Rsmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 192 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1121 times:
So some say John Kerry flip-flops..... well it must be catching on because the President who is running this year on the the same agenda he ran on in 2000 and did not accomplish to any degree is following suit.
"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"
"Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said: “What today showed is that George Bush might be able to read a speech saying we can win the war on terror, but as we saw yesterday, he’s clearly got real doubts about his ability to do so and with good reason.
“This President has gone from mission accomplished to mission miscalculated to mission impossible on the war on terror. We need a leader who knows we can win the war on terror and has a plan to do it. America can do better than a go-it-alone foreign policy that has alienated key allies, leaving U.S. troops bearing the overwhelming burden in Iraq and U.S. taxpayers shouldering the bulk of the cost.”
I cant wait to hear Scott McClellan attempt to do damage control on this apparent Waffle of the President.........Make up your mind George.. men and women are dying fighting a war you selfishly and mistakenly took us into..
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 25 Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1091 times:
You're slipping. Took you more than a day to dig this one up.
Maybe if you take the entire thing into context you'd realize what he was talking about. (Of course that isn't possible given your mindset.) It would also help if the idiot reporter had let Bush finish one statement before cutting him off.
Terrorism will never go away. As long as people are willing to blow themselves up in order to obtain their goal, it will exist. However, what we can do is make it where it no longer is an attractive option and a dangerous one to engage in. By changing countries into places where terrorism is not preached and supported, we reduce the likelihood of it happening. Terrorists have existed for thousands of years and the concept will never go away.
The President has said in the past that this war will not be won like WWII where there are formal surrender ceremonies. The war will last at least a generation and will only be over when terrorism is no longer a supported and attractive method.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13 Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1042 times:
I agree with the President....we can't 'win' the war on terrorism...but we can stay a head in the battle. Just as B757 said above, the world will never be free 100% from strife, hatered, anger and terrorism as long as people are willing to blow themselves up in order to obtain their goal, it will exist.
I was working today here in BNA when he arrived and it was great to see AF1 again. I was also able to hear his ENTIRE speach today on the local radio.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12558 posts, RR: 64 Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1020 times:
I think it's pretty evident that the President meant we can't "win" in a traditional sense, as there's no nation that capitulates in this war. This one is about changing the hearts and minds of the people who have corrupted their religion and seek to do us (and I don't mean just Americans, but any non-Muslims) harm in the name of it.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Slider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6518 posts, RR: 37 Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1012 times:
Good to read leveled viewpoints on this here...
I can understand the perception of a flip-flop, but he clarified well the distinction between fighting a finite war (ie: WWII, with a definite endgame), versus fighting an enemy with no clear flag, no distinct nation with borders, etc.
AGrayson514 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 396 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1005 times:
I don't see the problem with "flip flopping". Would you prefer that they stick to the same ideas forever even if all of the evidence and experience gained goes against it? That goes for both sides. I mean, doing it for no reason is kinda stupid, but much of the time is seems legit.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 990 times:
I just saw the entire interview with Matt Lauer from where this 'statement' came from. You need to listen to how the President answers the question, to understand what he meant by .. " No, I don't think we can WIN the war." It was meant in the traditional sense... a signing of an armasist, a peace agreement, a truce. This is a 'war' that will never end and must be fought everyday.
[Edited 2004-09-01 00:54:36]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19688 posts, RR: 56 Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 938 times:
So, when have we won this war?
When there are no more attacks? Well, if that's the case, it lasted all of one day, and we won on September 12, 2001.
When there is no more threat? How do you gauge that? You can't, and it will go on forever.
Seems to me that there is either no war, or there is an everlasting war. A war that we can never ever win. That's a pretty disheartening thought. The question on my mind is, how did we let 19 average guys force us into this? (this is not a criticism of Bush or Kerry, it's actually an honest non-partisan question that I've been thinking about recently)
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Sabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 888 times:
By changing countries into places where terrorism is not preached and supported, we reduce the likelihood of it happening.
True, but how do you want to achieve that? By bombing Irak?
BTW: terrorists do not 'work' for countries. Even when terrorism is not liked in a certain country (heck, which country likes terrorists), they will still be able to do it undercover. Is terrorism liked in Spain? No, but there is still the ETA.
The problem of today is 'sleeping terrorists', spread over the whole world. Those people can easily live undercover for several years, before they become actif. It is just not possible to do something about this, besides having a good police force who tries to find this scum. Those terrorists have their own specific reason to make terroristic strikes, and handle "in the name of Al Qaeda" to get international hearing in the press.
Jamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 9 Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 877 times:
"BTW: terrorists do not 'work' for countries. Even when terrorism is not liked in a certain country (heck, which country likes terrorists), they will still be able to do it undercover. Is terrorism liked in Spain? No, but there is still the ETA."
That is a very good and valid point. But we also need to realize that there are countries and governments that do overtly, and defacto support terror campaigns. It should be a world directive to work toward altering the outlook, or changing the situation in which terrorism can foster and grow.
Never, as is the case in many parts of the world, should appeasment and or turning a blind eye be the policy. That is what got us where we are today.
Bush is right...we can not "win" this war in a traditional sense, but this is not a traditional war.
Slider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6518 posts, RR: 37 Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 850 times:
Great post Jamesag96...
Appeasement got us here. It won't get us out. We're seeing a structural change in terms of our intelligence, military composition, and policy to unprecedented degrees. In fact, the massive shifts taking place are the most dramatic since the end of the Cold War.
Even with sustained focus, we may not see the full fruition of this for a generation. But seeing Libya give up the ghost was certainly one big win. The near-term future of Iran and N. Korea will be another major litmus test.