Look who's flip-flopping now!

So now the war on terror cannot be won? But Bush said we were winning!
Now whos flip-flopping?

The first came from an interview Monday morning with NBC's "Today" show. Bush was asked whether the war on terrorism can be won.

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

The Kerry-Edwards campaign said Bush flip-flopped on the issue, and released previous comments from the president saying that the war on terror could indeed be won.

Bush also thinks we won the war too fast, but not too long ago he said he wouldn't do anything differently if he had it to do over.

In an interview published in this week's editions of Time magazine, Bush acknowledged that there was at least one mistake made during the invasion of Iraq.

"Had we had to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success -- being so successful, so fast, that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in, escaped and lived to fight another day," Bush told the magazine.

Edwards criticized Bush's comments.

"After months of saying he'd done everything right on Iraq and foreign policy, the president acknowledged just the other day that he miscalculated the way in which he waged the war in Iraq," Edwards said. "He believes that he may have won the war too quickly -- and that was a miscalculation."

www.cnn.com...




[edit on 30-8-2004 by 27jd]

I guess bush is feeling the heat now, and have to come out with excuses why his decisions did not work the way he promise to the people.

hmmm, might this be a republican strategy to swing the moderate votes on the notion that our president isn't afraid to say hes wrong anymore?

Finally. The chickens have come home to roost. Bush never should have declared a "war on terror" because, put simply, warfare is not how you counter terror. This inflammatory phrase implied promises one cannot keep, and didn't help the appearance of the US as ham-fisted and amateurish in its attempt to root out terrorists. The reality is terror must be treated as a police matter, not military, and our focus should all along have been with the practical realities of enhancing our police forces, criminal intelligence resources, and domestic security, not going off to literal war in Iraq. Every nation which has dealt with terror before has learned this, but Bush just loved the rabble-rousing sound of "war on terror". Hell, you could even justify real wars with a phrase as catchy as that! He used a stupid analogy and now it's backfired. Had to happen sooner or later.

-koji K.

Will he said that killing Iraqis is evil and wrong too? What do you think?

And that the bombings in Afghanistan did not produced bin-laden but a hole bunch of casualties.

I'm voting for Kerry BEFORE I vote against him! How's that for a flip-flop!

I voted for bush(2000) before I voted against him(2004)

Hey can anyone make that a bumper sticker?

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
I voted for bush(2000) before I voted against him(2004)

Hey can anyone make that a bumper sticker?

Hopefully everybody who voted for Bush in 2000 will have one of those bumper stickers.

Yeah, I would have one if I liked the distruction of America at the hands of Bush Jr (i.e. Kerry).

Both suck, and the Democrats have effectivly fooled America into thinking that Kerry is a real person, rather than a super rich professional politician.

That's akin to a career criminal in this country, yet if it happens in Washington, it's normally lawded as a positive thing.

Both suck as almost anyone with a brain knows it.

Follow this logic, because reason is denied here:

- A good portion of America thinks we are voting for the lesser of two evils rather than someone who represents us (last time I checked, it was 45% of Kerry's supporters)

- There are other viable candidates

- Yet your vote wouldn't count if you voted third party.


People, the parties are in power in this country, from State to the President. The sooner you come to grips with this, the sooner you can stop buying the # they shovel at you.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Yeah, I would have one if I liked the distruction of America at the hands of Bush Jr (i.e. Kerry).

Both suck, and the Democrats have effectivly fooled America into thinking that Kerry is a real person, rather than a super rich professional politician.

That's akin to a career criminal in this country, yet if it happens in Washington, it's normally lawded as a positive thing.

Both suck as almost anyone with a brain knows it.

Follow this logic, because reason is denied here:

- A good portion of America thinks we are voting for the lesser of two evils rather than someone who represents us (last time I checked, it was 45% of Kerry's supporters)

- There are other viable candidates

- Yet your vote wouldn't count if you voted third party.


People, the parties are in power in this country, from State to the President. The sooner you come to grips with this, the sooner you can stop buying the # they shovel at you.

KJ, I've stated several times that I'm all for reform in government, but again I know it has to start at the bottom and work its way up. You are intelligent, why do you believe a 3rd party candidate has even the slightest chance of winning this election? Most people are not smart enough, or even willing to look away from the status quo and are absorbed in their lives of consumption and conformity. It's simply not realistic to think a 3rd party has a chance this year. Based on that, I will vote for Kerry because, yes, I see him as the lesser of two evils, and see it like this: do I want a 6 inch stick shoved up my @$$, or a 2 foot stick? Either way, this year, the stick is coming. After I vote for the 6 inch stick, I'm gonna focus on doing away with the stick completely, but realistically, we build the foundation first, we can focus on the roof when we get there. That's just the way life works, as I see it anyway.