Ah, yes. See the problem with trying to snatch the other guy's line? Now look where you are.
So Bush says we can't win the war on terror. His staff helpfully clarifies that he meant "win" in the conventional, white flag, Appomatox Courthouse sense.
Edwards says in reponse that "the war on terrorism is absolutely winnable."
So, okay, fine. You know what this makes me think of? The founders called themselves Federalists, even thought they weren't. Then the other guys, seeing their rightful title jacked, had to call themselves anti-Federalists. Except they weren't either. So now each side is stuck with the wrong basic talking points and nomenclature.
Actually, that analogy only sorta works.
My point is this: no, the war on terror isn't "winnable." Especially not when we're breeding new and exciting forms of terrorists with all our hearts and minds gathering in Iraq. But Bush sold his schtick well - so well that the Dems had to come up with their own plan to "win" even though a more honest answer would've been: "No, this isn't winnable, but we'll do our best to protect our country while encouraging global diplomacy and understanding; and pouring massive R&D money into getting ourselves an economy based on anything not originating in the Middle East."
But nope, we didn't do that. So now the president comes clean and we're left with some red cheeks. (Note, however, Kerry's response to Bush's assertion that Kerry's fuel economy standards proposals would hurt Michigan. Kerry has, from the start, included the need for alternative energy sources in his campaign. For that, I give him much credit.)
Ten extra credit points for anyone who can adequately define "catastrophic success." It's poetically true if you go with definitions 3 or 4.
At any rate - Bush will likely get a pass on this more recent idiotic statement and we'll miss a chance to point and yell "liar" as loud as we can. Oh, excuse me, point and yell "misleader."
Guess turning the corner on terrorism doesn't have anything to do with winning.