Plum Crazy

I didn't see the interview, but I did read the transcript. He hasn't back-tracked, but was forced to defend a comment taken out of context in the best traditions of Maureen Dowd.

read it and decide if you realy think Bush was saying the war can't be won.

I watched the interview and agree that Bush was more resolute about our ability to win the war than the quote made it sound. But in answer to Matt Lauer's question, he did flat out say, "I don't think you can win it [the war on terror]."

This was totally taken out of context, unfortunately Jon only repeats the mistake by inserting words Bush didn't actually say in brackets. You're not going to make sense of this without reading the transcript.

Matt Lauer repeatedly asked if the war in terror could be won in 4 years. A reasonable person might infer that asking again,"But can it be won?" is talking about whether it can be won in 4 years...

Yeah, I distorted what Bush said by inserting words in brackets. Let's see Bush was talking about the war on terror when he said "it", and I clarified what "it" meant by adding the war on terror. I can see how that's distorting what Bush said and taking it out of context. Not.

If you are correct that Bush was referring specifically to the next four years, than any distortion occurred by my not adding "within the next four years" following "I don't think you can win it."

However, that could be taking what he said out of context as well, since whether he was referring to specifically the next four years is open to interpretation. You think he was. I don’t think he was.

So there’s no confusion or concern about something being taken out of context, here is the actual text of the interview.

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-Qaeda affiliates who are hiding around the world and want to harm us and bring ’em to justice — we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the Al Qaedaas we knew it. The longterm strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. There's some who say, ‘You know certain people can't self-govern and accept, you know, a formal 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. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.

So there it is. The question is whether Lauer and Bush were referring to the next four years in the second question and answer. That’s your call on how you want to read it, but my opinion is no. I see nothing in that second question, regardless of what was asked in the first, that refers specifically to the next four years. To me, Lauer is asking in general. Other thoughts?

Lauer asked if "we" can win it; Bush replied he doesn't think "you" can win it. I think we'd all agree that Matt Lauer can't win it, ever. :)

This is getting old fast.

This thread is precisely why I stopped posting about politics on my blog. Don't be coming to my blog and tossing around insults to me or my brother. [For those not in the know, Jon is my brother.] He and I may disagree about things, but no one gets to insult him in my space. A clear implication that he isn't a reasonable person is an insult. So, Susan, either post here without being insulting or leave. I don't have this blog so I can get angry.