Everyone remember that fun game from the Street of Sesame a game called one of these things is not like the other….
“Do you really think we can win this war on terror? For example, in the next four years?” Lauer asked Bush.
“I have never said we can win it in four years,” the president responded.
So Lauer put the question to Bush more broadly. “No, I’m just saying, can we win it? Do you say that?” he asked Bush.
“I don’t. I don’t think we can win it,” the president answered. “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.”
Now, the War on Terror is -like the Cold War- a war against a destructive Ideology….
Now here is the thing the Writer for USATODAY compaired it to
That’s why the White House responded so harshly when
Democratic National Committee Chairman
Howard Dean said earlier this month, “The idea that we’re going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.” And it’s the reason this administration’s initial reaction to Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record)’s characterization of the Iraq war as “a flawed policy wrapped in illusion” was so shrill.
Funny he avoids saying Howard Dean said We could not win the War in IRAQ and compaired the War in Iraq to Vietnam
The War In Iraq may be a part of the larger War on Terror but saying that Winning the War on Terror, in a conventional sense, won’t happen vs Winning the War in Iraq which is happening right now does not in any way shape or form mean the same thing.
In fact the only thing similar is the President went on to say he viewed the War in Iraq as winnable, and Howard Dean said he viewed the War on Terror as winable.
So then differing reactions are appropriate
One thing is a very nebulous War like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty
and the other is a very meat and potatoes war
But this may be a concept to difficult for people who write for USA today