Bush Predicts Victory in War Against Terrorism

Mephisto

Philosopher
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
6,064
Bush predicts victory in long struggle against terrorism

POSTED: 12:21 p.m. EDT, September 4, 2006

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (CNN) -- Just as the United States persevered in the long ideological struggles against fascism and communism in the 20th century, President Bush predicted Thursday that the nation eventually will win in Iraq and the fight against terrorism.

In what is the first in a series of new speeches on the fight against terrorism, Bush again emphasized that Iraq is the "central front" in that battle.

Speaking to American Legion members gathered in Salt Lake City, Bush said, "As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They are successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be.

"This war will be difficult, this war will be long, and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists and totalitarians and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty."

The president dismissed those who separated the Iraq war from the overall struggle against terrorism. (Watch Bush explain why the U.S. should not withdraw from Iraq -- 2:04)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/31/bush.terrorism/index.html
_____________

The public, however, is increasing skeptical of the president's argument that Iraq is part of the overall war on terror. A majority of Americans, according to a CNN poll conducted August 18-20, seem to have separate opinions about the war in Iraq and terrorism. More than half (52 percent) said the war in Iraq is a distraction from efforts against terrorists who want to attack targets inside the United States.

The CNN poll, which was conducted by Opinion Research Corp., found that support for the war in Iraq had fallen to 35 percent, with 61 percent opposed, a record low. Thirty-two percent said the war had made the world safer from terrorism, while 59 percent said it had not. (Opposition to war at all-time high)
 
I wonder if any of those veterans would agree that they have seen this kind of enemy before. Somehow, I don't think so.
 
I wonder if any of those veterans would agree that they have seen this kind of enemy before. Somehow, I don't think so.

Except for territory covered, I am sure the ones who are Vietnam War vets would. I am by the way.
 
Was there ever a state leader who was waging a war he expected to loose?

Hans
 
Was there ever a state leader who was waging a war he expected to loose?

Hans

True, but at what point will he (Bush) resemble those state leaders who, in the face of undeniable facts, still espouse an unreasonable optimism?
 
True, but at what point will he (Bush) resemble those state leaders who, in the face of undeniable facts, still espouse an unreasonable optimism?
So you believe that the terrorists will win and we'll all be fundy Islamists or dead?
 
Bush predicts victory in long struggle against terrorism

POSTED: 12:21 p.m. EDT, September 4, 2006

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (CNN) -- http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/31/bush.terrorism/index.html
_____________

The public, however, is increasing skeptical
Who woulda thunk it? When you look at the track record of wars on nouns, to whit the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror, I'd say his prediction is aimed at ensuring an ever growing money pit to throw tax dollars into, and "everybody gets a share."

Didn't the GOP used to argue for smaller government?

Milo Minderbender for president, 2008. :p

DR
 
Who woulda thunk it? When you look at the track record of wars on nouns, to whit the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror, I'd say his prediction is aimed at ensuring an ever growing money pit to throw tax dollars into, and "everybody gets a share."

Didn't the GOP used to argue for smaller government?

Milo Minderbender for president, 2008. :p

DR

I forget exactly who, but a comedian once suggested that the surefire way to lose sight of a goal is to have the government declare war on it. :)
 
What "undeniable facts"? Are you already giving up?

Yes, I'm giving up. The violence in Iraq is NOT a civil war, the economy is doing fine, Homeland security is no longer a problem, we are safer than we've ever been before, we do not torture, we are winning the war on terrorism . . .
 
Who woulda thunk it? When you look at the track record of wars on nouns, to whit the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror,
Except this one is a real shooting war. It is a bit of a misnomer, war on militant Islam would be more accurate but not PC apparently.
 
Except this one is a real shooting war. It is a bit of a misnomer, war on militant Islam would be more accurate but not PC apparently.
You have any idea how many people have died in the War on Drugs since about 1988?

DR
 
You have any idea how many people have died in the War on Drugs since about 1988?

DR
That's not the point. Drug dealing is a criminal enterprise, militant Islamists seek to convert the entire world to Islam or kill them, and restore the Caliphate. It's a war in every sense of the word, whether you want to believe it or not.
 
So you think the militant Islamists can be negotiated with?

Of course not, but I also don't believe that invading a middle-eastern country on false pretenses and remaining there as erstwhile targets in a civil war we're responsible for is good policy either.
 
That's not the point. Drug dealing is a criminal enterprise, militant Islamists seek to convert the entire world to Islam or kill them, and restore the Caliphate. It's a war in every sense of the word, whether you want to believe it or not.
Way to miss the point. The death toll in the War on Drugs has to include a great number of dead bodies in Columbia, of a variety of nationalities. What is interesting is how obliquely the casualty count in that "war" is tallied.

As to "want to believe it or not" I was actively involved in war on terrorists starting about 1983. I got to participate in this most recent installment, which finally got a name for purely political reasons.

How about you? Are you experienced?

*loud, dissonant Hendrix riff*

DR
 
Of course not, but I also don't believe that invading a middle-eastern country on false pretenses and remaining there as erstwhile targets in a civil war we're responsible for is good policy either.
The thread title is "Bush Predicts Victory In War Against Terrorism", not "Bush Predicts Success In Iraq". You are derailing your own thread...
 
Way to miss the point. The death toll in the War on Drugs has to include a great number of dead bodies in Columbia, of a variety of nationalities. What is interesting is how obliquely the casualty count in that "war" is tallied.
Dead bodies does not make a war. In Columbia the FALN is fighting for control of the country and installation of a communist gov't. That they finance much of it through the drug trade is incidental. The war against the FALN is not a "war on drugs", though it is dicey to distinguish between the two.

As to "want to believe it or not" I was actively involved in war on terrorists starting about 1983. I got to participate in this most recent installment, which finally got a name for purely political reasons.
The name came about recently because this country doesn't take this war seriously, and a good percentage of the population doesn't even think we're in a war. But it is a war - and it's against militant Islam. But that's not PC, is it? So we get the WOT name instead. I'm not a fan of that name, obviously.

How about you? Are you experienced?

*loud, dissonant Hendrix riff*

DR
Never been a member of the military.
 

Back
Top Bottom