PDA

View Full Version : OMG bush flip flop too! say it aint so Joe!



nAz
08-19-2004, 03:19 PM
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then Governor Bush said: "I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

2. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

3. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

4. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

5. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

6. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

7. Creation of the 9/11 Commission


BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

8. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

9. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

10. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

11. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

12. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

13. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

14. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

15. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold singing ceremony, 03/27/02]


www.americanprogress.org/...mp;b=42263 (http://www.americanprogress.org/...mp;b=42263)

this is not flip flopping it just growing with the times /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

nhp
08-19-2004, 06:41 PM
Lets not forget about Bush at first not wanting Condi Rice to testify to the 9/11 commission, then changing his mind about it.

Well, it seems Dubya flip-flops more than Kerry ever could. I wonder why we only hear about Kerry flip-flopping?

highsea
08-19-2004, 07:33 PM
These are pretty lame nAz. I'll take this one, the "WMD flip-flop" first.

First the interview in Poland:[ QUOTE ]
Q But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.<hr /></blockquote>The Russert interview:[ QUOTE ]
Russert: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

President Bush: Right.

Russert: That apparently is not the case.

President Bush: Correct.

Russert: How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses?

President Bush: The ... first of all, I expected to find the weapons. Sitting behind this desk making a very difficult decision of war and peace, and I based my decision on the best intelligence possible, intelligence that had been gathered over the years, intelligence that not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other countries thought were valid.

And I made a decision based upon that intelligence in the context of the war against terror. In other words, we were attacked, and therefore every threat had to be reanalyzed. Every threat had to be looked at. Every potential harm to America had to be judged in the context of this war on terror.

And I made the decision, obviously, to take our case to the international community in the hopes that we could do this achieve a disarmament of Saddam Hussein peacefully. In other words, we looked at the intelligence. And we remembered the fact that he had used weapons, which meant he had weapons. We knew the fact that he was paying for suicide bombers. We knew the fact he was funding terrorist groups. In other words, he was a dangerous man. And that was the intelligence I was using prior to the run up to this war.

And so we expected there to be stockpiles of weapons. But David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we’ll find out. That's what the Iraqi survey group - let me - let me finish here.

But David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons. He was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world.

And I made the decision to go to the United Nations.

By the way, quoting a lot of their data in other words, this is unaccounted for stockpiles that you thought he had because I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I believe it is essential - I believe it is essential - that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent. It's too late in this new kind of war, and so that's why I made the decision I made.

Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." "Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."

You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.

President Bush: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America.

Russert: In what way?

President Bush: Well, because he had the capacity to have a weapon, make a weapon. We thought he had weapons. The international community thought he had weapons. But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network.

It's important for people to understand the context in which I made a decision here in the Oval Office. I'm dealing with a world in which we have gotten struck by terrorists with airplanes, and we get intelligence saying that there is, you know, they want to harm America. And the worst nightmare scenario for any president is to realize that these kind of terrorist networks had the capacity to arm up with some of these deadly weapons, and then strike us.

And the President of the United States’ most solemn responsibility is to keep this country secure. And the man was a threat, and we dealt with him, and we dealt with him because we cannot hope for the best. We can't say, Let's don't deal with Saddam Hussein. Let's hope he changes his stripes, or let's trust in the goodwill of Saddam Hussein. Let's let us, kind of, try to contain him. Containment doesn't work with a man who is a madman.<hr /></blockquote>Now, we have been attacked in Iraq with Sarin artillery shell IED's, and have found other shells from pre-91 that contained Sarin. We have uncovered Centrifuges and other nuclear weapon production materials and records. According to Kay, we have found biological laboratories. Iraqi scientists were working in Libya on a nuclear bomb program.

So where's the flip flop? We didn't find "stockpiles?" The President didn't say we had found stockpiles in the interview in Poland. He said we found weapons and facilities. What about the (aborted) al-qaeda attack in Amman? 20 tons of chemical weapons in two trucks were seized. The terrorists admitted to working in Iraq with Zaqari for two years prior to the attacks.

Saddam Hussein was hell bent on getting a nuclear bomb. His enrichment program was active all the way up to 1995. As soon as International pressure relaxed, his programs in Iraq would have started back up right where they left off. If you don't believe this, you are a rube.

Let me ask you one simple question. Who do you think our enemies want to win this election? If you said Kerry, your right. Why would you want to elect the same person our enemies want?

I don't know why I bother beating a dead horse. Bush is going to lose, Kerry will win, the US will go back to the disastrous policies of Clinton. US defense will get another Democratic hatchet-job, nothing will change in the Mid-East, but you, Q, nhp, crawdaddio, Sid, and the rest of the monday-morning Bush bashing quarterbacks will all be deleriously happy, so I guess it'll be worth it.

Right up until the next attack.

-CM

crawdaddio
08-19-2004, 09:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
I don't know why I bother beating a dead horse. Bush is going to lose, Kerry will win, the US will go back to the disastrous policies of Clinton. US defense will get another Democratic hatchet-job, nothing will change in the Mid-East, but you, Q, nhp, crawdaddio, Sid, and the rest of the monday-morning Bush bashing quarterbacks will all be deleriously happy, so I guess it'll be worth it.

Right up until the next attack.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

First of all, you bash Kerry just as much, if not more than, anyone on this board bashes Bush. They all "flip-flop", they all lie, when it suits their goal.

So, when someone comes back and says "wait a minute, Bush changes his mind a lot too", all you can say is that the sources are "lame"?

These are troubling times. I, reluctantly, have to vote for Kerry, but I am not thrilled about it. The Bush "bravado" is only making our standing in the world worse, IMO.

I think we will NEVER win a "war" on terrorism the way we are trying to do it now. These groups are too far flung and numerous to hunt down. As we capture one cell, and stop some plot, there are many more springing up somewhere unseen. We need to re-think this war. Get to the root of this hatred. The problem is....americans just love a good war....war on communism, war on drugs, war on homelessnes (that one's going well), war on impoverished nations, war on terror.........on and on........

I don't have any good ideas on how to pursue this issue intelligently, which is why I am not running for office (and I'm not a multi-millionaire). I do believe that Bush has done a horrible job though, and would like to see anyone else in his chair.

Peace,
David

highsea
08-20-2004, 12:12 AM
David, this is what I constantly hear from the left these days. DENIAL. Denial that Saddam was a terrorist. Denial that he was trying to get a nuclear bomb. Bizarre conspiracy theories about 9/11, or that the Saudi's are controlling US foreign policy. Outright lies that the US was supporting the Taliban, or that we put Saddam in power. Claims that we were the main supplier of weapons to Iraq.

Oh, yeah the best of all, "It's just about the oil." Too bad the left can't explain why we didn't just take the oil in '91, or why we didn't just take Kuwait's oil while we were there. Or why oil is $48.00 a barrel, and gas is $2.30 a gallon. Or how we are stealing it when it goes on the world market, and the money goes into an Iraqi account.

When a Democrat gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, or some highranking terrorists are rounded up in Pakistan, it's "well, look at the timing". Forget that there is another terrorist behind bars, or a Kerry advisor should be, it's just "OMG! look at the timing!".

The truth is that I hate the hand-wringing distortion politics of the left. I spend more time setting the record straight with facts than anything else. Show me one comment I've made about Kerry that isn't true. Just one.

I was the first one here to criticize the administration for the intel scandal, though I pointed out it was largely due to a misguided attempt to diffuse one more "look at the timing" cry from the left about the Orange Alert. I was one of the first to criticize the MP's at Abu Graib.

I think Kerry is a wimp, and I've said so here. Maybe if I knew what he really stood for, I wouldn't say that, but I don't. All I can do is look at his Senate record, and it's not one I want in a wartime Commander in Chief.

Bush is not perfect, far from it, but at least I know where he stands, and when he says he's going to do something, he does it. He really screwed up the post-war situation in Iraq. He had no idea that the Iraqi Army would fold up so fast, and he was caught unprepared. I've criticized him for that, but it's a lot like monday-morning quarterbacking, and probably unfair of me to do it.

But the truth is, I don't trust Kerry to prosecute the war. I think he will bail out on the Iraqis, and pull out before Iraq is stabilized. The country will fall into civil war, and that's the worst thing that can happen in the region right now.

And I don't want 4 years of "Clinton Light". I don't want to see our policies towards Pakistan go back to what Clinton was doing. I don't want to be suckered by North Korea again.

The nuclear proliferation between Pakistan, North Korea, Libya and Iran was a direct result of Clinton turning his back on Pakistan, and appeasment towards Kim Jong Il. Now we have 40,000 troops on the Korean Peninsula standing in the way of NK's nuclear missiles. I don't like that.

Of the estimated 4,000 al-qaeda operatives in Afghanistan at the time of 9/11, 3,400 are dead or behing bars. The Taliban no longer are running Afghanistan, and they have elections coming up.

Sadam is behind bars, the Iraqis just finished selecting a 1,000 member council to oversee the elections there. So progress is being made. It's a slow and painful process, and we've made mistakes along the way, but we can't afford to back away now.

So go ahead and vote for Kerry, and tell all your friends to also. The move-on's, moore-ites, and media funders have succeded beyond their wildest expectations. I doubt there is anything Bush can do to save his Presidency. I just hope the Iraqis and Afghanis don't go down with him.

-CM

nhp
08-20-2004, 01:35 AM
Highsea, when did I ever say I wanted Kerry to win? I've said many times, that I don't like Bush OR Kerry. In all honesty, I doubt I'm going to vote. One guy that I really liked was McCain, and that's about it.

Bush and Kerry both have their faults. The job of liberals and conservatives is to bring out only the bad from the other party. Right wingers call Kerry a flip-flopper, but don't mention any flip-flops Bush is guilty of, and vice versa for the left-wingers.

highsea
08-20-2004, 02:03 AM
Oh hey, sorry nhp. You just left me with that impression. I would vote for McCain too. I've always had a lot of respect for him.

But you should vote anyway. If you don't want to vote for a President, don't, but there are always local issues you should weigh in on, as well as Congressional seats.

-CM

Wally_in_Cincy
08-20-2004, 06:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>

...The Bush "bravado" is only making our standing in the world worse, IMO....

<hr /></blockquote>

I disagree. At least we have somebody who is willing to take a stand (see "Ronald Reagan").

Our enemies might not like that, but believe me they respect it, even though they still hate us.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-20-2004, 06:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
Oh, yeah the best of all, "It's just about the oil." Too bad the left can't explain why we didn't just take the oil in '91, or why we didn't just take Kuwait's oil while we were there.

<font color="blue">Fortunately the "War for Oil" argument has died down, sinse the statement is indefensible. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

I think Kerry is a wimp, and I've said so here. Maybe if I knew what he really stood for, I wouldn't say that, but I don't. All I can do is look at his Senate record, and it's not one I want in a wartime Commander in Chief.

<font color="blue">Or peacetime for that matter. In peacetime his main goal would be to gut the military to pay for social programs. Like when Clinton was Prez and the Army literally did not have ammo to train with.

His anti-military voting record proves it. I honestly think, despite his constant references to "duty" and "the lessons I learned in war" and all that crap, I really think the guy "loathes the military". </font color>

Bush is not perfect, far from it, but at least I know where he stands, and when he says he's going to do something, he does it.

<font color="blue">yep </font color>

He really screwed up the post-war situation in Iraq. He had no idea that the Iraqi Army would fold up so fast, and he was caught unprepared. I've criticized him for that, but it's a lot like monday-morning quarterbacking, and probably unfair of me to do it.

<font color="blue">The battle plan rarely goes as planned. Afghanistan was the rare exception. </font color>

I doubt there is anything Bush can do to save his Presidency.

<font color="blue">I would not give up too quick. When is the last time a Mass. liberal was elected to the Presidency? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
08-20-2004, 06:40 AM
The first flip flop you offer does not even work, you are not even quoting the same person. Ha ha.... (White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02, President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02) I am sure they have had disagreements before. Heck, the white house might even agree with Ari, but that does not mean they don't go forward.

I guess the second one is fine. The third one definitely needs quite a bit more information. Did things change that would cause him to make a change.

How is 4 a flip flop. HELLO!!! Bush does not care where Osama is at, he still wants justice. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Boy you are stretching it big time.

What happened on 7, 8 or 9? You are quoting news sources, not Bush. LOL.

Like nothing really changed during the time span in #11.

Number 12 is absolutely not a flip flop but rather an inability to comprehend the english language. There is no difference between the two simply because they are both terrorists. THIS DOES NOT MEAN SADDAM WAS PART OF 9/11. Wow, naz, you could not read some of these and edit out the ones that make absolutely no sense.

I really don't see how 13 can be seen as a flip flop, as Bush was quite aware along with the UN that France was going to veto the vote. Bush had enough support so France was vetoing the vote. Why force a vote when the outcome will be suppressed. I guess you can see it as a flip flop, however this is a bit different than what has been done by Kerry. No events have happened that cause Kerry to change his mind other than the fact that he might be speaking to a different group of people.

I don't see 14 as a ff either. The first quote does not have Bush stating he is against involvement. I am beginning to think naz never even read some of these.

Naz if you are serious, then maybe you would look to find instances of Bush flip flopping that would be comparable to what Kerry is doing. Kerry changes his mind completely depending on who he is talking to. Kerry himself will tell you he voted for the war, then opposed it, yet now he would vote for it again. What on Bush do have that is remotely similar? One day Kerry is for removing troops from SK, 17 days later after Bush proposes this very thing, Kerry flip flops. The only thing that has changed in the last 17 days was Bush's announcement.

Now, there was one Bush flip flop you did not mention, and that was the pumping of the Great lakes. He opposed it sometime ago, and lately he has stated he would like to pump them to help areas of drought. Howerver for the sake of not flip flopping you would rather the areas in drought to just stay that way. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
08-20-2004, 06:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So, when someone comes back and says "wait a minute, Bush changes his mind a lot too", all you can say is that the sources are "lame"?
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, did you even see the rest of his post. It was quite lengthy and it said a lot more than just the single word "lame". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
We need to re-think this war. Get to the root of this hatred. The problem is....americans just love a good war....war on communism, war on drugs, war on homelessnes (that one's going well), war on impoverished nations, war on terror.........on and on........
<hr /></blockquote> That's it we are the problem. Nice job CD. The root of this hatred and 9/11 IS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE US LOVES A GOOD WAR!!!!! Wow you are on fire keep it up.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any good ideas on how to pursue this issue intelligently, which is why I am not running for office (and I'm not a multi-millionaire). I do believe that Bush has done a horrible job though, and would like to see anyone else in his chair. <hr /></blockquote> You have no thoughts on how to pursue intelligently, however you feel qualified enough to say Bush did a horrible job. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I wonder what those Iraqi soccer players think about the Olympics. The sarcasm was a bit odd also as it would lead the reader to believe one would have to be a multi-millionaire or run for office to be able to come up with some good ideas to intelligently fix the problem. I personally do not believe personal wealth has anything to do with the issues we are discussing.

eg8r

eg8r
08-20-2004, 07:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, it seems Dubya flip-flops more than Kerry ever could. I wonder why we only hear about Kerry flip-flopping? <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you list one and then make the statement that Bush flip-flops more than Kerry ever. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Good try. Naz posted a list and while some did show a difference most did not. Also, as far as the ones that Bush did show a difference (flip flop) it turns out that real events caused the change. There was a reason for them. Kerry has no reason.

Naz even added quotes from newspapers and pawned them off as Bush speaking. Here is a good example (quoted from WSJ OJ) of the problem with the newspapers making their own quotes to suit their needs. [ QUOTE ]
John Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, gave a speech yesterday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a group that, as the Washington Times notes, Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War called "a paramilitary, pro-war organization" back in the 1970s. What's interesting is how divergent are the reports of the reception Kerry received from the group. <font color="#666666"> Here is the liberal New York Times:

The veterans' group played host to both candidates this week--Mr. Bush spoke to them on Monday--as the two camps vie for the hearts and minds and votes of veterans, an important constituency in this election and one that has traditionally leaned Republican. This year, however, veterans seem more closely divided in their support of the two candidates. Today, the V.F.W. audience greeted Mr. Kerry with frequent applause, much as it had Mr. Bush on Monday. </font color>

<font color="brown"> But the conservative American Spectator reports (second item) that "Kerry is said by several advance staffers to have been visibly upset at the reception he received at the VFW convention on Wednesday in Cincinnati":

"He was upset after the speech, visibly upset when he was out of public view," says a Kerry adviser, confirming the story.

Kerry was greeted by polite applause in the large auditorium, with many VFW members sitting with their arms crossed and not applauding at all. A few VFW members stood in the rear of the room with their backs turned to the dais. . . .

"He's not used to not getting a warm reception," says the advance staffer. "He can handle the Bush hooligans we get, but when he's told he'll be greeted well, he expects that to be the case." </font color>

Who's right? <font color="green"> The Associated Press account is far closer to the Spectator's than the Times':

Kerry received a polite if not overwhelmingly positive reaction from the VFW. But there was a clear divide, with scores of veterans sittings with their arms folded while others clapped. </font color>

This is from the caption of a photo that shows two vets giving Kerry their backs. If a picture is worth a thousand words, the AP is 923 words more credible than the Times.
<hr /></blockquote>

Wow, 3 different newspapers with their own slant, and two remarkably different stories. The NYT (one of the most liberal in the business) is the only one that happened to believe Kerry was well received. What did the NYT see that no one else did. The AP is definitely much more liberal than the American Spectator, yet both of them have the report.

eg8r

Qtec
08-20-2004, 08:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Number 12 is absolutely not a flip flop but rather an inability to comprehend the english language. There is no difference between the two simply because they are both terrorists. THIS DOES NOT MEAN SADDAM WAS PART OF 9/11. <hr /></blockquote>

Lets get the facts straight. Saddam was not a terrorist, he was a brutal Dictator. There is no evidence to suggest that he was in any way involved in 9/11.
To suggest that suicide bombers 'do it for the money'is ludicrous. Saddam didnt start to 'compensate'the families of suicide bobmers until the Israelis resorted to punishing them by destroying their houses.ie 'collective punishment[an old favourite of the Nazi,s, which is against the Geneva Con.] For him it was a PR exercise, to show the Arabs that he was really a good guy, nothing to do with sponsering terrorism!

BTW, without being asked a direct question, GW has mention the name OBL only 4 times in 2 years!
Which begs the question; do they really want to catch him?

Q [ dont hear much of Saddam anymore either.My bet is he never makes it to trial.]

cheesemouse
08-20-2004, 08:12 AM
I did not have time to read all this munbo jumbo and lucky me it doesn't make any difference...those of us who feel strongly one way or the other cancell each other out...this election is going to be decided by a very small slice of the pie, those who don't have a clue, those voters who walk into the booth and at the last minute scratch their heads and then just vote on some whim....how do you like it!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
08-20-2004, 08:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Lets get the facts straight. Saddam was not a terrorist, he was a brutal Dictator. <hr /></blockquote> You obviously have a different definition of "terrorist" than the rest of the world. Don't call your loose interpretation, a fact.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no evidence to suggest that he was in any way involved in 9/11.
<hr /></blockquote> Who said there was?

[ QUOTE ]
To suggest that suicide bombers 'do it for the money'is ludicrous. <hr /></blockquote> Nobody said they were. Are you having some sort of arugment with yourself? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam didnt start to 'compensate'the families of suicide bobmers until the Israelis resorted to punishing them by destroying their houses.ie 'collective punishment[an old favourite of the Nazi,s, which is against the Geneva Con.] For him it was a PR exercise, to show the Arabs that he was really a good guy, nothing to do with sponsering terrorism!
<hr /></blockquote> Wow, that is great PR, all the suicide bombers think Saddam is swell. LOL That is some great company in which to align yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, without being asked a direct question, GW has mention the name OBL only 4 times in 2 years!
Which begs the question; do they really want to catch him?
<hr /></blockquote> Your question is pointless, why does it matter how many times YOU have seen Bush say OBL?

[ QUOTE ]
dont hear much of Saddam anymore either.My bet is he never makes it to trial. <hr /></blockquote> I hope the Iraqis call your bet and deal with him appropriately.

Wow, another entire by Q that has nothing to do with the subject matter.

eg8r

eg8r
08-20-2004, 08:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
how do you like it!!! <hr /></blockquote> It is not a matter of whether anyone likes it or not.

eg8r

Qtec
08-20-2004, 09:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Lets get the facts straight. Saddam was not a terrorist, he was a brutal Dictator. <hr /></blockquote> You obviously have a different definition of "terrorist" than the rest of the world. Don't call your loose interpretation, a fact.

<font color="blue">No. GW has a different interpretation on 'terrorism'than the rest of the world. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
There is no evidence to suggest that he was in any way involved in 9/11.
<hr /></blockquote> Who said there was?
<font color="blue"> Well I,m glad we cleared up that point of dis-information. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
To suggest that suicide bombers 'do it for the money'is ludicrous. <hr /></blockquote> Nobody said they were. Are you having some sort of arugment with yourself? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
<font color="blue">Sponsering implies that the act[ bombing/playing in a pool tourny] wouldnt happen without the cash input. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Saddam didnt start to 'compensate'the families of suicide bobmers until the Israelis resorted to punishing them by destroying their houses.ie 'collective punishment[an old favourite of the Nazi,s, which is against the Geneva Con.] For him it was a PR exercise, to show the Arabs that he was really a good guy, nothing to do with sponsering terrorism!
<hr /></blockquote> Wow, that is great PR, all the suicide bombers think Saddam is swell. LOL That is some great company in which to align yourself.
<font color="blue">I dont think so eg8r, all the suicide bombers are dead. He gains support from the Arabs for his support for the Palestinians against the Israelis.[ who are backed by the the US] Starting to get the picture?
Please , do me a favour. Dont put words in my mouth. I have always said I am against violence. Just because I can understand somones motives, doesnt mean to say that I agree with their actions. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
BTW, without being asked a direct question, GW has mention the name OBL only 4 times in 2 years!
Which begs the question; do they really want to catch him?
<hr /></blockquote> Your question is pointless, why does it matter how many times YOU have seen Bush say OBL?
<font color="blue">Doesnt it matter to you? The guy responsible for bringing down the TTs and bringing the US to a halt is not important? With the recent Alert some cities were in chaos [eg Washington,] all because of this guy. What does GW do, he heads off to Iraq! Saddam is the bad guy , not OBL. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
dont hear much of Saddam anymore either.My bet is he never makes it to trial. <hr /></blockquote> I hope the Iraqis call your bet and deal with him appropriately.

Wow, another entire by Q that has nothing to do with the subject matter.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>



GWs FF n OBL is the biggest and the least mentioned.

Q

eg8r
08-20-2004, 09:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well I,m glad we cleared up that point of dis-information. <hr /></blockquote> There was no dis-information for you to clear up. It was never there so what did you clear up. LOL This is like two guys looking at a clear bottle of water. One guy says thank god the mud is no longer in the water, and the second guy says there was never any mud in the water. The first guy replies, see you agree it is good the mud is gone.

[ QUOTE ]
Sponsering implies that the act[ bombing/playing in a pool tourny] wouldnt happen without the cash input. <hr /></blockquote> You could not be more wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think so eg8r, all the suicide bombers are dead. He gains support from the Arabs for his support for the Palestinians against the Israelis.[ who are backed by the the US] Starting to get the picture? <font color="blue"> You are not a good painter, and it all looks like a blob. The families are the ones benefitting. More often than naught they probably approved of their family member's doing. I personally believe Saddam giving money to the suicide bombers family is no better than Hitler paying his soldiers to kill Jews. I am sure Saddam would not approve of the picture you are trying to paint for him, but maybe he is equally as twisted and might not care. </font color>
Please , do me a favour. Dont put words in my mouth. <font color="blue"> What words are you referring to. </font color> I have always said I am against violence. Just because I can understand somones motives, doesnt mean to say that I agree with their actions. <font color="blue"> Your disagreement with their actions is getting hidden by something. You come across as promoting their actions with your false justifications for the actions. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Doesnt it matter to you? <hr /></blockquote> The veritable quantity of the number of times that Bush has said the words Osama bin Laden does not matter to me. I don't care if he never said the mans name again. The actual utterance of a man's name means nothing. Well, I take that back, for people with such a strong agenda as yourself, I guess if you want to bottom feed on trivial information such as this, it might mean something. Even at that lowly of a level, I would still not add a whole lot of weight.

[ QUOTE ]
The guy responsible for bringing down the TTs and bringing the US to a halt is not important? <hr /></blockquote> Ah ha. Now you have changed things. Bush has never ever said the man's actions were not important. Please don't confuse yourself, you presented the fact that it bothers you that the name has not been said. Stick to your own subject before you get anymore screwed up. Your post mentioned the fact that Bush does not say the name, NOT that Bush feels OBL's actions are anymore or less important as time has continued.

[ QUOTE ]
With the recent Alert some cities were in chaos [eg Washington,] all because of this guy. What does GW do, he heads off to Iraq! Saddam is the bad guy , not OBL. <hr /></blockquote> Once again what is your point? Whether there is an alert or not that does not mean OBL will be stopping by the White House, so what exactly are you trying to say? Because there is an alert (to remind you, there have been many since 9/11) Bush should be grounded?

[ QUOTE ]
GWs FF n OBL is the biggest and the least mentioned.
<hr /></blockquote> Hey look at that, Q's made an attempt to get back on the subject. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

crawdaddio
08-20-2004, 11:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
That's it we are the problem. Nice job CD. The root of this hatred and 9/11 IS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE US LOVES A GOOD WAR!!!!! Wow you are on fire keep it up.

<hr /></blockquote>

Yes, the things we do in the world are the problem. The hatred for america (thus, 911) is caused by our repeated attempts (and some successes) to aid in, or directly overthrow governments and dictators that we deem bad for our economy. We have yet again only fueled the fire.

[ QUOTE ]
The sarcasm was a bit odd also as it would lead the reader to believe one would have to be a multi-millionaire or run for office to be able to come up with some good ideas to intelligently fix the problem. I personally do not believe personal wealth has anything to do with the issues we are discussing. <hr /></blockquote>

One does have to be VERY wealthy to run for office. Wealth does not have to do with this issue, however to get any of your, or any other ideas implemented one would have to have a boatload of cash or hold office, or both. That was my point.

Peace,
David

P.S. Thank you for once again responding in a very prickish manner.

eg8r
08-20-2004, 12:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the things we do in the world are the problem. The hatred for america (thus, 911) is caused by our repeated attempts (and some successes) to aid in, or directly overthrow governments and dictators that we deem bad for our economy. We have yet again only fueled the fire. <hr /></blockquote> I hate to say it but I think you might just be a bit insane. You are the first person I have read here on the CCB that blames the US for what happened on 9/11. Good job, you are a stand up guy.

[ QUOTE ]
One does have to be VERY wealthy to run for office. Wealth does not have to do with this issue, however to get any of your, or any other ideas implemented one would have to have a boatload of cash or hold office, or both. That was my point. <hr /></blockquote> OK, but so what? The thread is about Bush and Kerry's flip-flops.

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. Thank you for once again responding in a very prickish manner. <hr /></blockquote> Don't be so sensitive.

eg8r

Fair_Play
08-20-2004, 02:54 PM
George W. has gotten far too close to JFK-Heinz, and some of the flip-flop splashed on him. I understand that there are already Kerry plans to be self-awarded the Medal of Freedom based upon his successful ad hominem attacks on shipmates who do not quite agree with his version of reality... lets see, one truthful dude who repeatedly changes his story, against how many vets who were there???
And, the 'Medal of Freedom' just might help knock out the 21 Medal of Honor winners, who do not see him as fit to lead our nation.
I will say that the guy has come a long way since living in a one bedroom walk-up - I guess that was due to his great record in the senate, and his (finally) recognized valor for back shooting a wounded teenager. He makes the claims, but refuses to release the records.....???
Best Regards,
Fair Play

nhp
08-20-2004, 03:03 PM
I am comfortable with the fact that Bush and Kerry BOTH flip-flop, and I don't like either of them. I am afraid that if Bush serves his second term, he's going to accidentally nuke the entire world. I am afraid that if Kerry gets elected, he's going to let someone else nuke the entire world.

highsea
08-20-2004, 03:41 PM
Nat, this is what a friend of mine in Pakistan has to say about it. His english is not great, but you can get the idea. He is a Captain in the Army there.

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. Karry has written trouble &amp; bad news all over his face (Thats y his face looks so ugly sorry just a joke). Anyways he is bad news for Iraq, for Pakistan, for middle east, may be even for Afghanistan. Bad news for communist world specialy China. God Dam these democrates, make their presence feel like they are the heros when in reality they are as bad as the next guy.

Democrates make their enemies very angry n try to move them away by scaring them, by putting sanctions on them &amp; Republicans remove their enemies n replace them with their friends. I think Republican way is much better. Atleast America's enemies turn into its friends.<hr /></blockquote>

Just another perspective. To be fair, I should point out that Clinton's policies towards Pakistan are still pretty fresh in their minds.

-CM

crawdaddio
08-20-2004, 04:21 PM
Here you go, back to the topic at hand:

[ QUOTE ]
While the press corps applies microscopic scrutiny to Kerry's statements, looking for evidence of misstatements or "flip-flops," Bush gets little criticism for making blatantly false assertions. Last July (7/14/03), Bush revised the history of the run-up to the Iraq war, claiming that Saddam Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq in late 2002: "Did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Of course, Iraq did allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country in November 2002; they were withdrawn when war was imminent in March 2003.

..........Bush's record is full of similar untrue statements: His claim that Enron's Ken Lay supported Bush's opponent in his 1994 gubernatorial race, when Lay actually contributed three times as much to Bush (ABC World News Tonight, 1/10/02); his insistence that the White House was not responsible for the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the U.S.S. Lincoln (New York Times, 10/29/03); his statement that in 2002 the economy "was pulling out of a recession that began before I took office" (when it actually started in March 2001-- Slate, 12/30/02); his assertion in a 2000 debate that in his tax cut plan, "by far the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder," when the bottom 50 percent really got roughly 10 percent of the benefits (Extra!, 1-2/01); his boast that "I've been to war" (Associated Press, 1/27/02)-- to list just a few. <hr /></blockquote>

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kerry-bush.html

Fair_Play
08-20-2004, 07:22 PM
Very good points indeed! God forbid the President of the United States has a banner, for any reason! It is a shame that the previous post is not in the hands of the Heinz Edwards HQ!
So the Bush was found not to have been AWOL, aftr all, what a cryin' shame... The "Irishman" Kelly (oops) Kerrey,
well, he just has the Bush beat all to heck and back, with his self awarded medals, with his cunning plan (to never release any of his military records - what is he afraid of??) to continue the fakery that has been his hallmark. The flip floppery is the least of our worries with this guy. What a 'gentleman' indeed. He wants to have his cake, eat it, and then be given ours.
Fair_Play