Bush Says War on Terror Can't Be Won

Yes, Bush actually said that. The problem is, it is truth and fib combined. George has a problem. He knows the truth and he knows the lie. He knows what the script tells him to say, but for whatever reason, he continuously blurts out truth mangled. Call it a mental war raging in his head. He simply has no control over his syntax. Maybe that's from all those wild days back in Texas boozin' it up. Who knows? I think it has more to do with the fact that his conscience keeps getting in the way of his verbal control. Hence the continuous and stoopid freudian slips.

The war on terror can't be won. Terrorism has existed since the beginning of mankind. It is not something you can go to war with, it is a tactic. So, to say 'war on terror' is wrong from the get-go. That's something stupid our government put out that the brainwashed masses ate up. He's right on that count.

He's wrong, though, because he meant to say, unless you elect me, the war on terror will never end. These people created this "war on terror" and they can stop it. His people. They are using terror to the nth degree and it's outrageous. I hope every last American will wake up and see this whole thing for what it really is. The biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the USA and the world.

And I'm not saying there aren't terrorists!

Here's something very interesting and quite short to read on this subject:

The "War on Terror" as
Defined by 1984's Emmanuel Goldstein

EXTRACTS FROM THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM

by Emmanuel Goldstein

(The 'Book within a Book' from George Orwell's 1984)

"The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city.. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival."
"It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist."

"In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world."


"War prisoners apart, the average citizen of Oceania never sets eyes on a citizen of either Eurasia or Eastasia, and he is forbidden the knowledge of foreign languages. If he were allowed contact with foreigners he would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been told about them is lies."


"Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in his bed, he can be inspected without warning and without knowing that he is being inspected."

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

"The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it has never been altered in any specific instance. For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version is the past, and no different past has ever existed."

"The essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies, all this is indispensibly necessary."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also: Is 'Al Qaeda' the Modern Incarnation of 'Emmanuel Goldstein'?
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

interesting
So why declare a war that he cannot win? doesn't make sense to me

Dude, just get a grip, join the Party. It's much better than liquidating you and rendering your offspring into mono-syllable worker drones who serve us day and night. Freedom of speech, hello? Almost every kid in America reads Orwell's 1984 and people still pay to give their freedoms up and believe the boob tube. Do you really have any reservations about who's going to win here?

Originally posted by infinite
interesting

So why declare a war that he cannot win? doesn't make sense to me

Oftentimes war justifies itself. Winning is not the point.

I've also noticed Bush's mental war. It may even be a spiritual war within him. For all his talk about being a christian, he still is doing what he's doing. It seems he's conflicted. As to what side is the truer side of him, I don't know, but I've heard rumors of his mind being manipulated by others behind the scenes using mind control tactics. But they're only rumors, and there isn't any evidence or anything. It's just interesting to ponder. That could help explain his slip ups a little. I have no idea though. I'm continually confused by him as to what kind of moral man he is.

This is a very deep subject. It's the Hegelian Dialectic. (Do a google search on that and look into it. I encourage everyone to.) After the fall of the USSR, the United States found itself without an external enemy. We had a massive military with massive budgets. The military industrial complex found itself without a mission and the possibility of losing bigtime $$. This was unacceptable. We were in need of a new boogyman.

Osama Bin Laden, or aka Tim Osman (while touring sensitive US military posts) was/possibly IS an asset of the CIA. We supported him and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in our proxy war on the Soviets back in the late 70's and '80's. What a more perfect set-up? We had all these armed muslim Mujahadeens in and around the Caspian Sea Basin (where our oil sights had been set) just waiting to be set up. Perfect patsies. Piss them off and get them fighting us. Voila! We're the good guys, they (because they're radical muslims, are the bad guys! The military industrial complex is back in business.

Of course, it's much more complex than that. I'm trying to be brief here. www.cooperativeresearch.org is a most excellent place to begin looking into this very real situation.

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
I've also noticed Bush's mental war. It may even be a spiritual war within him. For all his talk about being a christian, he still is doing what he's doing. It seems he's conflicted. As to what side is the truer side of him, I don't know, but I've heard rumors of his mind being manipulated by others behind the scenes using mind control tactics. But they're only rumors, and there isn't any evidence or anything. It's just interesting to ponder. That could help explain his slip ups a little. I have no idea though. I'm continually confused by him as to what kind of moral man he is.

I hearya. I've wondered at times if they're not mind controlling him with drugs and repetition. Like before he speaks (State of the Union Address, etc.) But you're right. There is scant proof.

I've also been conflicted over his claiming to be a Christian. His behavior, actions and words do not reflect Christianity. So, I find it hard to believe he actually is. I'm thinking he might have convinced himself that he is, but down deep he's lying to himself and to everyone else. It does score him mega points with the Christian right (who is so lost and blinde it's scary).

It's sad. I used to like Dubya.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
I've also noticed Bush's mental war. It may even be a spiritual war within him. For all his talk about being a christian, he still is doing what he's doing. It seems he's conflicted. As to what side is the truer side of him, I don't know, but I've heard rumors of his mind being manipulated by others behind the scenes using mind control tactics. But they're only rumors, and there isn't any evidence or anything. It's just interesting to ponder. That could help explain his slip ups a little. I have no idea though. I'm continually confused by him as to what kind of moral man he is.

I hearya. I've wondered at times if they're not mind controlling him with drugs and repetition. Like before he speaks (State of the Union Address, etc.) But you're right. There is scant proof.

I've also been conflicted over his claiming to be a Christian. His behavior, actions and words do not reflect Christianity. So, I find it hard to believe he actually is. I'm thinking he might have convinced himself that he is, but down deep he's lying to himself and to everyone else. It does score him mega points with the Christian right (who is so lost and blinde it's scary).

It's sad. I used to like Dubya.

I think poor Dubya actually thought he was in charge until on or about the time of the famous pretzil accident. That's when he realized Dick and his friends meant business. Has to suck getting your ass kicked as the President.

That incident has always puzzled me. I mean, I know it's possible, but did it really go down like that? He does seem to have plenty of accidents.

Children of absolute privilege are conditioned from birth to expect things & to view others as lesser beings. The concept of "network" is also ingrained. So all of this cronyism, all of this serving the expanded military industrial complex, his father being on the board of weapons manufactureres while he the son starts wars of first resort and his uncle & brother are into all things China......it's all quite normal for him.

Right now, this can be interpreted one of two ways.

Bush has gone crazy, or there is something going on we shouldn't know about.

Oftentimes war justifies itself. Winning is not the point.

Not is not but going and invading a "particular" country it is everything.

Justifying casualties in the name of "war on terror" it is everything.

Now let's tell the victims of the "war on terror" that their loves one die in vane because the war can not be won? it is everything.

Bush is telling a half-truth. That is if you want to call it that. It's true that the war on terror can never be won but Bush will continue to fight as long as he is in office. It's obvious he's not backing out of a war no matter what the final results are. IMO, by doing that you're just putting more people and/or soldiers in harms way fighting an unjustified war when you know you can't win.

[edit on 31-8-2004 by mrmulder]

I think his statement makes perfect sense. Without these "terrorists" the US consumer may get tired of forking over their wealth to the "government". They may look around at the rest of the world and the lightbulb may suddenly turn on.........where is my public healthcare?.......why can't my children be afforded an above average level of education?........why are we allowing our civil rights to be taken away from us?........why am I working my tail off to support the regime?

Without Bin Laden there is no fear, and without fear there is no control. The war against terror must be kept going at all cost, to the US consumer of course.

Or maybe he was simply saying that as this is not conventional war, and that it CANNOT be won as conventional wars are. A simple admission of the fact that while it is impossible to totally prevent a man from strapping a bomb to his chest and walkng into a mall it IS possible to create a climate where men who do so are loathed rather than admired. That while due to its nature, and the fact that all it takes is one man willng to die, we can not ever stop terrorism completly, but that we CAN stop the state sponsering of terrorism. That we CAN take down the governments who give them support, change the cultures which breed terrorism, and make it harder for terrorists to gain access to supplies, weapons, and recruits.

But I'm sure that I'm just a rabid illogical Bush supporter and only those of you who loath him are capable of seeing the truth right?

In the end, does it really matter? If Bush wins he will continue his war on terror, and if Kerry wins he'll have little choice to do the same. The ball that's rolling now is too big to stop. This charade will last for a LONG time until we wisen up and get the idea that neuither one of these two parties hold the answers to our problems. What's the solution? One of 2 things. Massive revolution spurred on by another civil war, or a massive changing of American beleifs that there are only 2 choices in this country.

Here's what a friend had to say about the comment:

first, ya gotta reframe it to reflect reality:

you don't have a war on terror - that means a war on fear, and they're doing the opposite by fearmongering at every turn.

war implies a conflict between nation-states, which terrorists and their ilk just ain't. it ain't winnable cause it ain't a war. there's no sitting down and negotiating a treaty or terms.

Your "friend", that you so eloquently quoted, mentions:

war implies a conflict between nation-states, which terrorists and their ilk just ain't. it ain't winnable cause it ain't a war. there's no sitting down and negotiating a treaty or terms

I'm assuming that as War 'mutates' and changes, as with Time, death, etc., etc. ECK, that the definition of War will also likewise change, as with how War is fought, with whom, why, etc? Using the/a traditional explanation and termage for War implying 'such and such', does not, in NO way and circumstance, allow for "growth and change" of said word, termage, and usage......

In short ECK, war implies more than mere fighting between so-called nation-states......its usage has underwent change, as this world and its cultures continually do. As such, words and their respective usages and meanings change....natural course of events....war is not of the exception nor the exclusion...likewise with the word can't?!



seekerof

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Seekerof]

Good Lord! How about we read a whole bunch into another statement? (since we hate Bush for anything) Seems you just want to punish him over his meaning of the word "can't".

Of course it can't be won, but it's still a war. It's a battle between two ideals. Not all wars have "sitting down and negotiating a treaty or terms" (is that a Kerry plan?). Seekof is right. A definition (the first actually) of war is: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. Now it would be nice to do as one definition states (in the dictionary) and have an end to it, but that is not always the case (hence the word - prolonged). We have had the war on drugs. They must be gone right?

The goal of this war is to oppose. What would you rather call it? The Disagreement with Terror?

I would LOVE to here what Kerry says to this. He thinks he can win against terrorists? All terrorists, both foreign and domestic...forever? Pah-lease!

Originally posted by mwm1331
Or maybe he was simply saying that as this is not conventional war, and that it CANNOT be won as conventional wars are. A simple admission of the fact that while it is impossible to totally prevent a man from strapping a bomb to his chest and walkng into a mall it IS possible to create a climate where men who do so are loathed rather than admired. That while due to its nature, and the fact that all it takes is one man willng to die, we can not ever stop terrorism completly, but that we CAN stop the state sponsering of terrorism. That we CAN take down the governments who give them support, change the cultures which breed terrorism, and make it harder for terrorists to gain access to supplies, weapons, and recruits.

But I'm sure that I'm just a rabid illogical Bush supporter and only those of you who loath him are capable of seeing the truth right?

So basicly you agree that we should listen to what the GOP tells you Bush means, rather than what he says...

So if Bush came out and said, we started a war to take controle of the oil fields with trumped up info on WMD and an incredibly weak connection to OBL. That you would believe it when a rep from the Whitehouse tell you that What Bush ment was that The war was intended to weaken OBL ties to Donnald Trump's oil fields owned by somone with the innitials of WMD who is Wilma Margret Donnaldson... who noone can seem to find....

Thats right... listen to what I mean.. not what I say.

Wraith