Bush flipflops on war on terror
 

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/sto...31&floc=NW_1-T

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - President Bush said Tuesday ``we will win'' the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism over his earlier remark that victory may not be possible.

In a speech to the national convention of the American Legion, Bush said, ``We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win.

That statement differed from Bush's earlier comment, aired Monday in a pre-taped television interview, that ``I don't think you can win'' the war on terror.

http://www.fergusonfinearts.com/waffle.jpg

Re: Bush flipflops on war on terror
 

You are a Republican correct? Is that why you make Democrats look so bad?

Each statement was made in a different context. The war on terror will not be won or lost tomorrow. He mentioned nothing about losing it at all. However in the near future governments will work to eradicate it and in the long term we will win.

Now stop trying to throw off Kerry's very popular weakness of straddling policies. A man who didn't vote for the first gulf war, said we should have gone to war, then voted for the second iraq war, didn't vote to fund it and said he was against the war, and then said no matter what happens with WMD we should have gone into Iraq.

-Rudey
--Thanks for giving me yet one more opportunity to make Kerry look bad.

Can't have it both ways. Even when you're Prez.

Nobody said he's having it both way. That's Kerry and the Democratic party with their 2 Americas.

-Rudey

did you miss hearing Obama say there is only one America and everyone at the convention cheering at him?

That was the Republican message that he's trying to copy. Tonight at our convention, the Lt. governor of MD said that too.

It's Kerry who believes in the 2 Americas and it's Kerry who we're talking about - not Obama.

-Rudey

The GOP folks started this "Flip Flop" nonsense, so now it's up to the electroate to decide what it really means and who does it. To my mind, every politician does -- or they don't survive.

It's tough to explain why Kerry does what he does though. How are you FOR the war, but suddenly against funding it? His policies and the things that come out of his mouth from week to week do not add up. He has a LONG history of doing whatever is the most popular. To me, that shows that he has little personal conviction and is more worried about what is politically expedient.

Besides that, he's a pinko commie ;)

Flip Flopping
 

I think its silly to think that a candidate that changes his mind is somehow inconsistent...however Kerry does more than change his mind..he lies and basically tailors what he says to the audience...i.e. saying he was in Vietnam and mourned the loss of Martin Luther King Jr. when he died when he wasn't there until 4 months after he died...

As far as what Bush said..both statements are correct..the war on terrorism is not something we will WIN..meaning we'll never sign a treaty with Al-Qaeda...but we can' do things to make us come out on top i.e. making it difficult for terrorists to fund their orgs., put more restrictions in place etc. Bush had to come back and EXPLAIN what he meant for the idiots that don't understand the type of war we're fighting. OF course John Edwards harped on this and said they believe the war is winnable..but he's just tickling ears and telling people what they want to hear...GWB on the other hand was being realistic...but most people don't want the truth these days.:rolleyes:

Well, I'm glad we finally got to the crux of the matter. That explains so much...

But seriously, folks...

Had I been a member of either party when it came time to "fund" the war, I would have been concerned about the Carte Blanche nature of the request.

Okay I have a question:

The GOP make continued references to the Bill that included equipment for the troops... remember the old commercial that used Kerry's voice saying "no" three times.... Now it was mentioned to me that that was only one vote against a bill with numerous "attachments" by a friend returning from Iraq... know does anyone here on GC know if 1- this is true? and 2- what was the Bill exactly (main and secondary attachments)?

Maybe he should have been concerned with giving the troops what they needed to win the war and ensure that as few of them died as possible?

That's right the GOP folks did start it but it's not nonsense; Kerry is a flip-flopper and Democrats seem to agree as well otherwise they would try and clarify his policy in the thread on his stance on the war. And again this isn't a flip-flop or changing of policy with Bush; one statement supports the other.

-Rudey