trying to defend Kerry, and frankly wish I had someone else to vote for (Bob Graham and Wesley Clark would have been much more palatable to me).

Incorrect. He did vote for it before he voted against it.

But this is utterly, entirely bogus. "It" refers to a single item. He didn't vote for "it" before he voted against "it". He voted for one version of a bill, then he voted against a different version of the bill. That's two things, not one, two things which differed in very substantial ways.

It's perfectly reasonable to argue that it was irresponsible of him not to vote for both versions of the bill. It's also perfectly reasonable to argue that other than this vote he rarely, if ever, voted in a way that would suggest he was concerned about deficit spending And if you agree with those two arguments, it wouldn't be unreasonable to claim that his vote against the second version of the bill was motivated by political calculation rather than any adherence to principle.

But to argue that in this case he voted for something once, then immediately turned around and voted against the exact same thing is nothing but a lie, a big fat whopping completely obviously blatent lie.

Posted by: Steve K. at September 01, 2004

OK, so what changed between the version of the bill he voted for and the version he voted against?

Posted by: Les Jones at September 02, 2004

When people type out the text of the President's quote they should put an extra emphasis on the word "it": "I don't think you can win "IT"." If you listen to the exchange, it is clear that President Bush was referring to a single declaration of surrender, such as we saw with Japan after WWII. I think he was honestly trying to convey the idea that people shouldn't expect the activity of terrorism to simply "switch" off one day with some great declaration of peace. Anyone not dishonest with themselves can understand that any angry human can attack innocents in the future for some "cause". With so much precedent of successful achievements through terror, some person or group is bound to attempt results through its implementation. But just as no one expects a finality on the "war on drugs" or "the war on poverty" we keep up the efforts to dampen those scourges even though we know they will never be completely eliminated. Listening to the President, it was clear to me that this was his "straight shooting" message. Yet, his detractors (the Today Show,et al) want to use his common sense honesty against him. For me, in validates my confidence in his judgement and clear thinking.

Posted by: Greg Sparkman at September 05, 2004

OK, so what changed between the version of the bill he voted for and the version he voted against?

I assume at this point you're just baiting and badgering me, since you answered this yourself above: "he didn't want the $87 billion funded with deficit spending, and instead wanted to raise taxes to pay for it."

Apologies if I misinterpreted your question and intentions.

Posted by: Steve K. at September 06, 2004

HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! hELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!!

Posted by: Amanda Wallner at September 28, 2004

Comments on the old blog are closed.