Posted on 08/31/2004 11:11:21 AM PDT by ejdrapes
Bush: Against Winning War on Terror Before He Was For It, Says Kerry-Edwards 2004 To: National Desk, Political Reporter Contact: Chad Clanton or Phil Singer, both of Kerry-Edwards 2004, 202-464-2800; Web: http://www.johnkerry.com WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by Kerry-Edwards 2004: BUSH FLIP-FLOPS ON WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR: Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said: "What today showed is that George Bush might be able to read a speech saying we can win the war on terror, but as we saw yesterday, he's clearly got real doubts about his ability to do so and with good reason. "This President has gone from mission accomplished to mission miscalculated to mission impossible on the war on terror. We need a leader who knows we can win the war on terror and has a plan to do it. America can do better than a go-it-alone foreign policy that has alienated key allies, leaving U.S. troops bearing the overwhelming burden in Iraq and U.S. taxpayers shouldering the bulk of the cost." BUSH ON THE ATTACK BECAUSE, CAN'T TALK ABOUT HIS RECORD BUSH DISTORTS KERRY POSITION ON REDEPLOYMENT Bush Distorts Kerry's Position. While the Bush campaign continues to distort Kerry's position, Kerry in fact believes that now would be a dangerous time to pull troops out of nuclear- armed North Korea and further fray our alliances in Europe at a time when we need them more then ever. Bush and Cheney themselves have pointed to the need to keep our troops in the Korean Peninsula. What Kerry said in early August was: "IF THE DIPLOMACY THAT I BELIEVE CAN BE PUT IN PLACE CAN WORK, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps." Unfortunately, with Bush's failures in Korea and with our alliances around the world, we don't have the diplomacy right at this point. (This Week, August 1, 2004) Bush: "And I'm not -- I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the Korea Peninsula, not only to keep the peace in Peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO." (Bush, 10/11/00) Cheney Said Danger Posed By North Korea Requires U.S. Presence. Cheney: "'In view of the dangers of nuclear proliferation in North Korea and the destabilizing impact on Northeast Asia -- and as a result of our consultations -- we have concluded that it would be unwise to proceed with major U.S. force reduction,' he said. 'We have therefore postponed the next round of force level adjustments being considered for Korea until the dangers and uncertainties of the North Korean nuclear program have been thoroughly addressed.'" (UPI, 11/21/91) BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION White House Threatened to Veto $87 Billion. The White House threatened to veto the $87 billion supplemental bill. 'If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,' Joshua B. Bolten, the White House budget director, wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders." They also threatened a veto if full health benefits were given to TRICARE In a letter to Congressional conferees on the $87 billion bill, "In particular, if the President is presented a bill that authorizes concurrent receipt or military retirement pay and veterans disability compensation benefits, or expands TRICARE, then I would join other advisors to the President in recommending that he veto a bill." (Rumsfeld letter, 7/6/03; New York Times, 10/22/03) BUSH SENT TROOPS INTO HARM'S WAY WITHOUT EQUIPMENT Even in Mid-June, Soldiers Lacking Armored Vehicles. "The problem with unarmored Humvees in combat situations continues to be an issue. In early March, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, questioned Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee about the shortage of body armor and fortified Humvees for troops serving in Iraq. Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said after a visit to Iraq in mid-June that U.S. forces still need better armored equipment. Of the 15,000 Humvees in Iraq, about 1,500 to 2,000 are armored, according to the Army." On General who was in Iraq said, "we're short of the proper body armor. Everybody had flack jackets and some body armor, but not the new body armor. They showed us the schedule, and said it was going to be done. They was short at that time, I believe, around 1,400 up-armored Humvees that were coming into the country, and the body armor was on schedule. So these shortage will drastically come down, but it does leave you wondering why couldn't we have done this before the war, and we simply didn't." (CNN, 3/14/04; Portland Press Herald, 7/2/04) KERRY AGREES WITH POWELL ON FLAG AMENDMENT Kerry believes in protecting the flag AND the first amendment. As such, he advocates for penalizing flag desecration, but not via a constitutional amendment. Gen. Colin Powell on a Flag Burning Amendment: In a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, Powell wrote: "I love our flag, our Constitution and our country with a love that has no bounds. I defended all three for 35 years as a soldier and was willing to give my life in their defense. I understand how strongly so many of my fellow veterans and citizens feel about the flag and I understand the powerful sentiment in state legislatures for such an amendment. I feel the same sense of outrage. But I step back from amending the Constitution to relieve that outrage. .. If I were a member of Congress, I would not vote for the proposed amendment and would fully understand and respect the views of those who would. For or against, we all love our flag with equal devotion. ( Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, 3-18-1999) John Kerry on Penalizing Flag Desecration: "As a former prosecutor I know that most flag burning incidents can be prosecuted under existing law. If a person burns a flag that belongs to the Federal Government -- that constitutes destruction of Federal property, which is a crime." (Congressional Record, 12-12-95) John Kerry on Amending the Constitution: "The Constitution has been amended only 16 times in the 198 years since the Bill of Rights was ratified. No amendment has ever limited the Bill of Rights itself." (Congressional Record, 6-26-90) --- Paid for by Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc.
Sunday they were chanting "Liar liar pants on fire" so this is the next logical step in the progression.
ROTFL!!! And they call us dumb.
Gerry Ford lost an election over a similar gaffe ("Poland is not dominated by Soviet Russia" or some such thing). Lurch gets a free ride.
Goebbels.
So they think they can paint GWB as insufficiently committed to the WOT?
Idiots.
Everyone who has half a brain understands the President meant that there will be no final ending to the war on terror, no formal closing of hostilities. We will win this war, but we will have to keep on winning it.
This is hilarious. Do the Democrats really expect America to believe that the problem with George Bush is his lack of commitment to the WOT? What are all those protestors in New York screaming about then? I thought W was a War Monger. Now the Democrats want us to believe that he's really a pussy and that it's Kerry that is the real War Monger. THIS IS HILARIOUS!
The Rats might gain more traction if they played this for what it really is:
A simple verbal gaffe.
Please John Kerry, focus the rest of the campaign on the WOT. I'll bet if you hammer hard enough on it the public will realize how wrong they are. You could even win the election!
Seriously, this is the best they've got?
In the words of a comedian talking about his relatives, "somewhere there's a carnival running itself."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.