President Bush: The Iraq War is Unwinnable

On the Campaign Trail

"Bush Tones Down Talk of Winning Terror War"
In Tour of Swing States on Way to GOP Convention, President Elaborates onGoal of Fighting

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 31, 2004; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47707-2004Aug30.html

"Bush has given a spate of interviews in the run-up to this week'sRepublican National Convention in New York, and he was asked by Matt Lauerof NBC's "Today" show, in an interview taped Saturday in Ohio and shown onthe convention's opening day, if the war on terrorism can be won.

"I don't think you can win it," Bush said. "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.""

Does this statement reveal President Bush's unwillingness to win in Iraq or does it reveal that he does not know how to win in Iraq? If the war in Iraq is central to the war on terror and the war on terror is unwinnable according to the President, then the war in Iraq is unwinnable. This is a precarious dilemma for the President since the President must either retract his statement about Iraq being central to the war on terror or the statement about the war on terror being unwinnable. Despite his Administration's spin to the contrary, the President's policy has not changed over the year since stating the war's being unwinnable. Perhaps the Bush Administration's view converges more with Representative Murtha's than it is willing to admit.

I think that what Bush is saying is that terrorism, like crime, can never be completely eliminated. What we can do is defeat the power stucture in the Middle East that lends itself to the support of terrorists.

Rumsfeld was also talking about withdrawing troops after tomorrows elections. I think the cut and run strategy was expected from the Bush admin. as the elections drew nearer.

scottyz said:

Rumsfeld was also talking about withdrawing troops after tomorrows elections. I think the cut and run strategy was expected from the Bush admin. as the elections drew nearer.

Click to expand...

Ironic how today it is the white house that has no choice but to cut and run. Creating such a disaster in that area, we've done more harm then good. We're now much more insecure then we have ever been because of these tactics. I for one am a Mc Cain supporter in regards to this war. OK you're over there, we can't just pull out, we need to send in more troops now following the guidlines of General Shinseki to get this job done right.

Cut and run from the Bush admin? I don't think so. It is puzzling how this comment...

Ironic how today it is the white house that has no choice but to cut and run.

Click to expand...

and a few others suggest that the Bush admin is suddenly 'cutting and running', because of expected troop reductions following the Dec 15 elections in Iraq. Puzzling because it has been generally anticipated for a number of months that troop levels, which had been increased to about 160,000 to provide added security for the elections, would be dropped back to about 130,000 or so fairly soon after the elections.

The likelihood of reductions in troop levels following the elections have been disclosed publicly for quite some time, hence, to speak of them in terms of 'cutting and running' seems quite inappropriate. Furthermore, admin officials have long acknowledged that troop levels could be reduced even further in early-to-mid 2006, the security situation permitting.

oldreliable67 said:

Cut and run from the Bush admin? I don't think so. It is puzzling how this comment...



and a few others suggest that the Bush admin is suddenly 'cutting and running', because of expected troop reductions following the Dec 15 elections in Iraq. Puzzling because it has been generally anticipated for a number of months that troop levels, which had been increased to about 160,000 to provide added security for the elections, would be dropped back to about 130,000 or so fairly soon after the elections.

The likelihood of reductions in troop levels following the elections have been disclosed publicly for quite some time, hence, to speak of them in terms of 'cutting and running' seems quite inappropriate. Furthermore, admin officials have long acknowledged that troop levels could be reduced even further in early-to-mid 2006, the security situation permitting.

Click to expand...

The most important words in bold...

That's the difference between the two mindsets...Certain members from the left leave that out...

oldreliable67 said:

Cut and run from the Bush admin? I don't think so. It is puzzling how this comment...



and a few others suggest that the Bush admin is suddenly 'cutting and running', because of expected troop reductions following the Dec 15 elections in Iraq. Puzzling because it has been generally anticipated for a number of months that troop levels, which had been increased to about 160,000 to provide added security for the elections, would be dropped back to about 130,000 or so fairly soon after the elections.

The likelihood of reductions in troop levels following the elections have been disclosed publicly for quite some time, hence, to speak of them in terms of 'cutting and running' seems quite inappropriate. Furthermore, admin officials have long acknowledged that troop levels could be reduced even further in early-to-mid 2006, the security situation permitting.

Click to expand...

Are they withdrawing forces because objectives have been reached? Or because of a timetable set some time ago?

Iriemon said:

Are they withdrawing forces because objectives have been reached? Or because of a timetable set some time ago?

Click to expand...

The comments that I recall suggest that the anticipated reductions are event-driven. Or perhaps more accurately, contingent on the expections that security conditions will be such that troop reductions will be feasible.

I recall that it was discussed/disclosed following the last elections that levels would be maintained or increased modestly thru the Dec 15 elections and that those incremental troops would be rotated out following the Dec 15 elections. Subsequent to that, there were/are expectations that, if borne out, would permit further reductions in the first half of '06. We've already seen an announcement that some warning orders for early '06 deployment have been rescinded (they can always be reinstated quickly if security conditions suggest the need to do so).

That has been my impression for a number of months now. Are we interested enough in this as a topic to go back and find some of those disclosures/statements/comments?

oldreliable67 said:

The comments that I recall suggest that the anticipated reductions are event-driven. Or perhaps more accurately, contingent on the expections that security conditions will be such that troop reductions will be feasible.

I recall that it was discussed/disclosed following the last elections that levels would be maintained or increased modestly thru the Dec 15 elections and that those incremental troops would be rotated out following the Dec 15 elections. Subsequent to that, there were/are expectations that, if borne out, would permit further reductions in the first half of '06. We've already seen an announcement that some warning orders for early '06 deployment have been rescinded (they can always be reinstated quickly if security conditions suggest the need to do so).

That has been my impression for a number of months now. Are we interested enough in this as a topic to go back and find some of those disclosures/statements/comments?

Click to expand...

I'll take your word on it.

oldreliable67 said:

The comments that I recall suggest that the anticipated reductions are event-driven. Or perhaps more accurately, contingent on the expections that security conditions will be such that troop reductions will be feasible.

I recall that it was discussed/disclosed following the last elections that levels would be maintained or increased modestly thru the Dec 15 elections and that those incremental troops would be rotated out following the Dec 15 elections. Subsequent to that, there were/are expectations that, if borne out, would permit further reductions in the first half of '06. We've already seen an announcement that some warning orders for early '06 deployment have been rescinded (they can always be reinstated quickly if security conditions suggest the need to do so).

That has been my impression for a number of months now. Are we interested enough in this as a topic to go back and find some of those disclosures/statements/comments?

Click to expand...

You say in your former post and in this post that withdraw of the troops should be dependant on the security situation. Well, other than cut and run, I don't see how withdrawing troops now when insurgency is much greater than that of the same time last year is anything else. It's staying the course of his election speeches of troop withdrawl, but again, it's nothing but cut and run. Just in the same way that this administration has completely failed in making this country safer or more secure.

I don't see how withdrawing troops now when insurgency is much greater than ...

Click to expand...

I don't either. But we're not talking about "now" or last week or last month. We're looking forward here - recall that the troop reductions are based on 'expectations' of improving security conditions. Part of that 'set' of expectations is that insurgent violence will diminish if the election process is demonstrably well-attended, including Sunni participation.

Speaking of which, I caught part of a TV report last nite about a meeting in Ramadi between US military and Sunni tribal chiefs and/or shieks. Ramadi has, of course, been a hotbed of Sunni-led insurgency and the fact that this meeting took place at all is considered a fairly significant achievement. One of the points of contention between the groups: the Sunnis' were afraid that not enough polling places in predominately Sunni areas would be open and available, hence, their minority population would be even more under-represented in the election results. It was agreed that efforts would be made to increase the number of polling stations, but the Sunnis would have to do their part - the main reason there were fewer polling places is due to the frequency of violence in those areas.

I took this meeting as a hopeful sign. Your opinions?

oldreliable67 said:

I don't either. But we're not talking about "now" or last week or last month. We're looking forward here - recall that the troop reductions are based on 'expectations' of improving security conditions. Part of that 'set' of expectations is that insurgent violence will diminish if the election process is demonstrably well-attended, including Sunni participation.

Speaking of which, I caught part of a TV report last nite about a meeting in Ramadi between US military and Sunni tribal chiefs and/or shieks. Ramadi has, of course, been a hotbed of Sunni-led insurgency and the fact that this meeting took place at all is considered a fairly significant achievement. One of the points of contention between the groups: the Sunnis' were afraid that not enough polling places in predominately Sunni areas would be open and available, hence, their minority population would be even more under-represented in the election results. It was agreed that efforts would be made to increase the number of polling stations, but the Sunnis would have to do their part - the main reason there were fewer polling places is due to the frequency of violence in those areas.

I took this meeting as a hopeful sign. Your opinions?

Click to expand...

Any progress is progress, I like to remain optomistic about these kind of things. But I'm still going to stick with McCain on this. The only way to really win this war is with overwhelming force. The troop presence there now is so thinly stretched that in contrast to being of any containment, we're becoming target practice for insurgents. Why is this? Because Cheny Inc. doesn't want to be too unpopular at home that they finally get impeached. Hawks are they? I say these guys are nothing more than a bunch of bible show off p*ssi*s. Either go in there full show of force and determination or get the hell out of there now and admit defeat, none of this dwindling "presence" making another Vietnam.

jfuh said:

Any progress is progress, I like to remain optomistic about these kind of things. But I'm still going to stick with McCain on this. The only way to really win this war is with overwhelming force. The troop presence there now is so thinly stretched that in contrast to being of any containment, we're becoming target practice for insurgents.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is that McCain isn't the first or only person that has voiced this opinion to team Bush, yet it always fall on deaf ears.