Bush's fuzzy war on terror -- from it can't be won to complete victory

[ProSense]

First point of confusion:

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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571

Then he speaks to Limpy, adding more confusion:

After Citing Doubt, Bush Declares 'We Will Win' Terror War
By DAVID STOUT

Published: August 31, 2004

And it will surely be prominent in Mr. Bush's own speech on Thursday night, as it was today before the American Legion in Tennessee. "In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table," Mr. Bush told the American Legion delegates. "But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win."

Later, in an interview with the conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Bush elaborated further. "What I meant was that this is not a conventional war," he said from Iowa. "It is a different kind of war. We're fighting people who have got a dark ideology who use terrorists, terrorism, as a tool."

After telling Mr. Limbaugh that "I probably needed to be a little more articulate" in his initial comments, which he had made in an interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC program "Today" program, the president went on to say: "Really what I was saying to Lauer was, is that this is not the kind of war where you sit down and sign a peace treaty. It's a totally different kind of war. But we will win it."

"Your listeners," he added, "have got to know that I know we'll win it, but we're going to have to be resolved and firm, and we can't doubt what we stand for, and the long-term solution is to spread freedom."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/campaign/31CND-BUSH.html?ex=1251691200&en=330be39cc890e3c4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Today:

“We're on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront,” he added, “and we'll accept nothing less than complete victory.”

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=September&x=20060905171903idybeekcm0.3317835&chanlid=washfile

[CJCRANE]

1. Either * knows

that "complete victory" is unattainable (hence prolonging the "war" forever) or * has some some kind of "final solution" in mind.

Of course the last guy who liked spouting off about "complete victory" ended up in a ditch outside a bunker, in the ruins of Berlin.

[Why Syzygy]

2. Never win it in four years .

or a Million.

We're fighting people who have got a dark ideology who use terrorists, terrorism, as a tool.

Since when did we ever fight anyone with a Light ideology who Doesn't use terror as a tool?
Can he cite an example?