The ultimate flip-flop

Bush, quoted today:

"Can we win?" the war on terror, Bush said, "I don't think you can win it."

September 12, 2001:

This battle will take time and resolve. But make no mistake about it: we will win.

Bush in 2002:

We will win, because of what we love. We will win because we're determined and strong. We will win because we're a nation which holds values dear to our heart. And we refuse to be intimidated by anybody, at any place, at any time. We will win because we want to uphold our duty and obligation to leave America intact and free, so future generations of people, Hispanic or otherwise, can realize dreams, can succeed, can realize their God-given talents. That's what this is all about.

Bush in 2003:

We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just. We will win because we will stay on the offensive. And we will win because you're part of the finest military ever assembled. And we will prevail because the Iraqis want their freedom.

Bush in April 2004:

We will win this test of wills, and overcome every challenge, because the cause of freedom and security is worth our struggle.

Courtesy of www.dailykos.com

I'd love to see the context that previously surrounded all those quotes
.
I'm not saying that Bush isn't waffling, but without the context of all these statements, the ultimate conclusion this person draws is suspect.

I wish that internet pundits would take advantage of the fact that internet is fundamentally different than radio and televion, and that when you post your idea that you can rigoriously document it, providing correct citations and even links to the original source materials.

He has more waffles than a house of pancakes.

Theres a difference between our war on terror (Al-Quedia, bin Laden, etc.) and the permenant war on terror (i.e., there will always be bad people and we will never eliminate everyone on the globe).

I loved this quote!

My favorite is when Bush's people were trying to over his ass and explain what he really meant.

Then Edwards came out and said what Bush said was terrible blah blah, and the Bush cover guy said that anyone that took what the President said the way he said it was a dumbass and explained what he really meant.

This is why I'm leaving this country as soon as I can.

For you folks who need more info about Bush's big flip-flop:

NASHUA, N.H., Aug. 30 - President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday, said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually prevail.

In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program "Today," conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign.

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

As recently as July 14, Mr. Bush had drawn a far sunnier picture. "I have a clear vision and a strategy to win the war on terror," he said.

At a prime-time news conference in the East Room of the White House on April 13, Mr. Bush said: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we are asking questions, is, 'Can you ever win the war on terror?' Of course you can."


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/campaign/31bush.html?hp

Wasn't Kerry's response to the same question something like "Absolutely"? If you ask me Bush changing his opinion means he's wising up. Of course you can't win a war on terrorism, it would basically come down to fighting ideals instead of people which is impossible. Of you ask me both are foolish for ever saying that they can win a war on terror, as sad as it is to day it can't really be done, you'll never be able to completely stamp out terrorism.

Like I said, we can win over our enemies in our war but we can never stop people as long as it takes is a gun or an explosive strapped to their body to terrorize people.

You can win the war on terror.

They are sort of up shits creek without a paddle, but of you can go into negotiations and show them that there is a better way, a peaceful way, to solve problems, terror would eventually become obsolete.

Of course, nationalism in the United States will garauntee that this will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER to infinity happen.

The violence must go on, the blood must flow, and innocents must die. All in the name of capitalism and national pride.

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Wasn't Kerry's response to the same question something like "Absolutely"? If you ask me Bush changing his opinion means he's wising up. Of course you can't win a war on terrorism, it would basically come down to fighting ideals instead of people which is impossible. Of you ask me both are foolish for ever saying that they can win a war on terror, as sad as it is to day it can't really be done, you'll never be able to completely stamp out terrorism.[/quote]

Bush and the Republicans are making the war on terror the centerpiece of his campaign. (Why else hold the convention in New York City?) For him to change his "victory" tune, and now say we're looking at perpetual war, is more than a tad Orwellian. Not to mention that it goes against all of the feel-good talk he's provided up to now. In all those prior speeches and comments, was Bush lying?

The very nature of terrorism shows that 'negotiating' with them doesn't work. It can help minimize the influx of new terrorists, if we show the people a different way before the terrorists get to them and brainwash them, but the core requirements for negotiation are either:
* both parties compromising so they both get something they want, and both give up something the other party wants; or
* the threat of defeat; ie, negotiating because they're going to lose anyway.
Most terrorists want innocent people to die. That's about it. It could be because of Allah, or evil capitalism, or whatever, but how do you compromise/negotiate with that? Here, here's 250 citizens to kill, don't blow up our building with 5000 citizens in it.
And many of this new breed of terrorist are all too willing to take themselves out as well, so 'stop or when we catch you we'll kill you' doesnt' really work as a disincentive.
Saying we can eliminate terrorism by being huggy nice is foolish. There will always be terrorists; there will always be strong people brainwashing the weak in their quest for power; there will always be people with differing levels of sanity, or depths of belief in their religious values ['if I kill 100 Americans, Allah will praise me in the afterlife.'] You can't 'negotiate' with that.
We can demotivate, capture, or destroy the terrorists who are likely to attack us, but 'terrorism' is one of those things that I think will always be with the human race, even if its form changes. After all, those scumbags who release viruses and whatnot, aren't those electronic terrorists? Murder has been with the human race since Cain slew Abel, we can prevent some, punish some, lower the incidence thereof, but it will always be present. Just like I believe there will always be a a person or many people who are willing and able to fight those evil acts.

Even assuming that the terrorists will stop--not just attacking us, but *anyone*-- if we all hold hands and sing, how does 'nationalism' prevent this from happening? You're welcome to go find OBL and sing to him if you want; if I find him, I'm putting a bullet through his head.

OBL is needed alive, both for the intel he can provide and because he has almost every crazy person in west asia (middle east) following him, and if he was killed by the 'enemy' it would be disastrous.

Look ar Najaf, and how the violence is being calmed.
The end result is that the people who once hated us will gain a better understanding for us, and vise versa.

Fundamentalism is not easily combated, but I believe that the fundis have a greater respect for orthodox religious leaders than fundamentalist religious leaders. It works that way in nearly all religions, and Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are no exceptions.

[quote name='dtcarson']The very nature of terrorism shows that 'negotiating' with them doesn't work. It can help minimize the influx of new terrorists, if we show the people a different way before the terrorists get to them and brainwash them, but the core requirements for negotiation are either:
* both parties compromising so they both get something they want, and both give up something the other party wants; or
* the threat of defeat; ie, negotiating because they're going to lose anyway.[/quote]

Who's saying we need to negotiate with the terrorists? You're the first person to bring that word up, dtcarson.

You fight terrorism by cooperating with other countries in pursuing terrorists through the justice system. When terrorists are being openly supported by a country, as they were in Afghanistan, you use military force. That's Kerry's position, and I think it's solid.

You sure don't help end terrorism by invading a country with no proven ties to terrorism, thus pissing off the entire populace and insuring a steady stream of fresh recruits.

One other thing: I must say how discouraging it is that people out there drink the Republican Kool-Aid without a moment's thought. Neither Kerry nor any leading Democrat has ever said we should negotiate with terrorists. That came from a speech in which CHENEY accused the Democrats of such, without offering a single shred of proof. By swallowing bulldada like this, you only make it easier for them to lie to you, dtcarson.

OBL is needed alive, both for the intel he can provide and because he has almost every crazy person in west asia (middle east) following him, and if he was killed by the 'enemy' it would be disastrous.

Look ar Najaf, and how the violence is being calmed.
The end result is that the people who once hated us will gain a better understanding for us, and vise versa.

Fundamentalism is not easily combated, but I believe that the fundis have a greater respect for orthodox religious leaders than fundamentalist religious leaders. It works that way in nearly all religions, and Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are no exceptions.

I do agree, he is needed alive; we don't need to make him a martyr any more than he already is.
Understanding other cultures definitely is beneficial; but only if that understanding is accompanied by tolerance. When you toss religion [or fundamentalism] into the mix, that makes it that much more challenging, since at heart most fundamental religions believe 'With these beliefs you will be saved; with these, you will not' so the fundamentalist either want to absorb the non-fundies, or destroy them.
But even then, there are still, well, psychos, who for whatever reason [quest for personal power, fundamentalism, etc] fit the definition of terrorist, and those who are ripe for the terrorist's propaganda.

And now Bush flip-flops yet again.....boy can't seem to keep his promises straight.....

Aug. 31, 2004 | NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- President Bush will tell the nation's largest veterans' group Tuesday that "we will win" the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism of his remark aired a day earlier that victory in the anti-terror battle may not be possible, his spokesman said.

In a speech before the national convention of the American Legion, the president will make it "crystal clear" that America will win the war on terrorism, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

"Not only are we winning it, but we will win it," McClellan said in describing Bush's speech.

That message contradicts Bush's statement, aired Monday in a pre-taped television interview, that "I don't think you can win" the war on terror. That had Democrats running for the cameras to criticize Bush for being defeatist and flip-flopping from previous predictions of victory.

"What if President Reagan had said that it may be difficult to win the war against communism? What if other presidents had said it'd be difficult to win the war -- the Cold War?" Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said on ABC's "Nightline" program. "The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable."

Bush's comment -- and the ensuing criticism -- took attention away from the carefully crafted image of Bush being broadcast from the Republican National Convention in New York, as a decisive wartime commander in chief who is securing America's safety and sure of the course on which he has set the nation.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/08/31/bush_terror/index.html

[quote name='Quackzilla']You can win the war on terror.

They are sort of up shits creek without a paddle, but of you can go into negotiations and show them that there is a better way, a peaceful way, to solve problems, terror would eventually become obsolete.

Of course, nationalism in the United States will garauntee that this will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER to infinity happen.

The violence must go on, the blood must flow, and innocents must die. All in the name of capitalism and national pride.[/quote]

Ahhh! Good idea! I think we have a solution!

Next time someone kidnaps a person, let's neogotiate and give them what they demand whether it be stopping elections, a couple million dollars, or what have you. Peace sure is fun isn't it?

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='dtcarson']The very nature of terrorism shows that 'negotiating' with them doesn't work. It can help minimize the influx of new terrorists, if we show the people a different way before the terrorists get to them and brainwash them, but the core requirements for negotiation are either:
* both parties compromising so they both get something they want, and both give up something the other party wants; or
* the threat of defeat; ie, negotiating because they're going to lose anyway.[/quote]

Who's saying we need to negotiate with the terrorists? You're the first person to bring that word up, dtcarson.
[/quote]

Take the time to read your own thread buddy, Quackzilla specifically mentioned it two posts before him. If you are gonna jump on somone for saying something, be fair about it.

[quote name='Quackzilla']You can win the war on terror.

They are sort of up shits creek without a paddle, but of you can go into negotiations and show them that there is a better way, a peaceful way, to solve problems, terror would eventually become obsolete.
[/quote]

I actually totally missed dennis_t's post responding to mine.
I'm all for cooperation. But I'm also all for protecting my own 'house' first. Cooperation would be nice, but in some cases, I don't think it's a requirement. The President of the US is exactly that, the president of the _US_, not of France, Britain, Germany, the World, the UN, whatever. If terrorists eliminate 90% of the American populace, but France or the UN is happy because we 'cooperated', well, I'd call that a loss. The French, British, Chinese don't elect US Presidents, and his only responsibility is the the country and the people of the US. Everything else is bonus.

Kerry did say we needed to wage a more 'sensitive' war on terror, whatever the hell that means. When people are okay with riding a plane into a building, I think they're beyond holding hands and singing KumByYa. He might not have meant 'negotiating,' and I hope he didn't, because that would be an error of Carter-like proportions. Some people aren't nice, and don't understand niceness. The issue with pursuing with other nations through the justice system is that we have different justice systems. If a terrorist commits a crime against only American citizens or outposts, I think we should have first 'dibs' on putting him through our justice system. Many of the European countries now are adamantly against the death penalty, whereas I think it is very fitting, if not too good, for some of these scumbag chickensh*t terrorists.

'By swallowing bulldada like this, you only make it easier for them to lie to you, dtcarson."

You're right, I won't let Quackzilla lie to me anymore

[quote name='dtcarson']Kerry did say we needed to wage a more 'sensitive' war on terror, whatever the hell that means. When people are okay with riding a plane into a building, I think they're beyond holding hands and singing KumByYa. [/quote]

Again, you are drinking the Kool-Aid. When Kerry said that, he meant that the United States should be working more closely with our allies in fighting terrorism, rather than stomping all over their ideas and opinions. It was right there in the context of the speech.

The next day, Cheney comes out in a speech and completely distorts what Kerry said to make it sound like he wanted to be sensitive with the terrorists.

What adds a whole other level of hypocrisy to this is that Bush and Cheney were quoted before and after using the word "sensitive" in the exact same context in which Kerry used it, saying we needed to work more closely with our allies.

If Republican ideas are so strong, why do they have to indulge in these sort of distortions?

Again, I didn't say that we should give in to the terrorists demands, I said we should negotiate and reason with them instead of verbally insulting them and then ignoring them.

Do you think it makes your penis bigger when people suffer and die? What is the point of preventing peace and promoting constant wars?

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='dtcarson']Kerry did say we needed to wage a more 'sensitive' war on terror, whatever the hell that means. When people are okay with riding a plane into a building, I think they're beyond holding hands and singing KumByYa. [/quote]

Again, you are drinking the Kool-Aid. When Kerry said that, he meant that the United States should be working more closely with our allies in fighting terrorism, rather than stomping all over their ideas and opinions. It was right there in the context of the speech.

The next day, Cheney comes out in a speech and completely distorts what Kerry said to make it sound like he wanted to be sensitive with the terrorists.

What adds a whole other level of hypocrisy to this is that Bush and Cheney were quoted before and after using the word "sensitive" in the exact same context in which Kerry used it, saying we needed to work more closely with our allies.

If Republican ideas are so strong, why do they have to indulge in these sort of distortions?[/quote]

Quote the entire relevant portion of my post:
"Kerry did say we needed to wage a more 'sensitive' war on terror, whatever the hell that means. When people are okay with riding a plane into a building, I think they're beyond holding hands and singing KumByYa. He might not have meant 'negotiating,' and I hope he didn't,"

I said he might not have meant negotiating. I didn't see the actual speech where he said that, nor did I see the actual speech where Bush/Cheney said their version of it. And yet you accuse me of drinking the 'kool-aid.'

If Democrat ideas are so strong, why do they have to indulge in these sorts of puerile namecalling and immature insults/allusions?

And even given your rephrasing of his comment, which of course is using rather emotional and loaded terminology, I still disagree. If my house is on fire, and the only way out is to go 'stomping' over my neighbour's rose garden, bye-bye roses.
Working closely with allies is ideal; except when their goals don't coincide with yours, as was seen by Spain's caving to the terrorists, and France's refusal to lose their sweet deal with Saddam.

You can't negotiate with terrorists. They have, at least the ones willing to ride a plane into a building, close to insane with regards to human life. They don't care about their life, so why should they negotiate? Should we 'negotiate' with Charles Manson?
I don't think we should "verbally insulting them and then ignoring them.' I think we should be verbally insulting them and then killing them.
I mind when people 'suffer and die.' Terrorists want people to 'suffer and die'. Thus, I want them to 'suffer and die' before me and my countrymen/women.
preventing peace--I'm all for peace. The terrorists gave that up when they flew planes into our buildings killing 3000. Sorry, they can't just call 'time out.' And the rest of your comment, since it's about as loaded as a Michael Moore film, isn't really worthy of more detailed response [much like 'You're against abortion, why do you hate women?]
Oh, and let me 'respond' to your latest witty comment [big dick jokes? har har, oh, the scathing political commentary. I drive an SUV as well.] by reiterating:
If Democrat ideas are so strong, why do they have to indulge in these sorts of puerile namecalling and immature insults/allusions?

Your a radical willing to sent American troops to die without even considering diplomacy.

Your views don't reflect those of the majority of the population.

[quote name='Quackzilla']Your views reflect those of the majority of the population.[/quote]

Uh...then...how is that radical?

[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='Quackzilla']Your views reflect those of the majority of the population.[/quote]

Uh...then...how is that radical?[/quote]

Microphone interference.

[quote name='dtcarson']I said he might not have meant negotiating. I didn't see the actual speech where he said that, nor did I see the actual speech where Bush/Cheney said their version of it. And yet you accuse me of drinking the 'kool-aid.'[/quote]

dtcarson, you specifically said the following:

Kerry did say we needed to wage a more 'sensitive' war on terror, whatever the hell that means. When people are okay with riding a plane into a building, I think they're beyond holding hands and singing KumByYa. He might not have meant 'negotiating,' and I hope he didn't, because that would be an error of Carter-like proportions. Some people aren't nice, and don't understand niceness. The issue with pursuing with other nations through the justice system is that we have different justice systems. If a terrorist commits a crime against only American citizens or outposts, I think we should have first 'dibs' on putting him through our justice system. Many of the European countries now are adamantly against the death penalty, whereas I think it is very fitting, if not too good, for some of these scumbag chickensh*t terrorists.

You were very specifically buying into Cheney's distortion. "Holding hands" with the terrorists. "Some people aren't nice." Basically you are intimating that Kerry assumes the terrorists are reasonable people to be coddled and stroked, when there's no evidence he holds any such belief. This is the definition of a smear and your defense of it is disengenuous.

Regarding your comments on the justice system, I understand where you are coming from -- it can be frustrating dealing with countries that handle justice differently from the way we do it. But what's the alternative? Like it or not, these terrorists are operating within countries that are either allies to America or not a threat to us. Are we going to invade every country that has a known terrorist in it? Or are we going to work with that country's cops to nail the bastard? It's not perfect, but it's what we've got.