Mission Accomplished! Mission Miscalculated! Mission Impossible! Mission uh..Possible! The unwavering message.
"I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it."-- Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry.
Legislators change their votes all the time. This isn't unique to John Kerry. After 19 years in the Senate, he's bound to be on both sides of many issues. Also, legislators vote on bills with many, many provisions, having to go along with some they don't like in order to get the ones they do. This inherently creates inconsistencies. It's unavoidable. But the "war" on terror? In the course of a couple of days, President Bush admitted it is unwinnable, then has gone on a rhetorical campaign saying it we're going to win it. Fighting terror is the central issue of his campaign, and he can't even get this right? Why would anyone on either side of the aisle want this guy in charge?
Did you see the entire interview? I did. As usual, the radical media took his remarks out of context. If you listen to the entire interview he said, and Matt Lauer confired this, this morning, that the war on terrorism is unwinnable in the conventional sense. There will be no surrender, terrorism will not be eradicated, there will be no peace treaties, etc.
So did I. Umm... precisely what "radical media" would you be referring to, Jimmy? The media in this country is decidedly right of center, with the FOX NEWS CHANNEL being the decidedly worst of the bunch... a point I made in the third part of this post. Hmm. That's odd. I watched the entire interview and that's not what the President said at all; and nothing he said from the moment of his gaffe all the way to the end of the interview could even remotely be interpreted in the way you've described or that you claim Mr. Lauer has confirmed; nor did a single thing he said before that moment support such an interpretation. But wait, it gets worse: Scanning the President's exact words from that fateful interview, I don't even find the phrase "conventional sense." Or the word "surrender." Or the phrase "peace treaties." Or even "etc." Wouldn't you think that if that's what the President actually meant, and what Mr. Lauer confirmed, then at least one of those words or phrases would be in there somewhere, somehow? Just once? Hmm? But, hey, don't take my word for it. Let's go stright to the source, shall we? Lauer: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years? President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years. Lauer: So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that? President Bush: I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way. I have a two-pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness and must continue to lead. To find Al-Qaeda affiliates who are hiding around the world and want to harm us and bring ’em to justice — we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the Al Qaedaas we knew it. The longterm strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. There's some who say, ‘You know certain people can't self-govern and accept, you know, a formal democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place. Lauer's next question, as one can clearly see by viewing the source, was in regard to the President's daughters... an entirely new subject. Alas, another perfectly tellable tall tale foiled by a witness. And they say Kerry's a flip-flopper.
First of all poll after poll after poll shows the overwhelming support of Kerry by the nation's media--editorial endorsements, etc. Second, this is not the complete interview. Third, Matt Lauer, interviewed by Tim Russert, said exactly what I said he said.
Source, please. What I quoted and linked-to in my post, above, is exactly what was broadcast on TV. Indeed, as with all taped interviews, what was broadcast was probably edited. Fine. Provide a link to the unedited, raw interview and I'll bet dollars to donuts the net result of the President's message will be the same. Link, please. No surprise there. Lauer, as I recall, is a Republican; and is part of the right-of-center media which would clearly prefer that Bush be re-elected.
It's odd how you want the "source" and when I give it you discount Lauer who conducted the interview and should know what Bush said. You Bush haters will do and say anything to obfuscate the facts!
Ah, yes... the old "you'll say anything" critique. Matt Lauer cannot possibly be "the source." He's the "reporter" (and I use the term loosely) who conducted a taped interview that was then edited for time (and, to some degree, for content, I'm sure), and that was then broadcast on the NBC (and, later, on the MS-NBC) television (and cable) network(s). The transcript of that interview -- or of any interview, for that matter... warts and all -- would be said interview's "source" for purposes such as ours, here. Whatever spin someone like Matt Lauer subsequently puts on it should never be considered "the source." Say... uh... Jimmy... you're not this sloppy about what consitutes "source" material when you're preaching the Gospel, are you? Be careful, there, Jimmy. "Obfuscation" is a serious charge among those of us who value truth and clarity. "Bush hater," I'll wear; but not "obfuscator." I can't speak for other Bush haters, but I, for one, am very careful about making sure I can back-up anything I present as fact (as opposed to stuff I present as opinion) around here. I carefully research and then cite and link-to generously... or, if I don't, you can damn well be sure that I could if I had to. You, on the other hand, refer to (not even quote, but merely refer to) Monday-morning spin from the likes of Matt Lauer. I'm completely prepared to be judged on the quality and reliability of my due diligence. Are you? Oh... by the way... here's some reading I thought you'd like.
