Bush: Kerry Unable to Win War on Terror

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-10-20 01:29pm

MASON CITY, Iowa - President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday that Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)'s views on national security are so misguided that the Democrat would be unable to defeat terrorism.

"The next commander in chief must lead us to victory in this war and you cannot win a war when you don't believe you're fighting one," Bush told hundreds of supporters in a northern Iowa farming community.

"My opponent also misunderstands our battle against insurgents and terrorists in Iraq (news - web sites), calling Iraq 'a diversion from the war on terror,'" Bush added.

Bush criticized a recent comment by Kerry that the events of Sept. 11 hadn't changed him much and a comment by Kerry's top foreign policy adviser that the nation is not in a war on terror in a literal sense.

The Kerry campaign said Bush had taken the comments out of context, that Kerry had said Sept. 11 had angered him and that Kerry foreign policy adviser Richard Holbrooke had said the United States must deal with terrorism in aggressive and creative ways because the nation was fighting a nontraditional war.

"To listen to George Bush (news - web sites) criticize John Kerry is laughable," said Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer. "This is the president's desperate effort to cling to power."

The president said the Kerry campaign is guilty of "a fundamental misunderstanding of the war we face and that is very dangerous thinking."

Bush said the case of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is believed behind beheadings of Americans in Iraq and has pledged his allegiance to Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), "shows how wrong" Kerry's thinking is.

"If Zarqawi and his associates were not busy fighting American forces, does Senator Kerry think he would be leading a productive and useful life?" asked Bush. "Of course not. And that is why Iraq is no diversion."

Bush was campaigning in three Midwest states — Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin — that all went against him four years ago and where polls show him in a close race with Kerry.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-10-20 01:30pm

* Yawns * and cups hand to ear.

"You hear that George? That's the sound of nobody giving a ****."

Post by **Kuja** » 2004-10-20 01:35pm

Surprise, surprise.

Antares · Post by **Antares** » 2004-10-20 01:59pm

Somebody please define:

Victory in war against terror

Can a war against terror be won anyway? Sounds very unlikly to me.
Typical brainless Bush babbling if you ask me.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-10-20 02:00pm

Antares wrote:Somebody please define:

Victory in war against terror

Can a war against terror be won anyway? Sounds very unlikly to me.
Typical brainless Bush babbling if you ask me.

It's like his father and the war on drugs...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-20 02:02pm

President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday that Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)'s views on national security are so misguided that the Democrat would be unable to defeat terrorism.

Ah yes, this scathing criticism from a man who thinks he can "defeat terrorism"? What is his master plan, pray tell? His "let's invade Iraq" plan hasn't done jack shit to weaken Al-Quaeda around the world, so what's his plan for success?

Antares · Post by **Antares** » 2004-10-20 02:11pm

Isnt "terror" innate to humans fighting a superior enemy?
I guess guerilla warfare uses some typical "terror" attacks as well, like using bombs. Isnt the situation the US troops have to face in iraq a guerilla war?

What's the difference between guerilla warfare and terror? Terror attacks having less respect to human life perhaps?

So if you want to win the war against terror anybody who *might* want to defend himself is a potential enemy.

Hopefully i have't screwed up too much now. Otherwise sorry.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-20 02:17pm

While I'm not about to take George "Born Loser" Bush's word for it on this, I can't help but think he's right. Kerry doesn't seem to have any more of a workable plan than Bush does; and is showing every bit the determination to be hard headed to the end.

Antares · Post by **Antares** » 2004-10-20 02:19pm

But doesnt something like this imply:
"I (Bush) dont know what i am doing and he (Kerry) doesnt know either. So vote for me !!"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-20 02:23pm

Actually, the most accurate George Bush campaign platform on terror and Iraq would be: "Kerry can't prove he can dig us out of the hole I made, so vote for me!"

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-20 02:25pm

'Kerry can't defeat a concept that is ingrained into our species. Therefore, follow me in continuing to throw money, lives, and diplomatic leverage into the black hole that is my war.'

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-20 02:54pm

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, the most accurate George Bush campaign platform on terror and Iraq would be: "Kerry can't prove he can dig us out of the hole I made, so vote for me!"

I don't think I've ever heard Bush's campaign summed up quite so elegently.

Ryoga · Post by **Ryoga** » 2004-10-20 03:40pm

Anyone remember when the RNC rolled around, and Bush said on Monday that he could win the War on Terror, then the very same week backpedalled and said that it couldn't be won by anyone? And now he's implying that not only will Kerry not win, but by extension he can.

Which candidate is the flip-flopper here?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-20 03:51pm

Ryoga wrote:Anyone remember when the RNC rolled around, and Bush said on Monday that he could win the War on Terror, then the very same week backpedalled and said that it couldn't be won by anyone? And now he's implying that not only will Kerry not win, but by extension he can.

Which candidate is the flip-flopper here?

You've got to love how a well thought out and intelligent comment from Bush can get dumbed down so badly and then abused.

Bush's actual comment was that there might well be no formal peace treaty or the like in the War on Terror, and that there is no defining benchmark for a win. Not that it's impossible to win. Call that a flip-flop is you wish, but I don't think it's close.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-10-20 03:53pm

"Kerry is probably unable to defeat terrorism. I have proven myself to be incapable of deafeating terrorism. So go with the experience, and vote for me!"

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-20 04:00pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Ryoga wrote:Anyone remember when the RNC rolled around, and Bush said on Monday that he could win the War on Terror, then the very same week backpedalled and said that it couldn't be won by anyone? And now he's implying that not only will Kerry not win, but by extension he can.

Which candidate is the flip-flopper here?
You've got to love how a well thought out and intelligent comment from Bush can get dumbed down so badly and then abused.

Bush's actual comment was that there might well be no formal peace treaty or the like in the War on Terror, and that there is no defining benchmark for a win. Not that it's impossible to win. Call that a flip-flop is you wish, but I don't think it's close.

If there's no benchmark for a win, then it's impossible to create a set of objectives that you wish to attain. You're only left with "Kill as many terrorists as possible," which is a meaningless and ambiguous objective. So yeah, you can "win" the War on Terror if you keep killing terrorists, but it's not like it means jack-shit.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-10-20 04:17pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Ryoga wrote:Anyone remember when the RNC rolled around, and Bush said on Monday that he could win the War on Terror, then the very same week backpedalled and said that it couldn't be won by anyone? And now he's implying that not only will Kerry not win, but by extension he can.

Which candidate is the flip-flopper here?
You've got to love how a well thought out and intelligent comment from Bush can get dumbed down so badly and then abused.

Welcome to the Democratic Party.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-20 04:31pm

Stormbringer wrote:You've got to love how a well thought out and intelligent comment from Bush can get dumbed down so badly and then abused.

That's pretty ironic coming from a Bush supporter, since most of the Bush campaign is based on either oversimplifying Kerry's words and actions or oversimplifying the issues underlying the War in Iraq.

Of course, I suppose you might say that you're not so much a Bush supporter as a Kerry hater, although I don't see what difference that makes in a two-party system.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-20 04:34pm

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, the most accurate George Bush campaign platform on terror and Iraq would be: "Kerry can't prove he can dig us out of the hole I made, so vote for me!"

Or, to translate from Bushspeak: "I give you fear in a handful of dust."

Ryoga · Post by **Ryoga** » 2004-10-20 04:54pm

Stormbringer wrote:
You've got to love how a well thought out and intelligent comment from Bush can get dumbed down so badly and then abused.

Bush's actual comment was that there might well be no formal peace treaty or the like in the War on Terror, and that there is no defining benchmark for a win. Not that it's impossible to win. Call that a flip-flop is you wish, but I don't think it's close.

You don't?

Well, that's a shame. See, where I come from, when you say that you can do something, then say that it's impossible to do, all in the span of a week, that's a flip-flop.

Of course, I bet before there's even two pages worth of stuff here that someone will pipe up 'omglol kerry does it too' and mention something he said back in 1992....

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-21 09:18pm

Ryoga wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
You've got to love how a well thought out and intelligent comment from Bush can get dumbed down so badly and then abused.

Bush's actual comment was that there might well be no formal peace treaty or the like in the War on Terror, and that there is no defining benchmark for a win. Not that it's impossible to win. Call that a flip-flop is you wish, but I don't think it's close.
You don't?

Well, that's a shame. See, where I come from, when you say that you can do something, then say that it's impossible to do, all in the span of a week, that's a flip-flop.

Of course, I bet before there's even two pages worth of stuff here that someone will pipe up 'omglol kerry does it too' and mention something he said back in 1992....

Bah. John Stewart's Bush vs Bush showed Dubya to be a flip-flopper by showing parts of his speeches from his 2000 campaign and his 2002 (IIRC) speeches to the nation. Even if Kerry changed his positions over 12 years, Bush did it over 2. Who's the flip-flopper now?

(note: the clip is available at Comedy Central's website in RealMedia, or at On Lisa Rein's Radar in .mov, .mp3, and uncompressed aiff formats)

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-21 09:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:That's pretty ironic coming from a Bush supporter, since most of the Bush campaign is based on either oversimplifying Kerry's words and actions or oversimplifying the issues underlying the War in Iraq.

As you said, I'm not a Bush supporter. And I don't agree with Bush's tactics of distorting what Kerry's said and done. I do think Kerry has legitimate issues with his record and his campaign, but that's entirely seperate from what Bush has said.

Darth Wong wrote:Of course, I suppose you might say that you're not so much a Bush supporter as a Kerry hater, although I don't see what difference that makes in a two-party system.

It's enough that I didn't vote for either one of them. For me ABB and ABK aren't good enough reasons to get my vote.

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-10-21 09:31pm

I think that we can all safely agree that NO ONE is capable of winning the War on Terror. The best you can hope for is to maintain the status quo. Because if you keep pushing it, both sides are going lose. And lose big time.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-21 09:34pm

weemadando wrote:I think that we can all safely agree that NO ONE is capable of winning the War on Terror. The best you can hope for is to maintain the status quo. Because if you keep pushing it, both sides are going lose. And lose big time.

NUKEY NUKEY NUKEY

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-21 09:36pm

weemadando wrote:I think that we can all safely agree that NO ONE is capable of winning the War on Terror. The best you can hope for is to maintain the status quo. Because if you keep pushing it, both sides are going lose. And lose big time.

Winning in the sense of a nice little treaty, no way. Winning in the sense that these organized, state sponsored groups can't operate at all, yes. There's not point in pretending it'll be easy but with the right sort of diplomatic and military action it can be done.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Bush: Kerry Unable to Win War on Terror

Bush: Kerry Unable to Win War on Terror

Re: Bush: Kerry Unable to Win War on Terror