1st, Dubya tells Matt Lauer that we can't win the war on terror. And now, he's saying we misunderstood him, we can win the war on terror, in fact we are winning. Um, isn't this considered a flip-flop? A waffle, to coin a phrase from the Clinton days? What gives? You know they'd be all over Kerry's ass if he said this. C'mon, gimme a friggin' break!
2 comments:
I do not think this is a waffle or flip-flop as a clarification came soon thereafter. We ought to allow both candidates room to make statements that clarify previous comments without calling them wishy-washy or wafflers.
In the initial interview his entire statement indicated that he didn't think terrorism could be entirely defeated but we could create conditions that make it increasingly difficult for these groups to survive. Personally, that is perhaps the most cogent statement the President has ever made.
We all know this President is one of the worst communicators we've ever had. I think people on both sides of the aisle will agree to that. However, if we look at the first interview in its entirety and the statement at the VFW yesterday it is clear that they are not mutually exclusive. If we all agree that we cannot rid the world of terrorists then winning the war means marginalizing those actors. We have accomplished that goal so, depending on your willingness to separate an issue from a candidate, what he said is not a waffle or flip-flop -- it's simply a clarification.
Hey, I agree. My point is that if Kerry had made the same comment, and then the next day tried to explain it, he would have been torn apart by Bush and the media.
Post a Comment