Talk about yer flip-floppin'<br><br><br><br>[color:white]God speed, mikeb. Go drive your Boxster in the big Autobahn in the sky...</font color=white>

Winning the war on terror doesn't mean sitting on the deck on an aircraft carrier and signing a peace treaty. Bush is correct when he goes on further to explain .. "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."<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

I'm glad someone posted it, because that is just hilarious!<br><br>Like a damn carp in a bathtub! <br><br>

and john kerry said that he is often criticized for seeing complexities in some issue (e.g., the war in iraq; war on terror). it's nice to see you and dubya recognize this as well. <br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04

George W Bush..The "W" stands for Weather..always changing.. Hopefully these last 4 were enough...<br><br>

I think winning the war on Terrorism is like winning the war on Murder.<br><br>You'll never get rid of Terrorism, there will always be a bunch of lunatics somewhere in the world plotting to kill innocent civilians.<br><br><br>But, yeah, poor choice of words on Bush's part - made it so easy for the desperate liberal press to pounce on it and grab a partial quote and make it look like a flip flop. <br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>

I'm laughing more at the media than the candidates...<br><br>Whew, don't you feel better today now that we CAN win the war on terror? <br><br>[color:white]God speed, mikeb. Go drive your Boxster in the big Autobahn in the sky...</font color=white>

Mr. President, as a voter in the upcoming election, what did you mean when you said we can't win the war on terror . . . <br><br><embed src="http://homepage.mac.com/barnett112/.Music/Bush.mp3" width=320 height=25 controller="true" autoplay="false" type="video/quicktime"><br><br>. . . Yes, yes . . . I agree. Thank you Mr. President . . . <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

Well that's a big fat 'duh'. <br><br>[color:white]God speed, mikeb. Go drive your Boxster in the big Autobahn in the sky...</font color=white>

If you examine the rhetorical positions of the Kerry and Bush campaigns (not necessarily the actual policy, just the way they talk about it), you can see Kerry will try to highlight some difference between his and Bush's policy, than Bush will counter by trying to position himself as close to Kerry's description as possible.<br><br>It wasn't even three days ago that someone asked John Edwards what the difference was between Kerry's and Bush's plans in regards to terrorism. Edwards replied, "I think we can win it," and went on to explain how cooperative approaches and strengthened allegiances could make progress against terrorist organizations. Now Bush is saying the exact same thing, even as he had previously shown doubts in anything other than a unilateralist approach. The biggest difference between the two goes back to the actual policy. Bush has no plans to abandon the "with us or against us" approach and it's disingenuous to suggest that his policy has changed or will change without some significant repositioning in Iraq and Afghanistan.<br><br>Of course that is completely inconsistent with Bush's "stay the course" message. He simply can't have it both ways here and definitely look for this to come out in the debates.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>