rudy got the biggest cheer of the night

last night when he got a jab in on Kerry/Edwards when he said that Edwards’ “two americas” included a country where Kerry would vote for one thing, and then flip flop and vote against it.

“John Kerry’s record of inconsistent positions on combatting terrorism gives us no confidence he’ll pursue such a determined course,” Rudy said to applause.

So I wonder what he will say today, a day after Bush was grilled for saying that we will not win this war on terrorism, and then this morning saying that we will… and that we’re winning it.

what a difference a day can make.

so is this a flip or a flop?

do flip flops matter when it comes to Bush. is it a b-lip and not a flip?

does anything matter when it comes to dubya?

not finding wmd’s didnt matter.

not finding his guard records didnt matter.

the $455 billion deficit didnt matter.

not finding Osama didnt matter.

not really winning the election didnt matter.

is this two americas: one where Kerry would get crucified if he would have said that we couldnt win the war on terrorism, crucified again if he flip floped – but Bush can change his whole outlook overnight without criticism?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – President Bush said Tuesday “we will win” the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism over his earlier remark that victory may not be possible.

In a speech to the national convention of the American Legion, Bush said, “We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win.

That statement differed from Bush’s earlier comment, aired Monday in a pre-taped television interview, that “I don’t think you can win” the war on terror. That had Democrats running for the cameras to criticize Bush for being defeatist and flip-flopping from previous predictions of victory.

Associated Press

can the swift-boaters bail bush out on this one?

will instapundit totally ignore this like he ignored the president yesterday?

what will jeff jarvis say now that he agreed with what the president said yesterday about the futility of winning with war by saying “of course we cant (win the war on terrorism).”

a sentiment that was echoed by two commentors of this blog. our pal the Unsomnambulist said yesterday, “So, now I’m as equally distressed that our lesser of two evils morons known as ‘The Johns’ have decided to take up the mantra and say that THEY can win this bogus war on terror.


Now I’m tempted to vote Nader.”

does that mean that bush is an idiot for thinking we can win it?

wasnt communism and fascism crushed in its day?

what makes terrorism undefeatable? because it actually happened on our turf?

threaten to vote for ralph all you want Unsomnambulist, but i agree with kerry/edwards (and now Bush) that we can beat terrorism, and we are winning the fight.

greatest country in the world can defeat anything.

except lithuania in olympic hoops, apparently.

it was sk smith‘s birthday on saturday!

raptor blog + psychotic normalcy + metafilter + fags for bush

Leave a Reply