Important message from the President

[The_Tracker]

We hear you loud and clear Mr. President (Have your volume up)

http://www.twofacesofbush.com/

August 30th 2004 - I don't think you can win it. - Bush
August 31st 2004 - We are winning and we will win. - Bush

Statments regarding war on terror. Is this flip-flopping?

[Nicholasp27]

no...when conservatives change their position on something, it is because "circumstances changed" or some other reason...when liberals change their position, they are flip-flopping

u'd be well-advised to learn the difference in the new America that we live in

[vulturesrow]

Amazing what can be done with a quote taken out of context eh?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing what can be done with a quote taken out of context eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of intrest. What was the context?

[El Barto]

Look at what Bush said:

Answer to random question 1: Yes
Answer to random question 2: No
Answer to random question 3: Well, that depends...


A triple flip-flop. Bush must be defeated!

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing what can be done with a quote taken out of context eh?

[/ QUOTE ]


The context didn't matter in this case. As usual, Bush is at his worst when he doesn't have cue cards in front of him.

The second one was in direct refernce to the first. He [censored] up. He tried to cover it. There's yer context.

[vulturesrow]

OAFK,

Here is the clip from the Lauer interview:

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”

President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”

Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”

President Bush: “I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaida as we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. You know there's some who say well, ‘You know certain people can't self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.”

Lauer: “Your daughters are how old now?”

President Bush: “Twenty-two.”

Lauer: “Twenty-two years old. They’re approaching the age, President Bush, [when] they're going to have their own children. And when their kids are teenagers are they going to those kids – your grandchildren – be reading about al-Qaida in the newspaper every day?”

President Bush: “I know if steadfast, strong and resolute — and I say those words very seriously — it's less likely that your kids are going to live under the threat of al-Qaida for a long period of time. I can't tell you. I don't have any … definite end. But I tell you this, when we succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's the beginning of the end for these extremists. Because freedom is going to have a powerful influence to make sure your kids can grow up in a peaceful world. If we believe, for example, that you can't win, and the alternative is to retreat … I think that would be a disaster for your children. I'll tell you why. If al-Qaida and their ideologues were able to secure a nuclear arsenal, then your children would grow up under the threat of nuclear blackmail. I think you would look back and say, ‘Why did George Bush not hold the line?’ We cannot show weakness in this world today, because the enemy will exploit that weakness. It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.”

Daliman:

There is no contradiction with what Bush said in this interview and saying we are winning. If we are doing the things he mentioned to Lauer in regards to making terrorism less acceptable and hunting down al-Qaeda operatives then by Bush's definition we are winning. Surely if a dumb redneck brainwashed conservative military officer can see that, surely an intellectually superior and nuanced liberal like yourself can understand the subtlety of this statement.

[wacki]

Vulturesrow,

How many times times have we had to explain this? I love out of context snippets. This however, is not out of context.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

Nothing says it like video.

[Edge34]

"Amazing what can be done with a quote taken out of context eh?"

Even more amazing that the Dems lack enough of a stance from their candidate that they must resort to turning around part of the Bush campaign and attmept to use it against them.

Kerry says "I voted FOR sending troops, before I voted against it." This should be a much easier subject to take a line on than whether the war on terror has a concrete sign of victory, shouldn't it?

At least when President Bush says something, he sticks with it. And a leader who can make the tough calls and do his best to stick to them and bring about the best result...well, that's a lot better than a candidate who can't even make up his mind on which way to vote, much less anything else apparently. Hell, he might not even know if he's going to vote for himself or President Bush come Nov. 2. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

-Edge

[tolbiny]

First Edge34 says this

"must resort to turning around part of the Bush campaign and attmept to use it against them."

Then takes Kerry's stance out of context in an effort to bash him.

There's a fine line between Irony and Stupidity, and i think you just crossed it Edge

[Edge34]

Hey tolbiny,

I take a bit of offense to that. All around the media, and especially in the area where I live, I am bombarded with nothing but mindless "anybody but Bush" chatter, blaming the President for everything from war to famine to the fact their car doesn't get enough gas mileage - in other words, very idiotic banter.

However, I pride myself on doing a bit of research into the subjects being discussed and at the very least having an informed basis on which to ground my opinions. And the fact is, John Kerry has a FACTUAL RECORD of voting for something, and then against it. One cannot argue this. Hence, as I used the EXAMPLE in my post, John Kerry voted in favor of funding the war, and also voted against it at a different point in time. He voted to give the President the authority to send the troops (and if he had any qualms about the potential, he should have voted against...), and then voted against extra funding. This is proven, factual evidence.

The case brought about in the initial post in this thread is merely a mindless attack on President Bush saying victory may not be achievable, but then saying we will win. Take it as political rhetoric, take it as whatever you wish, but it isn't a "flip flop" as John Kerry has been accused of. And as a closure to this, I am not one to make up my mind before hearing any facts, and more importantly, I don't just hear it, I listen and absorb. President Bush's statements were not as contradictory as they may seem, and even if they were a bit opposing, they were essentially different facets of the same argument. Will there be clear-cut victory in the struggle against terror? Maybe, or maybe not. This is a new kind of war. If there IS the potential for clear-cut victory, will we attain it? Definitely.

Please, tolbiny, in your future comments, please do not make the rash judgment of one's intelligence, including my own. I was not attempting to "bash" Sen. Kerry, merely pointing out the fact that so many people have turned this into a mindless partisan battle as opposed to what it should truly be, and that is who has a better plan to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous for all its people, and also those around the world.

If you've actually read this far, you will see that although I may be many other things, "stupid" isn't one of them...

I think I'll go back to poker discussion for a while and let the partisan battle continue without me if that would help though.

-Edge

[PITTM]

he voted for a bill, revisions were made, he didnt like them, he voted against the new revisions. thats not flip-flopping.

rj

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
blaming the President for everything from war

[/ QUOTE ]
If not the President, who should be responsible for the war?

[The once and future king]

Im not trying to misread this on purpose, but the interview you quote seems to have Bush quite clearly saying you cant win the war on terror.

What am I missing?

[vulturesrow]

My interpretation is this. Bush meant that you cant win the war on terror in the traditional sense, because there will probably always be terrorists. In his view, winning is doing the things he set forth in interview with Lauer.

Now IMO, I think we are "winning" because we have captured or killed many key operatives in the al-Qaeda network, we havent heard from UBL in quite some time, and their are numerous counter-terrorist operations going on as we speak but they are the sort that dont make the news. I also think, and I know many will disagree vehemently with this, that establishing Iraq as a democratic republic will go far in furthering our goals against terrorism. I think the next step is to continue to pressure governments that are supporting terrorist operations. I had a discussion with ACPlayer in another forum about this. Though we disagree about the situation in Iraq, we both agree that we need to pressure these other governments, such as Egypt for example.

I thought Bush's statement to Lauer was one of the more articulate things he has said as President. It was a mistake for him to try to back off. He could have simply said what I said, that it isnt winning in the regular meaning of the word. He laid out why he thought that was so and shouldve stuck with it. Just my two cents on this. But to say Bush flip flopped on this when it seems clear that he is committed to taking this war on terrorism to certain endstate seems a tad bit ridiculous to me.

[Edge34]

So I'm not the only one who's thinking this through around here... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blaming the President for everything from war

[/ QUOTE ]
If not the President, who should be responsible for the war?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Elwood,

You're taking my comment too literally, for one. First, the President didn't just send our troops in there with guns blazing - he had the support of our Congress and other nations. Plus, I should have been more clear in my point that all people are doing is attacking the President for EVERY problem it seems, whether or not he even has anything to do with it.

To blame the war, or conflict, or battle, or however you want to put it, solely on the President is shortsighted and inaccurate.

-Edge

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
To blame the war, or conflict, or battle, or however you want to put it, solely on the President is shortsighted and inaccurate.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, then who should be held accountable? If he deserves credit for a good war, he should be responsible for a bad one.

[Edge34]

Hey elwood,

Please note that nowhere did I say the President should NOT be held accountable at all, good or bad. Your desire to blame one man for a war of questionable quality is short-sighted, partisan, and lacking in logic and effort, quite frankly.

I know where I stand on the quality of the battle, and of course, I'm 99.9999% sure I know where most of the other people on this forum stand too. But do me a favor and show me exactly where all the "diplomatic paths" had gotten this situation. The answer you'll come up with if you look long and hard: nowhere. But this has been discussed to death, so I'll leave it at that.

I just hope someday we can get past all this "blame Bush for everything" stuff...it just doesn't make any sense to me that people who claim to be informed on world events can act so blindly.

-Edge

[elwoodblues]

I don't blame Bush for everything. I blame him for things he is responsible for. He is responsible for the war -- because he is the commander in chief of the armed forces and because he made the call for war. If the war were a complete success, he would get credit for it. It isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
But do me a favor and show me exactly where all the "diplomatic paths" had gotten this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under UN sanctions and routine inspections, Saddam was left impotent and isolated.

[ QUOTE ]
Your desire to blame one man for a war of questionable quality is short-sighted, partisan, and lacking in logic and effort, quite frankly.


[/ QUOTE ]

He isn't SOLELY responsible, but he is primarily responsible.

[Edge34]

One more time in this thread,

I believe when looking at the war, one must look at the surrounding conditions, and not just the fact that, yes, the President did in fact make the call to send our troops overseas.

1) The UN Security Council has been essentially one of the weakest such organizations ever. Routinely, Saddam Hussein turned away inspectors and rejected UN sanctions and such. The UNSC's response? More sanctions for him to ignore and more inspections for him to reject. Wonderful.

2) Based on the best intelligence at the time, there was nothing to say Saddam and his people were NOT developing weapons of mass destruction, which may or may not have been the case. Could we realistically allow a known madman with a violent bent to even come CLOSE to the capability of using it on anybody, including us? Anti-war protestors use the (baseless) accusation that President Bush and the government knew about the potential for 9/11 in advance and did nothing about it. Hence, if nothing else, we prevented another such attack, which could have been infinitely more devastating.

The loss of life that has been experienced in Iraq is terrible, and my heart and prayers are with the families of all who have died over there. However, it is my hope that these peoples' sacrifice is not considered for naught by those who merely want Bush out of office. This war may not yet be a complete success, but it is far from a complete failure.

Maybe someday we'll live in a world in which this type of situation no longer exists, but as long as it does, strong tactics are necessary to defeat those who wish death and suffering upon millions and millions of innocents, and Saddam Hussein was one of them. Now that he is out of power, the US and our allies have turned our focus to helping Iraq rebuild a new, free government.

While there are many terrible things about this war (or any, actually), there are good things coming of it.

And who knows, maybe if we're lucky, in the next month, this war won't be the ONLY topic of discussion for the election. Of course, that won't happen...

Still waiting for Tolbiny to explain how stupid I am too, by the way..

-Edge

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
This war may not yet be a complete success, but it is far from a complete failure.


[/ QUOTE ]

A ringing endorsement if I've ever heard one. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
And who knows, maybe if we're lucky, in the next month, this war won't be the ONLY topic of discussion for the election. Of course, that won't happen...

[/ QUOTE ]

The conservatives want the war to be the only topic of discussion. Bush generally "wins" if it is. On issue polls, he's behind on most domestic issues.

Kerry had a strategic decision to make - 1) either go after the presidents strength (foreign affairs) and diminish it or 2) go after the president's weakness (domestic issues) and highlight it. Based on his recent speaches, it appears he chose to go with the former.

[PITTM]

but you dont think he should be held responsible for the outcome of this war? strange...

rj

[Edge34]

Pitt,

Did you NOT READ MY POST AT ALL? Nowhere in my post did I say President Bush should not be held to any responsibility for the war. This is the ignorant, half-baked type of thing I see from the political left all the time these days. Read my post again and tell me where I said President Bush should not be held at all responsible.

What I DID, in fact, say was that President Bush should not harbor all the blame OR all the praise, whichever one chooses to give, as a result of this war, for he is only one part of a greater combination of things that has led to the action taken against Iraq. Chew on that for a while and then come back with another witty one liner.

-Edge