FLIP FLOP FLIP

So George Bush thought we could win the war on terrorism, then he didn't, now he does? Does this make any sense?
George W Bush has staked his presidency on terror issues. And now we see him flipflopping like a fish out of water. His steadfastness and grit are revealed to be nothing more than a disguise.
Perhaps this is all a little unfair. The idea that we could win the war on terror purely by military force is a rightwing fantasy. Bush's admission that changing conditions so that terrorism is marginalized as a tactic sounds almost like a step in the right direction. Almost. What it actually sounds like is defeatism. Like repositioning. Like a politician's slippery attempt at nuance.
The president doesn't do nuance. He said so himself.
The president has to be measured against what he is and what he has pretended to be. He has to stand by his own hype, otherwise he's just a weak little politician. He has to stand firm.
What Bush has done- go on television and tell the country that the war on terrorism can't be won, and then come back a day later and change his tune- is the work of a defensive politician, a gaffe plagued politician, a politician-like politician. As Mark Racicot* might say, it's something the French** might do.


*That name's not French is it? Nah, couldn't be. Racicot's a Republican.
** I obviously have nothing against the French. I don't always like what their government does, but I'm no bigot, and I find the worthless attacks on the French by every Republican and Coors-chuggin' moron in this country a disgrace.