GWB flipflops too soon - says he never said "Stay the Course"

[kurto]

But the search was just a red herring anyways.

I'm too lazy to look them up, but there are quotes out there from both Condelezza Rice and Colin Powell from talks given prior to 9/11 where both admitted that Saddam was defanged and not a threat to anyone.

As everyone has heard and people within the administration have admitted... the people who ended up in the administration wanted to go into Iraq prior to 9/11. Many goals were stated none of which involved disarming a man who was already disarmed.

Based on Bluffthis's Omaha posts, I know the guy is fairly smart. I believe for many of his political posts he is either being disingenuous or drops his rationality when the 'religion' of his politics is discussed.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Just the other day a senior administration official (not a Democratic critic) said that the policy has been arrogant and stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

link? Proof?

Everyone in this thread is ripping apart Bush & Bluffthis!. Ok, I have a question, what types of 'changes' in Iraq would vindicate Bush of your claims of inflexibility? I mean my brother is over there right now and he has certainly told me of new techniques they've tried when it comes to IED's an information gathering. I'd have to talk to him in more detail but you guys really need to set a benchmark before you can complain about him being rigged. Until you set that benchmark then it seems to me you guys are only ripping on a man that has poor communication skills.

Andyfox, you keep bringing up pre-war iraq stuff. Ok, fine. But as far as I know Bush's "stay the course" was for Iraq and to convince the Iraqi people we wouldn't abandon them like last time. Many Iraqi's got slaughtered in the revolt. So your pre-war comments are irrelevant to his "stay the course" regardless of whether or not your complaints are valid.

Everyone knows that I think Bush is probably the most damaging president in history but I simply don't see this "stay the course" thing as a valid complaint..... yet. We are in there and we aren't leaving, so what should we be doing that we aren't?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just the other day a senior administration official (not a Democratic critic) said that the policy has been arrogant and stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

link? Proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ferandez Apologizes for Iraq Remarks

Andy had a thread relating to this remark here:

If Recognizing a Problem is the First Step Towards Solving It . . .



[ QUOTE ]
Everyone in this thread is ripping apart Bush & Bluffthis!. Ok, I have a question, what types of 'changes' in Iraq would vindicate Bush of your claims of inflexibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good question and I see some Democrats are actually starting to engage in a debate about the course of Iraq. The WSJ had an op-ed piece by Joe Biden and some other gentleman who's name escapes me that present that is worthwhile reading IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean my brother is over there right now and he has certainly told me of new techniques they've tried when it comes to IED's an information gathering. I'd have to talk to him in more detail but you guys really need to set a benchmark before you can complain about him being rigged. Until you set that benchmark then it seems to me you guys are only ripping on a man that has poor communication skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you but I think the reasons for the complaints are that the course for reaching a stable situation is not clear at this time.

[ QUOTE ]
Andyfox, you keep bringing up pre-war iraq stuff. Ok, fine. But as far as I know Bush's "stay the course" was for Iraq and to convince the Iraqi people we wouldn't abandon them like last time. Many Iraqi's got slaughtered in the revolt. So your pre-war comments are irrelevant to his "stay the course" regardless of whether or not your complaints are valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy can address but my take on Andy's comments are that it shows a record of ignorance, arrogance, and incompetancy.

[ QUOTE ]
everyone knows that I think Bush is probably the most damaging president in history but I simply don't see this "stay the course" thing as a valid complaint..... yet. We are in there and we aren't leaving, so what should we be doing that we aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

As stated earlier the Democrats are starting to engage in a political debate about this. Up until very recently, this has been sorely lacking IMO.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on Bluffthis's Omaha posts, I know the guy is fairly smart. I believe for many of his political posts he is either being disingenuous or drops his rationality when the 'religion' of his politics is discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]


Unless I am being facetious, which sometimes admittedly is too subtle to be seen for what that, I am always posting what I honestly believe, and I believe same to be rational as well. The difference in matters of politics and religion is that we start with different axiomatic assumptions, whereas in poker we rarely disagree on the axioms.

[andyfox]

When Bush and the administration kept saying "stay the course," everybody knew what they meant: more of the same until the job was done, not "cut and run." As I indicated in another post in this thread, the "course" means both the drive towards an end result and the method of getting there.

"Stay the course" vs. "cut and run" is illustrative of the administration's manichean world view: it's a battle of good vs. evil; you're either with us or against us.

When John Kerry said we needed benchmark dates for progress in Iraq, it was said by the administration that to set dates would be to give an advantage to the enemy. Yet this is precisely what they did the other day in assigning benchmark dates to the Iraqis. The administration realizes, correctly, that the American people have no stomach for an open-ended "stay the course" until the job is done approach. So they have changed that policy and, therefore, will no longer use the phrase "stay the course."

I brought up the pre-war stuff in another post in this thread in response to a discussion about why we went into Iraq and our goals there.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
When John Kerry said we needed benchmark dates for progress in Iraq, it was said by the administration that to set dates would be to give an advantage to the enemy. Yet this is precisely what they did the other day in assigning benchmark dates to the Iraqis. The administration realizes, correctly, that the American people have no stomach for an open-ended "stay the course" until the job is done approach. So they have changed that policy and, therefore, will no longer use the phrase "stay the course."

[/ QUOTE ]

So this is all about the time tables? Changing your mind when it comes to time tables after THREE years of war isn't exactly a flip flop IMO. And changing terminology after three years of political mud slinging isn't exactly a flip flop either when your ultimate goal remains unchanged.

I'm not saying Bush did a great job in Iraq. But if this is limited to time tables and terminology only then it seems like the Bush haters are grasping for straws when there are more than likely lots of easy targets to hit. This attack on Bush has little material substance.

[andyfox]

I agree that using the phrase "stay the course," of avoiding using it, is of little consequence. For me, the issue is about the whole approach of the administration. Which is basically one of incompetence. Fail to plan, insist to the public that things are working well, brand your political opponents as appeasers and traitors, adopt one of their strategies (benchmark dates), constantly misinform the public and keep them in the dark (see my post about Kurdistan in another thread), blame the media for your troubles. It was Bush and Snow that made the big deal over "stay the course." (And Republicans in general who have made a big deal over "flip-flops," particularly against Kerry in the last presidential campaign.) Most of us don't care about what they call it. But the fact that they made such a big deal over it is symptomatic of the arrogance and duplicity that has characterized their policy.

I'll let you have the last word in our dialog, should you want it.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
But if this is limited to time tables and terminology only then it seems like the Bush haters are grasping for straws when there are more than likely lots of easy targets to hit. This attack on Bush has little material substance.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is really the core point of this matter. Even if Bush did flip-flop that only matters if one deems his previous position correct and the new one incorrect. Otherwise if both the previous and current positions are incorrect, then the deficiencies of same are what matter and not whether he changed positions.

[andyfox]

I agree. It's the substance of the policy that is what matters. And the administration is living in a fantasy world. Tony Snow told Chris Mathews that we're winning the war in Iraq. What information are they hiding from us that leads them to believe this?

[BluffTHIS!]

If your definition of victory is highly dependant on artificial timetables for same then no other factors will lead you to conclude victory is forseeable/possible.