Reply
Thu 5 Aug, 2004 07:09 am
It's Bush who's the flip-flopper
John Kerry finds himself accused of aggravated flip-flopping in the first degree. The charge comes from various Republican Party front groups and the President himself. President Bush has had great fun mocking Kerry for, among other things, his vote for the war and a subsequent vote not to fund it.
Not mentioned is that in between the two votes came ample evidence of incompetence on the part of Bush. And so Kerry, as behooves a thinking man, chose to voice a protest. The vote did not lend itself to sound-bite analysis, but it made a certain amount of sense: The war in Iraq was a mess; Bush had not earned a blank check.
In supposed contrast to Kerry, Bush presents himself as the immutable politician, a man of firm beliefs who sticks to them not because they are popular, but because they are right - despite all evidence or reason. This is certainly the case when it comes to his core beliefs. His devotion to minimal taxes on the rich, for instance, is touching, but it has put the government in such debt that it will take our children's children to pay it off.
But on other matters, Bush has flipped and flopped with the best of them. As a presidential candidate, he declared himself implacably opposed to nation-building. Now we are engaged in building nations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the cost has not only been a ton of money, as it was in Haiti and other places Bush said he wouldn't go, but nearly 1,000 American lives lost and countless more ruined.
Mind you, with WMD all but declared a mirage in the desert, the new - and sole - justification for the war is not anything approaching self-defense, but getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime. This is nation-replacement and nation-building, a total rehab project.
Bush also declared himself a determined unilateralist, kissing off treaties and understandings and even spurning NATO help in Afghanistan. Now, though, the unilateralist of old is sending Secretary of State Powell around the world, seeking alms and arms for Iraq. Flip-flop.
Bush said he would not negotiate with North Korea. He did. Flip-flop. He told the UN to butt out of Iraq. Now he wants it in. Flip-flop.
Bush opposed creating the Homeland Security Department. Soon after, he flip-flopped his way to an embrace. He later opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission, but now he cannot thank it enough.
He did not want his chief aides, Condoleezza Rice, for instance, to testify publicly before it, but relented in the face of popular opposition. Flip-flop.
He himself would not testify because of all sorts of hallowed constitutional reasons and then, of course, did. Flip-flop.
Finally, we get Bush's recent call for the creation of the post of national intelligence director, a position he once opposed.
The truth is that Bush flip-flops all the time. If he had been in public life as long as Kerry has, his flip-flops would be as legion as the fish in the sea.
Flip-flopping, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. It can be an indicator of an alert mind, one that adjusts to new realities, or it can be evidence of ambition decoupled from principle.
With Kerry, it's a mix of both. With Bush, who changes his positions but never his mind, it is always the latter.
McG
One of your better responses.
I agree with the article, but good if you post your source, au.
sozobe
Editorial from NY Daily news.
Its an op ed from Richard Cohen from the New York Daily News.
And I'd stay quiet if I was McG, too. Bush calling Kerry a "flip flopper" is definitely the pot calling the kettle black. Best to dismiss it with a "rolling eyes" and move along.
Forgive my ignorance, and this is not meant to be offensive in any way, but what do most Americans actually think of Bush? Over here in England he is generally thought of as a bit of a bumbling idiot (probably due to his representation in the media as one). I would be interested in finding out what the thinking classes of America actually think of him? And also, Guantanamo Bay, is it talked about in the US press? The thought of such an establishment is quite abhorrant to me, but, once again, could my opinion of it be due to the fairly liberal (at times) English press? I do have access to Fox News via. cable, but if I watch that for more than ten seconds I start to froth at the mouth with anger, I'm assuming it's not a representative example of the US press? Thanks for any responses in advance.
Hi and welcome to A2K, chopper.
Americans are roughly split between the premise that Bush is, as you surmise, a drooling, drunken, war-mongering, lying, AWOL fool who might be our President ever and a fine strong Christian man who might be our best President ever.
Those of us who think the former are agitating to remove him, and his rather large gang of cronies, from office in November.
Those who think the latter are, like our good McGentrix here, trolling the World Wide Web for every last morsel of crap to smear in this forum and elsewhere to NOT make their point about Bush, but to try to defame John Kerry.
They aren't influencing anyone with this gambit (particularly undecided voters) but that does not seem to deter them.
Enjoy reading the forum, but know that these trolls are best ignored.

PDiddie is continuing his personal crusade against anyone who disagrees with him I see.
And you respond as articulate as Bush
The only reason Bush flipflopped on 'nation building' was because a bunch of murderous thugs hijacked and flew passenger liners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and had at least one other major target foiled. Three thousand dead and the world for America was changed forever.
Only the staunchest blind ABB advocate can say that this event would not have changed personal and national policy for any president running for or serving in office.
If 9/11 had happened before or during the campaign, Bush would have taken a different tact on this then.
Okay, now. Let's see any of you justify Kerry's flipflops as anything other than political expediency. Remember, he's taking both sides of several issues so your assignment may be a bit tough.
Fox
What has the Bush "trifecta" to do with Iraq? Yes, he should have taken action in Afghanistan. Which as events have proven he screwed up by not following through. However, why the hell are we in the quagmire of Iraq and trying to nation build. Iraq that is beginning to resemble Viet Nam more and more each passing day.
Au, that is so far off the mark I'm not even going to try to respond to it. It has been debated ad nauseum on several other threads. I appreciate you think we shouldn't be in Iraq. Please appreciate that I think it was the right thing to do and let's just agree to disagree.
I just think it's petty to compare Bush's change in 'nation building' policy in the face of 9/11 with the politically motivated pandering of Kerry's flipflopping.
nice attempt at thread hijacking , maybe we sould raise the alert level to "Tang"
Well I dealt specifically with the point Au was making astromouse. And you're bringing up security alerts. So who's thread hijacking here?
ok , ok grape koolaid it is then...
astromouse wrote:ok , ok grape koolaid it is then...
I'm glad to see that you can read the drink menu in your kindergarten class, have you learned to tie your shoes yet?
Wow, are the forums always this exciting (not to mention mature!)? Thanks for the welcome PDiddie, much appreciated. McGentrix: I guess you are a Republican (afraid I don't really understand the difference between the two), what does your party see in Bush? Is it because he is his Daddy's son, or is there another reason why he leads your party when you have people like Rumsfeld (clearly a genius, an evil one mind, but still a genius) in the background?
Welcome to the forums chopper1981!
Pay no attention to McGentrix, he is harmless, he´s just one big lovable pachyderm (kinda reminds me of Dumbo )
And to keep it lively :
How about ruby red juice then.
*I use slip-ons by the way , your concern is highly appreciated