Over the last few days there’s been a lot of talk about Harry Reid’s declaration of defeat in Iraq (a declaration made only as about 60% of our surge forces are deployed in Iraq, so much for trying out new strategies). Reid and the Dems are back peddling furiously (Americans don’t like defeatists), and even some of their ardent, blindly-partisan apologists are trying to white wash the comments. One of the most ridiculous attempts I’ve seen is by Chad Nodland over at Bismarck Dems trotting out a three year old transcript of Bush talking with Matt Lauer.
If the transcript is quoted selectively it sounds like Bush is saying that we can’t win the war on terror, and selective quoting is exactly what the dishonest Nodland does. But if we read the President’s entire response to Lauer’s question his meaning becomes pretty clear:
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. 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.”
Lauer: “Your daughters are how old now?”
President Bush: “Twenty-two.”
Lauer: “Twenty-two years old. They’re approaching the age, President Bush, [when] they’re going to have their own children. And when their kids are teenagers are they going to those kids—your grandchildren—be reading about al-Qaida in the newspaper every day?”
President Bush: “I know if steadfast, strong and resolute � and I say those words very seriously � it’s less likely that your kids are going to live under the threat of al-Qaida for a long period of time. I can’t tell you. I don’t have any � definite end. But I tell you this, when we succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s the beginning of the end for these extremists. Because freedom is going to have a powerful influence to make sure your kids can grow up in a peaceful world. If we believe, for example, that you can’t win, and the alternative is to retreat � I think that would be a disaster for your children. I’ll tell you why. If al-Qaida and their ideologues were able to secure a nuclear arsenal, then your children would grow up under the threat of nuclear blackmail. I think you would look back and say, �Why did George Bush not hold the line?’ We cannot show weakness in this world today, because the enemy will exploit that weakness. It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.”
What the President was alluding to is that we can’t defeat terror because terror is a tactic, not an enemy. Whenever someone uses fear or mayhem or murder to try and scare people into supporting their cause, that’s terrorism. You can never stop it completely, you can only hope to minimize it by eliminating the conditions which cause people to resort to it. Which is what the President is talking about above.
If you spread freedom and liberty people don’t need terrorism. It will still happen, of course. Even here in America, the world’s leader in freedom and liberty, we have delusional malcontents like Timothy McVeigh who occasionally launch an attack, but by making people free and giving them the opportunity to have a hand in their own government you reduce the number of those attacks that happen.
And that’s what we’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve toppled two cruel regimes that fostered and sponsored international terrorism and replaced them with representative governments. Things aren’t perfect there yet, of course, but free societies aren’t built over night. Or even in a few years.
But regardless, one must live to a whole new level of dishonest to try and claim that Bush’s response to Lauer’s question about the war on terror in general was even remotely like Harry Reid’s declaration of defeat in Iraq (even as he simultaneously talks out of the other side of his mouth about giving our troops a “strategy for success”). But apparently there’s no level of dishonesty too high to deter Nodland from rolling up his sleeves and trying to attain it.