] 1. Bush is right. You cannot win the war on terror any better
] then you can win the war on drugs.
] 2. People do not understand that and do not want to hear it.

People don't understand that because Bush hasn't been clear about it.

He keeps talking about "winning " the war with our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. He keeps selling the "War on Terror" as an epic struggle between good and evil, and that we will prevail. He has done this because he knows that people don't want to be told that the "War on Terror" (Whatever the fuck that means), is a persistent state that the US will be in for now on. It will shape our foreign policy, domestic laws, and place in the world power structure.

Of course people are going to be pissed that he said we cannot win the war on terrorism. Because its a jolt into reality from the bullshit he's been feeding people to keep his poll numbers high.

So, yes, Edwards is taking it out of context and beating him over the head with it. But, Bush deserves it for feeding people a false hope for nearly 3 years now.

k wrote:
] 1. Bush is right. You cannot win the war on terror any better
] then you can win the war on drugs.
] 2. People do not understand that and do not want to hear it.
] 3. Edwards is intentionally taking his statement out of
] context. Nothing about saying you can't "win" the war on
] terror admits defeat in the war on terror. Its not binary.
] 4. People will believe Edwards.
]
] [ What Bush said *is* correct, but Edwards didn't take it out
] of context :
]
] ] "We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror
] ] and bring peace to the world."
] ]
] ] -- George W. Bush
] ] July 30th 2004.
]
] I think Edwards is being silly. Your comparison to the war on
] drugs is appropo. Still, I don't think Bush knows what the
] fuck he's talking about either. -k]

I think the other issue is that courts tend to give the Executive branch special deference during times of war, which has basically meant we have more limited constitutional rights. If the war against terrorism is a permanent one, does that mean we've permanently lost some of the legal protections provided by the Constitution?

adamist wrote:
] I think the other issue is that courts tend to give the
] Executive branch special deference during times of war, which
] has basically meant we have more limited constitutional
] rights. If the war against terrorism is a permanent one, does
] that mean we've permanently lost some of the legal protections
] provided by the Constitution?

Did you read the enemy combatant supreme court decisions. One of the documents specifically says that typical wartime suspensions of civil liberties cannot apply in the WoT for exactly that reason.