Kerry v Bush: The Facts, the Campaigns and the Spin...

It's interesting that people keep talking about Kerry's flip-flops while ignoring the flip-flops of this administration. Anyof you remember what got us into this war in Iraq?

I call Bush's flip-flops one of the biggest flip-flops of any president during my life time.

I think a flip-flop is talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I didn't throw my medals....I threw my...ribbons...

I don't have an SUV....my FAMILY has one...

Bush, rightly or wrongly, cited reports that there were WMDs at Saddam's disposal. He hasn't come back later and said, "Um, no, I meant they were IN his disposal." A flip-flop is saying whatever the hell you please for political expediency, and being forced to come back later, and make some silly verbiage readjustment----hence being caught in a lie. "That depends on what your definition of "is" is" comes to mind.

While there are alot of people who think Bush lied, most people think he believed what he said. I am pretty sure you're not one of the latter.



Still, to be perfectly honest, this is a horrible affair IMO. I frankly don't know if the WMD issue was enhanced, or if people who never should looked the other way to force change in the ME--or if circumstances just aggregate to accentuate that theory.

I do think there should be a more in-depth accounting for decisions made in the run-up. Why is George Tenet still employed? This, more than anything else is damning to the administration, IMO. If there is a good reason Tenet is still considered the best for his job, the US public needs to know why. Where was the intel failing? Someone is accountable. I want to know who. Its not so much someone to hang blame on--but we need to know exactly how we ended up going to war.

<I've read many of the theories. Didn't want to compel anyone to repeat them.>

Well, doesnt the slip in verbiage on WMD fit exactly in that category, tho? From 'having Weapons of Mass Destruction' (with which terrorists could 'strike horror in our cities') to 'having WMD programs' comes to mind ...

What about campaigning on the notion that America should stop involving itself wih "nation-building", and upon taking office developing plans for the most ambitious nation-building project the US has involved itself in for decades? Sincere change of mind or flip-flopping to or from politically expedient rhetorics? Or what about campaigning as a free trade champion, then imposing massive steel tariffs in time for congressional elections, then lifting them again when faced with too much pressure from abroad? Kerry doesn't get away with the notion of "sincere change of mind" when it comes to such rapid to and fro in policy and rhetorics, why and where should it apply to Bush?

If you think the difference in denying you own an SUV, and then copping to YOUR FAMILY having an SUV is a sincere change of mind...

The nation-building issue is complicated by the reason we went to war. However, on the face of it--cleaning up your mess, and going in to someone else's mess is the difference in 'responsibility for our mess-making' and trying to 'step in to another country's problems and re-make them' (nation-building). We owe Afghanistan and Iraq, because we blew them up.

IMO, we should have stayed out of Liberia, except for our 'historical' role made us sorta responsible. Bush explained his idea of nation-building during the campaign, and I agreed.

Re: WMD/WMD programs...I will say that a damage control grasping occurred, but not a flip-flop. Had Bush said, "I was talking about WMD programs all along." THAT would have been a flip-flop. Considering what was at stake, I can understand someone being angrier at the grasping--or the underlying need for it, than Kerry's silly lies.

I don't know enough about the context in which the steel tarrifs occurred, either. Was it in response to action from Europe? I will give you a decent answer after I read up and refresh my memory.

I respect a politician, who addresses his/her constituency and says, "I have changed my mind on this issue, and this is why..." This hasn't applied to Kerry's flipping. Bush did say he hasn't found WMDs. The WMD programs, then, seemed to be grasping--but not a flip-flop.

The one thing even most detractors assign Bush is a strong vision and single minded approach to that vision (though that vision horrifies them). So most people believe he is not so much a liar; the negative assignation from his more thoughtful opponents is he is dangerously idealistic. This is why you may find many arguments with him, but very few, if any, flip-flops.

This may be premature and a bit biased--but after reading a couple of articles, it seems the US Steel vector is so bloated from Union demands of ridiculously high wages--they couldn't meet their insurance responsibilties toward their retirees--and were about to go belly up.

They (Steel) demanded 40 percent tarrifs of Bush. Bush went with 30% for three years to give the US Steel org recovery time, and was smacked down by the world.

Unions suck.

I think Bush was looking at losing an important industry, and made the easy, wrong choice. He learned.

As I read, Bush didn't seek Steel out at an election. They made the demand of him. I'm sorry he caved. (bet he is, too.)

True dat.

To equate whether Kerry threw away his ribbons or medals vs Bush's flip-flops of WMDs makes no sense at all.

Didn't to me, either.

We were discussing Kerry's flip-flops, and nimh made the comparison.

no <grins> - not that one. And there's plenty like those, for sure, too. But the Republican talking points list of Kerry flip-flops also habitually includes stuff where a Senate vote is contrasted with his current campaign talk - never mind that the Senate vote was in, say, 1988.



Thats a bit of a circular argument. If you're not going to be into nation-building, then you might want to refrain from blowing a country up that you're going to hafta build up again afterwards. Especially if its a country that ethnically/religiously is like loose sand and in recent decades has mostly been kept together through dictatorial force.

Now Afghanistan may be hors categorie here, since after 9/11 you could hardly let them be. But Iraq was a war of choice, and since it was one that was inevitably going to involve a lot of nation-building, choosing to include it in one's mission from the beginning is quite a flip-flop after the no-nation-building campaign rhetoric.



Yeh I get that, sorta. Its kindof a gliding scale tho, more than a black-and-white distinction, I think. Cause they kinda just tried sneaking the change in word choice in there, as if thats really just what they'd always been talking about. It was up to others to remind them that it hadnt been programs we'd gone to war about.



But Lord, did he have to be battered into admitting it! And Cheney will still talk around it ... I don't think the honest straight-up 'addressing your constituency and telling 'em what you had to change your mind about' thing applies, here. Thats what strikes me about Bush/Cheney: even after all the changes they've had to make (including WMD turning into WMD programs and the small, brief-mission hi-tech army turning into a sizable long-term troop mass), they still insist that it's actually the very same thing they've been saying from the beginning.

Re: ridiculously high wages btw, what's a steel worker make in the States nowadays?

(Full disclosure: I'm against tarrifs, but for decent wages. Yeh, I know, tough thing to pull off.)

I think they still believe Saddam had WMDs, like the Clintons did, and as did many in the Senate and both administrations. Bush and Co. are confounded that they haven't been found.

That's why they're not backing down. So, if they're WRONG, they're just wrong. Which, to me, is a mistake (a grave one), rather than a flip-flop.

But, not worth arguing IMO, if we still differ.

Sofia, Your arguments are circular. The reason that the congress thought Saddam had WMD's is because they were lied to by this administration. Senator Feinstein accused this administration of misleading the Senate; she said that the Senate would not have voted for war if they had known what they know now. So blaming Clinton is somewhat disingenuous.

Poster on another thread suggested some more Bush flip-flops ... (in what looked like a copy&paste)

On the first two of nimh's post above:

The deficit was already going strong. The tax cuts immediately preceded an upturn in the economy. I think the war added to the deficit. But, on this, Bush has definitely, IMO, been responsible for the choices fueling the deficit. Just not to be laid on the tax cuts---but SPENDING.

Who has the Federal books and can say that the money IS COMING OUT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND? How do they know what account the money is coming from?

I'll research the rest.

I'm not trying to overlook this list--but it rings of unsubstantiated gossip, taken for truth.

The No Child Left Behind... I've been reading several articles, and one I found states that there was NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING proposed past the FY 2002 monies, which were indeed funded. It says beyond this that there was a 35% increase for more qualified teachers. My point is: How to prove or disprove the specific allegations made in the post nimh brought from radikyl?

It reminds me of the sturm and drang of trying to get authentic figures about UN funding.

How to authenticate 'full funding'? And 'cuts'?

If these allegations are true, I want to know. If they are NOT true, I don't want to just take someone's word for it.

I'm not asking for someone to be the House Documentalist... but I think, in the end, the 'truth' rests in each individual's preference of how to interpret the data. I'll bring the article, but I'm sure someone else could bring a rebutting article--and we could do this all night....

Boehner Praises President Bush for Education Budget Announcement, Challenges Education Reform Opponents to Use Funds to Get Results

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement regarding President George W. Bush's decision to propose significant spending increases for the No Child Left Behind Act in his forthcoming budget, **on top of the major increases that have already been provided as a result of the historic No Child Left Behind education reform legislation**:

"Today's announcement by President Bush demonstrates he remains committed to providing generous funding for public education -- linked to high standards and accountability -- even in a time of war and economic uncertainty. It is great news for the states, principals, and schoolteachers across America who are leading by example in answering the President's call to close the achievement gap in education and ensure every child reads by the third grade. And it's a challenge to those in the education establishment who say they won't even try to meet high standards for our children unless they get more money -- a shameful stance that does a disservice to millions of children across the country who deserve the chance to learn and succeed.
(...)
"The federal government is now spending far more money than at any other time in history for elementary and secondary education -- which means it's more important than ever that states and federally-funded schools use these funds to get results for our children. A lot is being spent -- and a lot is being expected.

**"These major spending increases come on top of the large increases provided a year ago upon enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, including a 35 percent increase in federal support for school teachers to help states put a highly qualified teacher in every public classroom.**

**"This news is significant, because the administration is technically under no obligation to provide such large increases for the No Child Left Behind Act. Contrary to the false claims made by some, the No Child Left Behind Act did not promise any specific overall funding amount beyond the large increases that were provided in FY 2002.** **The new law authorizes only 'such sums as may be required' overall to implement No Child Left Behind in FY2003, FY2004, and beyond. **In the months since No Child Left Behind became law, Democrat leaders have repeatedly said they want more spending than the President has proposed, but they've never explained where the money would come from.
(...)

Disagree with you on the tax cuts, but re-reading these I think I can help you out with #4 and 5 up there.

#4 - Education Reform

Text notes that "Bush promised to spend more money on education"; then criticises him for having "provided the smallest education funding increase in seven years".

Fair enough, so he's been a scrooge. But formally he's not broken his promise then - even the smallest of increases is still, after all, "more money".

- Pell Grants

Bush, the text notes, "promised to increase the maximum Pell Grant award". But he "froze [it] below his promised level".

So did he or didnt he increase the maximum award? The "below his promised level" criticism can also be read to say that he did actually increase it - just not as much as he promised.

Thats still kindof a flip-flop, but an easier one to defend - hard times, couldnt have expected, we've had to take off a bit from every promise, etc.

(Course, then one would ask why, if times were so hard, taxes for the wealthiest were massively cut - which would take us back to the beginning of this post, heh.)

Here's a Washington Post article on "leave no child behind."
**************

washingtonpost.com > Opinion > Letters to the Editor



How to Leave No Child Behind

Thursday, September 25, 2003; Page A32


Few would question the absurdity of blaming a doctor or hospital for a patient who smoked for 30 years developing lung cancer. Few would blame a mechanic or auto service center for a car stalling if the owner drove it without oil. And yet President Bush and supporters of No Child Left Behind want to blame teachers and schools if they cannot get 100 percent of their students proficient in reading and math before 2014 ["To Educators, 'No Child' Goals Out of Reach," news story, Sept. 16].



With the range of intellectual ability among humans, it is impossible to set rigorous academic standards and expect 100 percent success.

As a high school teacher, I would like to challenge Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and those who support No Child Left Behind to cut the rates of joblessness, infant mortality, homelessness, poverty, crime or child abuse to 0 percent by 2014.

No Child Left Behind is a noble idea but will not have near the effect that one based in reality could have.

MICHAL LILE

Indianapolis

•

The Sept. 15 editorial "Making the Grade" missed the reason the No Child Left Behind Act requires the identification of schools as "in need of improvement" when groups of disadvantaged children do not academically perform well. The goal of the act is to ensure that all children improve academically and to provide schools with the help and resources necessary to implement reforms.

The No Child Left Behind Act is the first federal education law to hold schools accountable for the academic achievement of all children. The performance of historically underperforming children such as those who have disabilities, have limited English proficiency or are economically disadvantaged often has been ignored, resulting in an "achievement gap" camouflaged by looking only at a school's overall performance.

Some schools previously considered academic powerhouses contain groups of children who persistently fall behind their peers. The inability of one group of children to meet the state's academic goals doesn't necessarily mean the entire school is a failure, but it does mean a serious problem needs to be addressed.

However, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans have retreated from the level of funding promised to schools to help meet the standards contained in the No Child Left Behind law. Republican funding bills have shortchanged the act by $8 billion -- supplying 25 percent less funding than promised.

The answer is not to lower the standards we expect of schools but to increase funding to the level promised.

GEORGE MILLER

U.S. Representative (D-Calif.)

Washington


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

...and they said he had cut funding. If the facts presented in this article are true--the Democrats just lied...