Speaking of Flip-Flops

[Joe Bauers]

Yesterday, George W. Bush said that the war on terrorism could not be won. Today, he insists that it can, and that we will win it.

Those who are so enamored of pointing out John Kerry flip-flops take note. This one's a doozy.

Perhaps it occurred to one of Bush's handlers that it might be a tad difficult persuading the Congress to turn over hundreds of billions annually on an enterprise that could not work; not to mention that it might be difficult to convince the American public to continue offering support to a leader who was convinced that something he was advocating was a lost cause.

Joe B.

[TimFreeh]

Your well reasoned argument has pushed my over the edge - I'm voting for Kerry. Keep up the great work.

[LK1]

Joe,
It's not a flip-flop, it's a "clarification". Don't you know the difference? Neither does Bush.

[sfloriII]

Paraphrasing Bush's spokesman, Bush's intention was to say that the war on terrorism will not be won in the conventional way. There will be no surrender or treates signed.

I heard that info on NPR Radio this morning.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by sfloriII

Paraphrasing Bush's spokesman, Bush's intention was to say that the war on terrorism will not be won in the conventional way. There will be no surrender or treates signed.

I heard that info on NPR Radio this morning.

So ... should we care about Bush's intentions, or what he really said?

Honestly, I don't CARE what Bush's intentions were in making the statement. He said what he said. Let's stop making excuses for the man, and dumbing down our expectations. Every time Bush makes a mistake, we are ALWAYS asked to swallow the excuse, and forgive. This administration could benefit from some accountability -- especially if Bush is going to serve another term.

While Bush's statement wasn't mindless -- I did find it sort of depressing, as if he was speaking in candor, and stating his real views, rather than simply staying on his political message like a robot. And it is depressing because the VIEW is depressing. Sort of like Jimmy Carter's "malaise" statement. And that was hung around Carter's neck like a dead cat...

-- Bokonon

[Old300D]

Simply put, a black pot should not be calling the kettle black. Of course Bush was right the war cannot be won in the "conventional" sense, but that statement makes him just as much a "flip-flopper" as Kerry.

[gemoore]

Originally Posted by Joe Bauers

Yesterday, George W. Bush said that the war on terrorism could not be won. Today, he insists that it can, and that we will win it.

Those who are so enamored of pointing out John Kerry flip-flops take note. This one's a doozy.

Perhaps it occurred to one of Bush's handlers that it might be a tad difficult persuading the Congress to turn over hundreds of billions annually on an enterprise that could not work; not to mention that it might be difficult to convince the American public to continue offering support to a leader who was convinced that something he was advocating was a lost cause.

Joe B.

I think we need to define terms. Is "terrorism" synonymous with the "war on terror"? What is the "war on terror"? How do YOU define the "war on terror"? And do YOU think it can be "won"?

I thought Lauer's question was stupid, and the president should have been quick enough to ask Lauer what he meant.

Frankly, I don't think we'll ever be able to prevent terrorism. If that's not winning the war on terrorism, so be it. But I think we can neutralize Bin Laden and al Qaeda. If that's winning the war on terrosim, so be it.

I don't think you should hang your ideological hat on a few words taken out of context in response to a dumb quesiton. To do so indicates that you're just looking for an excuse to vote against Bush.

If that's what you want to do, go ahead. Me, I'll pay more attention to the overwhelming body of evidence and actions since 9/11. That seems more reasonable and offers a better basis for how I cast my vote. (For Bush.)

[LK1]

Originally Posted by gemoore

I think we need to define terms. Is "terrorism" synonymous with the "war on terror"? What is the "war on terror"? How do YOU define the "war on terror"? And do YOU think it can be "won"?

I thought Lauer's question was stupid, and the president should have been quick enough to ask Lauer what he meant.

Frankly, I don't think we'll ever be able to prevent terrorism. If that's not winning the war on terrorism, so be it. But I think we can neutralize Bin Laden and al Qaeda. If that's winning the war on terrosim, so be it.

I don't think you should hang your ideological hat on a few words taken out of context in response to a dumb quesiton. To do so indicates that you're just looking for an excuse to vote against Bush.

If that's what you want to do, go ahead. Me, I'll pay more attention to the overwhelming body of evidence and actions since 9/11. That seems more reasonable and offers a better basis for how I cast my vote. (For Bush.)

At first I thought you were joking, kinda like asking us to define "what is, is" .
Then you go off on a tangent saying it's a dumb question, well if the president isn't smart enough to not respond to a dumb question what does that make him? Personally I didn't think it was a dumb question, and his answer was honest. I'm sure that won't happen again (sarcasm added)
As to Bush's actions since 9/11 I too will be casting my vote on those. Record setting deficits, attacking the WRONG country (see 9/11 report), a net loss of jobs for the first time since the Great Depression, 1.3 Million MORE Americans living in poverty, an assualt on the civil liberties of Americans (Patriot Act & Gay Marriage Amendment) etc,etc.
You want to judge John Kerry on his record, well let's judge Bush ON HIS.
A failed presidency that can only pander to the masses and buy their votes while burdening my children and grandchildren with the debt of his mismanagement. Bread and circuses, while Rome burns.

[gemoore]

Originally Posted by LK1

At first I thought you were joking, kinda like asking us to define "what is, is" .
Then you go off on a tangent saying it's a dumb question, well if the president isn't smart enough to not respond to a dumb question what does that make him? Personally I didn't think it was a dumb question, and his answer was honest. I'm sure that won't happen again (sarcasm added)
As to Bush's actions since 9/11 I too will be casting my vote on those. Record setting deficits, attacking the WRONG country (see 9/11 report), a net loss of jobs for the first time since the Great Depression, 1.3 Million MORE Americans living in poverty, an assualt on the civil liberties of Americans (Patriot Act & Gay Marriage Amendment) etc,etc.
You want to judge John Kerry on his record, well let's judge Bush ON HIS.
A failed presidency that can only pander to the masses and buy their votes while burdening my children and grandchildren with the debt of his mismanagement. Bread and circuses, while Rome burns.

Goodness. You have a lot of issues.

Now then ... let's take a look at Kerry's record in the Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Nuf said?

[Bokonon]

In this case, the excuse is that reporter asked a bad question that defied an easy answer.

Consider, however, that when John Kerry was recently asked a similar "gotcha" question about whether he would have voted for the use of force against Saddam Hussein knowing what he knew now about the state of the intelligence, etc., KERRY GOT MASSACRED for his lame answer.

And Kerry deserved it.

That's called political accountability.

And in my opinion, it is high time that we start holding Bush to a higher standard, rather than letting him off the hook all the time and blaming everyone but him for his administration's mistakes. It isn't always someone else's fault. Enough evasions. He is NOT just a plain ol' regular guy, swamped and awed by the office that has been bestowed on him ... He is the President of the United States, four years into the office, and it is about fargin' TIME that he grow in to it!

-- Bokonon

[LK1]

Originally Posted by gemoore

Goodness. You have a lot of issues.

Now then ... let's take a look at Kerry's record in the Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Nuf said?

Can't defend Bush so you change the subject. BTW, do you know how many pieces of legislation Dick Cheney introduced in HIS illustrious career in the Senate?

[KirkVining]

Flash! This just in from the convention!


The Republican Platform 2004

1. Altough we can't win the War on Terrorism, we are winning the War on Terrorism.

2. Jesus loves you and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

3. The United States should get out of the United Nations and our highest national priority is to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq.

4. "Standing tall for America" and being "Patriotic" means firing your workers and replacing them with illegal aliens, or firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body but the government has no place interfering with the right of multinational corporations to make decisions affecting all mankind.

6. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host, in which case it's an illness.

7. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

8. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for the Illinois Senate as a Republican.

9. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

10. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

11. HMO's and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart and require protection against lawsuits from greedy policyholders.

12. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy while providing health care to all Americans represents socialism.

13. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science but creationism should be taught in schools.

14. It is okay that the Bush family has done millions of dollars of business with the Bin Laden family.

15. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find bin Laden" diversion.

16. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is deeply patriotic and questioning it makes you an ally of terrorists.

17. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

18. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade are none of our business.

19. You support states' rights, except when the rights are something you don't agree with, like gay marriage, in which case the state is "out of control".

20. What John Kerry did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but what Bush did is irrelevant.

21. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

22. Affirmative action is wrong but it is OK for daddy and his friends to get GWB into Yale, the Texas Air National Guard, Harvard Business School, the Governorship of Texas and then have the Supreme Court appoint him President of the USA.

[Botnst]

Concerning Bush's original statement, it looked reasonable and accurate to me. I think they'd be dumb to back away from it. But never let it be said that politicians knowingly avoid over-explaining when they have a choice.

What metric would anybody (anybody? You?, you?) propose for determination of when teh war is ended? I think its when we shift from military to judicial response to threats.

B

[Zeitgeist]

Originally Posted by Botnst

What metric would anybody (anybody? You?, you?) propose for determination of when teh war is ended? I think its when we shift from military to judicial response to threats.
B

...oh, like we should've from the get-go?

[LK1]

The war on terror will be over when we are entirely self sufficient in energy production and we give the countries supporting terrorism (ummm Saudi Arabia anyone?) an ultimatum that says simply that either they're with us or against us, then bomb the living sh-t out of those that keep teaching hatred and fostering attacks against us and our allies.
Wait, that doesn't sound quite right. Eh, close enough.
The key is energy self sufficiency, yet nearing 3 years after 9/11 Georgie boy hasn't stood up and stated the obvious. I guess "War" in his book only requires that people die, not that they actually sacrifice.
How about a "no bid" contract to the first company that produces a 50 MPG Chevy Suburban?