Flip Flop for All

[achilleus]

OK, so here's this news story.

It basically states the Bush is attacking Kerry on wanting to merely reduce terrorism, and not win the war outright. The attack is based on Kerry commenting on reducing terrorism to a 'nuisance' level.

However, a little less than two months ago Bush himself said we can't win the terror war outright. In fact his direct words were:

I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.

Kerry then attacked him, saying we could win, and two days later Bush changed his tune.

Do either of these guys out there realize that what they say is kept on record? I mean, they both have said the same exact things, attacked each other about it, and then changed their tune.

Yet Kerry is painted as a flip flopper, and Bush is painted as decisive. I don't get it. Personally, they both seem like liars and idiots to me, but that's just me.

[Epictetus]

*chuckle*

Nicely put, I didn't realize Bush had said that.

[jeff]

Of course Bush is a flip-flopper. He makes Kerry seem completely steadfast by comparison.

See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646142.shtml

AND http://www.americanprogressaction.or...JcP7H&b=118263

AND

# Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
# Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
# Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
# Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
# Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
# Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
# Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
# Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
# Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
# Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
# Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
# Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
# Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
# Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
# Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
# Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
# Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
# Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
# Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

[S. Hunter]

Do either of these guys out there realize that what they say is kept on record?

They are politicians, of course not.

[JAnthony]

Bush Quote:
I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.

Oh, boy, does this one have legs. Bush was speaking in response to a question from Matt Lauer about winning it in the next four years.

But it continues to be conveniently taken out of context...

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by JAnthony

Bush Quote:
I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.

Oh, boy, does this one have legs. Bush was speaking in response to a question from Matt Lauer about winning it in the next four years.

But it continues to be conveniently taken out of context...

So are you trying to say that Bush believes he can win the war in five years? or six or seven? We lost 1,000 men and women in a year and half, with most of the deaths in the last several months. So, if it'll take five more years, or so, for Bush to be right - that he can win this "war" then I wouldnt want to be the parent of a young man.

Nah, your man was giving himself an out. "We can't win it, but we can hurt em."

[Inquartata]

And yet, they're both right, in a way. Kerry's use of the word "nuisance" for the murder of large numbers of innocents was unfortunate, but I think it's true that terrorism cannot be completely stamped out, only retarded and reduced. If one is willing to commit suicide to carry out a terrorist act, there is very little that can be done other than to interdict him before he has the opportunity. And that is not something at which 100% success is ever going to be possible...

[Epictetus]

(I feel like I'm chasing Inquartata across the boards... oh wait a minute, I am!)

The key to winning this war (in my opinion) is to show the world that we are not the way they seem to view us. We are not, by and large, imperialist dogs who intentionally trample other's culture and don't care if the rest of the world blows up. We are better than that, and it's a not-so-simple msiion to convince the world that we are not who the terrorist say we are, thus reducing the numbers of recruits they draw to their bloody cause.

[Inquartata]

That sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim to me. Even if the view of the US is as you say, and in fact even if the view accurately captured the reality, it does not by any stretch of the imagination justify the mindset which comfortably envisions the mass murder of innocent civilians, much less actually carrying out such acts...

[Epictetus]

No, nor was that the point I was trying to make. Regardless of if it is true or not, we are seen by many in the middle east as a force of evil. This is simple fact.

What I am trying to say is the only way we can win is by changing their minds, showing them that we are a good country, as you and I both know we are. If we can do that, we will be able cut terrorist recruiting off at the knees. If you don't hate someone, it's much harder to give your life attacking them.

[Inquartata]

I just don't agree that the only, or even the best, way to address the problem is to try to convince a bunch of sociopathic murderers ( or the seething mass of hateful fanatics from which they are drawn ) to love us...much less that we should have to change in order to get them to let us alone.

It's in the interests of politicians and religious leaders---if there's a distinction---in the Middle East to keep the masses ignorant and to unite them in the hatred of some common enemy. I cannot see how we can ever counter their efforts, even if we were disposed to do so...

[Epictetus]

To which you have a point. At which point I would ask you--
What are you doing up at this hour? At least I have the excuse of a paper to revise...

But seriously, I don't think that we can convince those that are already attacking us. The average Saudi or Syrian though? These are the people groups like Al Qaeda are recruiting from. If we can dry up their recruiting, it will make things much easier is the rest of the war on terror.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Epictetus

To which you have a point. At which point I would ask you--
What are you doing up at this hour? At least I have the excuse of a paper to revise...

I'm at work. This is my usual shift, alas.

Sorry to distract you from your paper.

The average Saudi or Syrian though? These are the people groups like Al Qaeda are recruiting from. If we can dry up their recruiting, it will make things much easier is the rest of the war on terror.

Again, these people are under the sway of the mullahs and the fanatics. So how do you do that? How do you convince them that "the Great Satan" is right and their respected leaders wrong? How do you combat the madrassas and the efforts of groups like Hamas? Mere reason is not enough when one is facing religious zeal and the brainwashing of educational institutions like those of Saudi Arabia or the peer pressure of "the street", much less the killing of the odd dissenting moderates as "collaborators", as in Palestine...

[Epictetus]

Believe me, I'm happy to distracted for a little while from analysing George Will's writing style.

I don't know how to do it, only that it needs to be done. We could start by putting more pressure of Saudi Arabia to reform, as well as *cough* not invading countries in the area (but that's a whole other conversation).

We are littlerally in a battle for the hearts and minds of an entire population. While I do not neccesarily have a tactical plan to win the war, I know that it is neccesary to.

[Inquartata]

I myself am more inclined toward the "When you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow" philosophy these days.

[Epictetus]

Hmm....

Possibly true, but I don't think we have them by the short hairs just yet...

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by JAnthony

Bush Quote:
I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.

Oh, boy, does this one have legs. Bush was speaking in response to a question from Matt Lauer about winning it in the next four years.

But it continues to be conveniently taken out of context...

Uhhh... admittedly I don't know when Bush said such a thing but presumably it was sometime in the last year or two... But.

So let me get this straight, you're saying that Bush's quote in which he says you can't win the war on terror (to paraphrase), is in response to a question when asked could America win the war in the next FOUR years. NOW an article comes forth in which Bush is berating Kerry for saying that that terror should be a nusiance instead of a major interuption of our lives, and in fact for the article is quoted as saying, "Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance," Bush said. "Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorist networks and spreading freedom and liberty around the world."

So placed IN context we can come to understand that Bush means that HE CAN win the war on terrorism, just not in the next four years...

Umm... Somebody should probably point out to him that unless he has plans of overthrowing the constitution, (and sumarily flip/flopping on that whole freedom liberty and apple pie thing he tagged on at the end there), that he's only got four more years to "win the war on terror" IF he wins the election.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I myself am more inclined toward the "When you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow" philosophy these days.

OK. Shock time. I agree with Inquartata MOSTLY on the previous points. I'm not sure that we can win the hearts and minds of the terrorists. They prey on the desperate and simple minded (Hey! Akhib! Put this vest on and run over there into that truck! Doesn't take alot of brains, does it?) while standing behind the cloak of Islam. Take Saudi Arabia, the political and ideological center of terrorism, from the outside they appear more or less to be an ally of the U.S. They (Saudi government) continue to fund the hard-line mudrasas which are basically factories for brain-washed Islamic fundamentalism. These mudrasas exist in many other countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, there are probably a few in the U.S. They churn out thousands (tens of thousands) of indoctrinated students who are not very pro-Western in their thinking. These students come from many different countries and become the foot soldiers in a widespread effort to ensure that Western influence doesn't grow. Meanwhile, the government looks the other way because they don't want to draw the ire of the Islam clergy.

The problem with using conventional force is that a missile cannot distinguish between a terrorist and a local. Blow terrorist meeting place up, 5 terrorist killed, 10 civilian casualties. The civilians have families who are then not to happy with the action. They may not become active terrorists themselves, but they are not likely to willingly participate in rounding the terrorists up or flushing the terrorists out.

Bombing a country takes out a few terrorist organizers and foot soldiers, but plants the seeds for a more radical hate amongst those who have lost loved ones as "collateral" damage. Probably doesn't take much to ignite these sparks into full-blown rage.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Epictetus

(I feel like I'm chasing Inquartata across the boards... oh wait a minute, I am!)

You should join our Yahoo! group. We use it to plan strategy, trade information, and as a sounding board for new posts:

http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/CounterInq

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Drifter

Uhhh... admittedly I don't know when Bush said such a thing but presumably it was sometime in the last year or two... But.

He said it in August of this year. Right before the RNC. Kerry attacked his position saying it shows lack of faith in the war.

Two days later, Bush changed his tune, saying that we could win the war. Ironically, for those saying that Bush's statement was taken out of context, Bush never says that. He changed his tune, but I have yet to see him claim that he was taken out of context.

I agree with his first statement, and Kerry's, although 'nuisance' is not the way to say it. I just thought it was really stupid that they agree, but have to rip the other guy anyway...

Originally Posted by Drifter

Umm... Somebody should probably point out to him that unless he has plans of overthrowing the constitution, (and sumarily flip/flopping on that whole freedom liberty and apple pie thing he tagged on at the end there), that he's only got four more years to "win the war on terror" IF he wins the election.

Well the republicans were thinking of trying to postpone the US election due to possible terrorist interference. Struck me as really funny, since the same administration is determined to hold elections in Afghanistan and Iraq regardless of the violence and terrorist actions there...