It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush "We cant win the war on Terror" Bush "We will win the war on Terror"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I know politicians jump back and forth on topics but really someone please explain to me what is going on?

Yesterday we cant today we can its amazing
story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush




posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Naturally if this were Kerry, the media would be talking about flip-flopping and syrup-covered waffles.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   

I know politicians jump back and forth on topics but really someone please explain to me what is going on?


Just more Bush flip-flopping....



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
The same concept was used to justify our war. Initially, to get the people excited, Bush used the imminent mushroom cloud. When that didn't pan out, he went with the good ole "Saddam is a madman" excuse. Now that the capture of Saddam has lost its appeal, Bush is "bringing it to the terrorists instead of them bringing it to us." What's next?

Whatever happens to sound good at the time. And his supporters are eating it up and waving their flags. How laughable. Sometimes I feel like crying though.

They offer up Bush and Kerry. What the heck are we supposed to do?

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Belgarath]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
doesnt bother me .. bush still has my vote



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Belgarath
The same concept was used to justify our war. Initially, to get the people excited, Bush used the imminent mushroom cloud. When that didn't pan out, he went with the good ole "Saddam is a madman" excuse. Now that the capture of Saddam has lost its appeal, Bush is "bringing it to the terrorists instead of them bringing it to us." What's next?


Gouliani already took it to the next level of absurdity last night. He said Saddam was the weapon of mass destruction.


And everyone cheered. Yes, good citizens. We saved you all from this man that hasn't said so much as "boo" in 10 years.


And it only cost $200 billion dollars and 1,000 American lives.

I think I could have caught him with a sandwich.


I can't wait for tonight. Libby Dole (say it breathily) will be cranking up the appeal to women. That ought to give the aging convention a much needed shot of viagra.


[edit on 31-8-2004 by RANT]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChandlerBong
doesnt bother me .. bush still has my vote


So do you agree with GW that we will win the war on terror?

Or do you agree with GW that we can't win the war on terror?



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I agree with Bush 100%




(Detect the dry British wit there
)



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flash__04
I know politicians jump back and forth on topics but really someone please explain to me what is going on?

Yesterday we cant today we can its amazing


You need to listen to the complete conversation, well actually you need to listen to the complete question. He was asked if he (Bush) thought the war on terror could be won IN FOUR YEARS. And bush said No, it can not. Stop listening to CBS and ABC, they give you incomplete info and you run with it. Sad.

[edit on 1-9-2004 by AntiPolitrix]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Belgarath
So do you agree with GW that we will win the war on terror?


Yes we will, Bu NOT in four years like Bush was asked.



Or do you agree with GW that we can't win the war on terror?


Not in four years, you need to get all the info before you make yourself look ignorant for posting half of the question.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
You need to listen to the complete conversation


That's not much different than they do with Kerry sound bites either, really. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Only logically, we of course cannot win the war on terror. And the fallacy in Bush's statement that it could be won lies in his own ideal.

Bush cannot win this war which he has declared simply because he has not established clear conditions for victory, and considering the nature of the enemy which we face, victory conditions cannot be established with any certitude of attainment.

Again, Bush is a moron.

Thank you.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Ok, now I've heard it. Kerry just said the Global War on Terror can and will be won because, "We are the CAN DO people..."

Yeah, thats a good line of logic!

My fellow Americans, I hate to be the one to tell you all this, but we're all DOOMED!!! With candidates like this; they being the best we can do... scary.

I wish I believed in God. I would ask it for its help.

Again, I would really love to hear Sen. Kerry's conditions for victory in the Global War on Terror. Maybe snuff them out while they're young? Before they've learned to construct a bomb and are too weak to carry a sizeable one? No, probably not Kerry. I don't think he'd kill a kid. What do you think?

I don't admire Kerry's optimism. At this point it's just rhetoric designed to get us pumped up enough to vote for him. Positivity without some objective realism only becomes fantasy, I'm afraid.

OH YEAH... I'M BACK!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join