Bush Reverses Himself, Says War on Terror Can Be Won


By Caren Bohan

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Reuters) - One day after saying the war on terror could not be won, President Bush (news - web sites) sought on Tuesday to calm a political storm over his comments and said America would prevail.

On the second day of the Republican convention, Bush found himself on the defensive as the campaign of his Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), took aim at the president's comments to a television interviewer suggesting the war on terror was not winnable.


In the interview broadcast on NBC's "Today" show on Monday, Bush was asked if the war on terrorism would ever be won.


"I don't think you can win it," he 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."

Then he said...........

"We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start, but one that we will win," Bush told the group.



*********
Just say whatever it takes to get elected.
Make one statement one day..........do a 180 the next.


:wave:

Trooper Wrote:Just say whatever it takes to get elected.
Make one statement one day..........do a 180 the next.

I find it hilarious that a Kerry supporter could actually post this with a straight face.

Bush could have been clearer, but the point he was making was that this isn't a conventional war. There won't be a peace treaty or two sides sitting down at a table with one saying we surrender. those things you associate with winning a war. There will always be terrorists doing terrorist activities. But what we can do is spread freedom and democracy and help to promote democratic governments where terrorists can't receive state sponsored money and support for their activities. By doing that we can "win" but there will still always be terrorists.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:Just say whatever it takes to get elected.
Make one statement one day..........do a 180 the next.

I find it hilarious that a Kerry supporter could actually post this with a straight face.

Bush could have been clearer, but the point he was making was that this isn't a conventional war. There won't be a peace treaty or two sides sitting down at a table with one saying we surrender. those things you associate with winning a war. There will always be terrorists doing terrorist activities. But what we can do is spread freedom and democracy and help to promote democratic governments where terrorists can't receive state sponsored money and support for their activities. By doing that we can "win" but there will still always be terrorists.

Yeah, yeah :snore:

flip flop :roflol:

Trooper Wrote:Yeah, yeah :snore:

flip flop :roflol:

I know logic doesn't play well with you but let me ask you this.

You say he's flip flopping in an effort to "say anything to get elected" Who do you think he's trying to curry favor with by saying we can't win?

The only people that would play well with are Al Queda and the far left of your party. I think it's safe to say he's not trying to take votes away from Kerry inside the Hate America First liberals of your party.

Stay a sleep, stay ignorant Trooper. Reality is far to painful for you I know. :wave:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:Yeah, yeah :snore:

flip flop :roflol:

I know logic doesn't play well with you but let me ask you this.

You say he's flip flopping in an effort to "say anything to get elected" Who do you think he's trying to curry favor with by saying we can't win?

The only people that would play well with are Al Queda and the far left of your party. I think it's safe to say he's not trying to take votes away from Kerry inside the Hate America First liberals of your party.

Stay a sleep, stay ignorant Trooper. Reality is far to painful for you I know. :wave:

"I don't think you can win it," he 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."

If he'd just said "I don't think you can win it" most people would have thought that there's just another one of ol' Dubs' brain farts, but he went on to explain what he said and what could be done.

You can't explain that one away like that. He got too far away from his handlers and someone popped a question he hadn't been prepped for and he gave the answer that he thought was true and semi-intelligent. Now that his remarks have been published he's been advised to eat his words, plain and simple.

Flip Flop

Trooper Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:Yeah, yeah :snore:

flip flop :roflol:

I know logic doesn't play well with you but let me ask you this.

You say he's flip flopping in an effort to "say anything to get elected" Who do you think he's trying to curry favor with by saying we can't win?

The only people that would play well with are Al Queda and the far left of your party. I think it's safe to say he's not trying to take votes away from Kerry inside the Hate America First liberals of your party.

Stay a sleep, stay ignorant Trooper. Reality is far to painful for you I know. :wave:

"I don't think you can win it," he 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."

If he'd just said "I don't think you can win it" most people would have thought that there's just another one of ol' Dubs' brain farts, but he went on to explain what he said and what could be done.

You can't explain that one away like that. He got too far away from his handlers and someone popped a question he hadn't been prepped for and he gave the answer that he thought was true and semi-intelligent. Now that his remarks have been published he's been advised to eat his words, plain and simple.

Flip Flop

He didn't reverse, he didn't flip-flop. He failed to fully explain himself.

Quote:Really what I was saying to Lauer was, is that this is not the kind of war where you sit down and sign a peace treaty. It's a totally different kind of war. But we will win it.

<a href='http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_083104/content/eib_interview.guest.html' target='_blank'>Interview</a>

Failing to fully elaborate is not the same as having a 'seared' memory change or voting for something before you vote against it.

I was waiting for this one. Most people knew what Bush meant right away. But he should have been clearer, and said as much today.

The big difference is that the President is capable of clarifying his statements in a matter of hours, whereas Kerry's "refined" positions become more confusing with every attempted explanation...and the explanations given (i.e. Schad's excuse on the "I voted for it before I voted against it" because Kerry was trying to make a point about tax cuts) smack of destructive self importance and petty politicking.

Bush's comments had little negative traction before he elaborated. It's been neutralized as of today.

Forget the flip flop thing, Trooper...your side is much better at blind, seething hatred than anything resembling a legitimate conversation about who's the flip flopper...which not coincidentally is the only thing Kerry beats Bush on.

Speaking of you and your fellow Dems...beaten any NYC policemen half to death lately?

BearcatCarl Wrote:I was waiting for this one.&nbsp; Most people knew what Bush meant right away.&nbsp; But he should have been clearer, and said as much today.

The big difference is that the President is capable of clarifying his statements in a matter of hours, whereas Kerry's "refined" positions become more confusing with every attempted explanation...and the explanations given (i.e. Schad's excuse on the "I voted for it before I voted against it" because Kerry was trying to make a point about tax cuts) smack of destructive self importance and petty politicking.

Bush's comments had little negative traction before he elaborated.&nbsp; It's been neutralized as of today.

Forget the flip flop thing, Trooper...your side is much better at blind, seething hatred than anything resembling a legitimate conversation about who's the flip flopper...which not coincidentally is the only thing Kerry beats Bush on.

Speaking of you and your fellow Dems...beaten any NYC policemen half to death lately?

Like I said if he'd just stopped with "I don't think you can win it"

then he said

"But I think..."

He then explained his position (at that time) fairly coherently.

I'm sure MOST people knew what he meant.

That's why he's trying so hard to explain his "new" position now.



:snore:

By the way I wasn't in New York City today.

Did you and your fellow 'cons steal any medicine from little old ladies today? :laugh:

Trooper Wrote:

BearcatCarl Wrote:I was waiting for this one.  Most people knew what Bush meant right away.  But he should have been clearer, and said as much today.

The big difference is that the President is capable of clarifying his statements in a matter of hours, whereas Kerry's "refined" positions become more confusing with every attempted explanation...and the explanations given (i.e. Schad's excuse on the "I voted for it before I voted against it" because Kerry was trying to make a point about tax cuts) smack of destructive self importance and petty politicking.

Bush's comments had little negative traction before he elaborated.  It's been neutralized as of today.

Forget the flip flop thing, Trooper...your side is much better at blind, seething hatred than anything resembling a legitimate conversation about who's the flip flopper...which not coincidentally is the only thing Kerry beats Bush on.

Speaking of you and your fellow Dems...beaten any NYC policemen half to death lately?

Like I said if he'd just stopped with "I don't think you can win it"

then he said

"But I think..."

He then explained his position (at that time) fairly coherently.

I'm sure MOST people knew what he meant.

That's why he's trying so hard to explain his "new" position now.



:snore:

By the way I wasn't in New York City today.

Did you and your fellow 'cons steal any medicine from little old ladies today? :laugh:

Your "little old ladies" comment merits no response - it's dishonest and ludicrous on the face of it.

But it was a nice attempt to deflect from the fact that one of your "peaceful, tolerant, anti-war" protesting buddies decided to kick in the face of a NYC Policeman.

And your lack of understanding is shocking. The President didn't change his position at all...and anyone with half a brain knows it.

Considering the candidate you support, you should really know the difference between blowing in the wind and not expounding properly on a statement.

Again, nice try.

Hey, maybe I will speak on the "little old ladies" thing. You mean the medicine that Clinton provided? How about that big education reform?
Nope, President Bush handled Medicare and Education reform...but at least Clinton did welf...no, that was the Republican congress finally twisting his arm on the 3rd try.

One more time...stick to the blinding hatred thing. At least that worked a little.

My God, fear-mongering senior citizens...how low will you go? Judging by the last Dem President, slightly below the belt line.
Say hi to Neil and Bob for me.