SwiftVets.com

FMBass · Ensign Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 51 Location: NJ

The MSM deliberately reported this Bush statement out of context. Bush quickly corrected it yesterday. Today, even the interviewer (Matt Lauer on MSNBC), to my surprise, admitted that he knew what the president meant and that the press (and, of course, the Dem attack dogs) took it out of context.

Obviously, given his “deep intellect”, Kerry understood what Bush meant. In his speech to the American Legion. Kerry ran with the quote.

The point is that Gilligan just gave the American people another perfect demonstration of how he deliberately and knowingly twists the truth.

This guy is all glass.

I’m really digging watching this left wing fake shatter.
_________________
ETR-3 USS Harold E. Holt
DE 1074 (1972-1975)

Chuck Z Ombie AC2000 · Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 6:16 pm Post subject:

I hope Kerry tries to push this misstatement , see how far it gets him.
_________________
John Kerry, R.I.P. (Rot In Paris)

BuffaloJack · Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 6:40 pm Post subject:

Terrorism isn't an enemy, it is a tactic.
Fundamentalist Islamic loonies are the enemy.
Nobody can win a war against a tactic it is an intangible entity.
You win a war against an enemy.

Swiftvets are engaged in a battle against a traitorous appeasement weasle who would lie about anything and everything to further his selfserving agenda.

We are battling Kerry.
And will not give up.

drjohn · Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 6:47 pm Post subject:

The way to debate this is to say

"OK, we can say we have won the war on terror when ______"

And say

"Now you finish the sentence."

Watch what happens. Wink

leeinwv · PO3 Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 268

good for Matt

USWORHOCKEY · Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:32 pm Post subject:

I see it as how can you ever claim victory against terror when anyone with a can of gasoline and rag can be a terrorist etc... MSM will never get it. Do they understand the enemy or are they just into the bodycounts they eagerly report? Do they even give a crap that the families hear it reported day after day never mentioning all the good do we do. I'll tell ya, the media's coverage of this war, and the shots they take at our CIC made my family crazy when I was away . The MSM portrays we are waisting time, taking comments out of context for political gain. Lauer's interview turned right into spin...And they are still losing!!!!!!!!!!!
_________________
NEVER RELENT WHEN THE ENEMY IS ON THE RUN!
3 generations of soldiers in family.......

Sisku Hanne · Seaman Recruit Joined: 15 Aug 2004 Posts: 47

For any who did not see the Lauer interview, President Bush's response, in context, referred to winning within the next four years. Obviously, given the decades that this menace has been allowed to fester and grow, it will not be contained within one more term. An important point in our contemporary society who thinks everything should be wrapped up nice & tidy by the time their attention span peters out.

Kerry was completely pathetic to try to use that in his speech. But nothing he does anymore surprises me. He is the same abominable liar he was in Viet Nam.

Good point that bears repeating- terrorism is a tactic. Islamic terrorism is the enemy. The media creates enemeis from patriots and refuses to name the real enemy, terrorism,. Rebels...gunmen....armed gang....mob...insurgents....they twist themselves into knots to call them every euphanism they can think of in an effort to avoid using the word terrorist. And thus, they aid the enemy.

spudhorse · Ensign Joined: 21 Aug 2004 Posts: 52

I believe the President blew this one -- but so what?

He said (as has been quoted in the MSM which I think is accurate) "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create the conditions that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." When I listened to the President he seemed to say "I don't think you can win it 'IT' " by which he meant there wasn't a single event that would denote victory (as others have noted).

I don't think he thought he was stating anything that shouldn't be obvious and got stung. I think we chalk this one up to a fighter who's taken a jab that doesn't really do any serious damage. GW's too experienced to allow a combination blow and he'll just shake this one off. He's also done a good job of using it as an opportunity to reframe the discussion to a longer term vision of what success means.

Sisku Hanne · Seaman Recruit Joined: 15 Aug 2004 Posts: 47

No, Lauers' question specifically referenced "in the next four years", which is what Bush meant when he said no. We will win, no matter how long it takes, but it's not likely to happen within 4 years.
And yes, he did mean there won't be a traditional defined surrender as would normally happen at the end of a traditional war, which anyone with common sense knows. The fact that the old media even tries to make this an issue shows how lowly and desperate they are.

cipher · Vice Admiral Joined: 10 Aug 2004 Posts: 902

Even Matt Lauer said he knew what the president meant, otherwise he would have followed it up.

They are grasping at smoke, trying to hang what was obviously a clear statement of the nature of the war strategy versus the nature of the enemy.

We won the war against the nazis in WWII. That does not mean there aren't nazis around today. It just means they aren't a threat. And the country that harbored them then is an occasional ally now. And we are still occupying the country, 60 years after winning the war.

I think history should be a required subject in school. It was when I was a kid.,
_________________
USMC 69-72, 7th Comm, 3rd MarDiv, FMFPAC
US Army 75-79, 97th Sig, SHAPE, NATO
Arkansas National Guard 79
Defense contractor for US Navy, SSPO, SP-20, SP-24, OP-12 84-92

susanlprince · Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:39 am Post subject:

This is what I like about Bush...when I read the headline about "We will not win" the war on terror I immediately knew that was in direct contrast to what Bush stands for, and what his plans are to make our country safe, and the world a safer place overall. I could know without reading the article what was meant by his statement, and how it would be clarified. I like that I have confidence in the President.

I do not have confidence in Kerry. At all. He's Skerry!

USWORHOCKEY · Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:57 am Post subject:

Anybody who ever heard the President speak before knew exactlyt what he meant. As I said before, they love the spin cycle....and it still didn't work....lol....Get em Zell ....jk record in senate....LMAO
_________________
NEVER RELENT WHEN THE ENEMY IS ON THE RUN!
3 generations of soldiers in family.......

spudhorse · Ensign Joined: 21 Aug 2004 Posts: 52

From Rush's interview with the President:

"Really what I was saying to Lauer was, is that this is not the kind of war where you sit down and sign a peace treaty. It's a totally different kind of war. But we will win it."

The President didn't do a very good job at initially articulating his point. I realize that Lauer had framed the question to include a 4 year time span, but the President opted to answer a more general question and grounded to first. No problem -- the next time that same ball was thrown, he had a much more enlightening answer to knock it out of the park.

On the other hand, if he'd started arguing that he was answering the limited question that Laurer asked, his answer would still be news. The President is a pro at turning a small setback into a big advantage. Contrast this with Kerry who has let the Cambodia incident fester into a huge issue for him. The President continues to show himself the consumate politician and someone who speaks from the heart (even if it gets him in trouble now and again).

LewWaters · Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:02 am Post subject:

A couple of points;

1. How do they expect to totally win the war on terror when they have never won the war on drugs or crime?

2. Let's remember, this isn't a pro-Bush site. We are not campaigning for George Bush, we are exposing John Kerry for his nefarious activities over the years.

While there will be comparisons between the two men mentioned from time to time, we should not get sidetracked here into a campaign for Bush. Plenty of places to speak our minds in support of him without neglecting the mission of exposing Kerry.
_________________
Clark County Conservative

spudhorse · Ensign Joined: 21 Aug 2004 Posts: 52

To bring this back to Kerry -- he said in a speech today reacting to the President's comments on winning the war on terror:

Kerry offers plan to win war on terror

"Today’s terrorists have secured havens in Iraq that were not there before."

Where in the world did he come up with this? Does he think that the terrorists simply materialized out of the ground? Or flew in on vacation charters? Or happened to be there on business?

OR -- does it make more sense that THEY WERE ALREADY THERE!

"And if there’s one thing I learned from my service, I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace," he said.

I don't see how his service taught him any such thing. Besides, it's ludicrous on its face. We're at war to protect the homeland. The fact that we even worry about the peace is a statement of our humanity as a nation. In the long run, of course, a peaceful Iraq helps ensure our security as well.