Here's a beaut':

That oughta motivate the hell out of those guys playing in the sand. :rolleyes: "What the hell are we doing here if my Commander in Chief doesn't think we can win?"

However, that's sure gotta encourage al Qaeda, knowing they're going to win.

And how many parts of the world are terrorists now acceptable?

Hang on everyone, here comes the spin!
Whhheeeeeeeeeeeee!

LOL. Talk about trying to create a controversy over nothing...

The war on terror is a broad brush stroke that includes specific campaigns - such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

We have won both the specific campaigns, but the war against terrorism of all shapes and sizes is not one that can be 'won' in that same sense. It's like asking if we can win the war against 'evil'...

He was speaking to the threat of terrorism as an idea--not a group of people that might be inclined to carry ir out. How do you stop an idea?

I bet Jean-Paul Kerrie` can and will if he thinks it will get him elected promise that the idea of another act of terrorism will not be hatched or attempted to be carried out.

As stated before, you've got to love a guy that always tells you what you want to hear.
------------------------------------------------------------

As long as we're posting Bushisms--I liked this one he voiced recently:

"If you don't agree or like my opponents position on a given issue---you may have just caught him on the wrong day."--GW

Myself, the Stryker Combat Team, and the Iraqi populace are having a good chuckle out of that one.

Come on, you guys can do better than that. Those are the expected apologetic spins. Jeez, use some imagination. :rolleyes: Since Bouche waged "war on terra," are you telling us that this man starts wars he knows he can't win?

Funny that it was less than 18 months ago when us "enlightened" ones tried to point out you couldn't win a "war on terror," we were branded as traitors and America-haters.

We're still missing input from a couple of the most typical spinners, so I'm still hanging on.

You can play with the words and get what you want out of it. Either side.


You cannot defeat an idology with military tactics unless you are willing to exterminate the participants. We can just make it hard on them to conduct business and hopefully we will see less of it. It's too easy in a free society to operate. It has been speculated on more than once that the US constitution will have to be revised to stop them. So the real war may be just around the corner.

Play with the words all you like, but Bouche invaded a country in the name of "The War on Terror," a war that he has now admitted we can't win.

Yeah, what a leader. :rolleyes:

You don't imagine he's simply changing his tune to entice the moderates and swing voters, do you? Maybe reacting to some sensing group or poll? He isn't flip-flopping because it's what some needed voters want to hear, is he?

Harley,

Risk prevention is additive. That means everything that you do to prevent risk mathmatically reduces that risks potential. So reducing the likely hood that a madman will provide aid to fundemental Islam is /was and always will be the right thing to do. Regardless of how you " feel" about it is a mathmatical certainty. We should have learned that in Vietnam and proven years later with the fall off the USSR. Now we have to take additive prevention in several other countries. How we do it remains to be seen.

You must be using Bouche's fuzzy math and forgot to carry the one. You seem to neglect the fact that Bouche's subtraction of Saddam has multiplied the threat of terrorist actions against American interests exponentially.

But it must have a denominator of zero and won't factor because Bouche says we can't win the war on terror.

"Since Bouche waged "war on terra," are you telling us that this man starts wars he knows he can't win?"

Keep grasping at nothing if you must. Iraq has a few hot spots left - but the newly freed Iraqi people and their new army are taking care of those hot spots quickly - with the help of some US forces.

The war with Iraq\Sadamm was only a part of the war on terrorism. Not too hard of a concept to grasp - well, for most of us anyway...

Face it, Saddam is gone and Iraq is free. The battle with terrorists will continue - but they will find fewer and fewer willing to hide them, feed them, support them, etc.

"You seem to neglect the fact that Bouche's subtraction of Saddam has multiplied the threat of terrorist actions against American interests exponentially."


And your proof of that is???? Can't be the increased attacks on our American homeland....

-----------------------------------------------------------

Goharley,

So what's the alternative--converting to Islam and putting Aunty M in a Berka?

The drive-threw/sit-com mentality that wants all problems solved and neatly tied up and brought to heart- warming conclusion in 22 minutes--NEWSFLASH: It's not going to happen!

If elected in November, what will John Kerry do differently in Iraq that will make the region safer and bring our troops home while keeping us safe from the idea that Islamic extremists have had to kill non-Muslims for years?

Finally, would the world or even just the United States be safer if we withdrawled US troops from Iraq entirely and restored Saddam to power in Iraq?

These words aren't my own, but I agree with the sentement:

A STRONGER AMERICA

At Kerry rallies they have a banner that says "A Stronger America." How do you make America stronger by giving the United Nations veto power over U.S. troop deployments? How do you make America stronger by pandering to Euroweenies who want to see their economic status improved by weakening America? How do you make America stronger by voting against virtually every weapons system that is being used today in our fight against Islamic terrorism? How do you make American stronger by reducing our intelligence budget? How do you make America stronger by pushing a hideously flawed global climate treaty that would cripple American industry?

Inquiring minds, and all that ...

Harley,

You say multiplied I say prove it. Is the number of supporters of "radical Islam" 1% 5% 15% of the Billion or so Muslims around the world? They where there, just in the background now they are out in the open. Again it's your felling about what is happening not what is actually happening.

How do you make America stronger by having the 4th most Dovish voting record in the senate over your career? Maybe he thinks the enemy will like him much more.

PP, Elvis - Interviews with Colin Powell, and a report by the Center for Strategic Studies. Go google, young men.

Oh, and by the way:
You got that way backwards. Trust me.

Krusty - That was merely a "we told you so." And if you want to know about making America stronger, ask Kerry. He's the one making the claims. However, we've already seen what the present administration has done to the strength of America.

But keep the spin comin' guys, the rides getting fun.

Kerry says he can win the war on terror now....Obvious thoughtless retort to the president's comments about "winning" the war on terror. Kerry the pacifist? the appeaser? the flip flopper? Win a war? NOT

It was his ilk with their failed appeasing ideals that gave the terrorists strength and green lights to attack over and over again. It was Kerry and his crowd of anti war weaklings that rolled out the welcome mat for the killers who attacked on 9/11....With Kerry in office I would expect the terrorists to regroup and attack again with much more confidence.

Thank God George Bush is president.

That's exactly what bin Laden is thinking. Bouche keeps sending fresh troops for al Qaeda to kill, has told the world we can't win the war on terror, and is probably bin Laden's best recruiter.

Oh wait, Bouche now says we can win the war. Ooops, flip-flip. Had to react to public opinion again.

Oh, and those clowns that were in power for over 10 years and allowed the 9/11 tragedy- you may recognize them as the Republican controlled Congress.

Wonderful leadership.

"That's exactly what bin Laden is thinking. Bouche keeps sending fresh troops for al Qaeda to kill. "

Well lets see here Clinton policy to make terrorism a crime costs us 3000 lives and Bushes policy to stop it has cost us 1000 . 3 to 1 interesting math there Harley to say that 1000 is worse than 3000.

BTW I thought the libs where maintaining that Al Queda had fewer than 100 in Iraq? Now you have them killing all of our troops.

Man, you're batting awful today. Wrong on all accounts.

In your world we have contributed 1000 dead for something completely unrelated to the 3000. More of the Bouche fuzzy math?

Although Clinton is your favorite scape-goat and diversionary tactic, one; he's not running for reelection (already got that t-shirt), and two; the 9/11 report exonerates his policy from blame. Not to mention, the Republican controlled Congress presented the new laws to the president and he either vetoed or signed.

Besides, I'm not really sure how American law leads to the 9/11 attacks in your black and white world.

Finally, if you go back and check you'll find that it was this administration and it's flock that claimed there was only about 500 al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq. It wasn't until we killed about 600 that someone finally stepped back and said, "Heeeeyyyy, wait a second..."

I'm sure if Osama bin Laden is alive and could somehow vote absentee ballot in the upcoming presidential election, he'd vote for John Kerry.

John Kerry is the one who has said if elected,"he can fight a more sensitive war on terrror."

John Kerry is the one who has said if elected he will withdraw a significant amount of troops from the Middle East in 6 months.

John Kerry is the one that has stabbed Vietnem veterans in the back for the last 33 years by saying they were on a daily basis, "RAPISTS and BABY KILLERS" without ever wittnessing a single atrocitie. In doing this he demoralized the armed forces and our nation.

John Kerry is the one that while still a member of the US armed forces went abroad (with out US government permission) to a foriegn country to talk to representatives of our enemy and came back to the US and advocated for the enemies demands on their behalf.

John Kerry is the on who has voted time and again to cut defense and intellegence gathering budgets--but voted to increase funding to the UN.

If they could, why wouldn't Osama bin Laden or his henchmen vote for John Kerry?

You're sure? Have the two of you been having long, deep chats?