Flip - Flop

[deadhand31]

From saying whatever amount of money it takes to win VS we're spending too much money?

So basically, I can tell someone that they can charge me whatever they want to build me a house, and then after I get the bill, I can say they charged me too much?

If that's not a flip flop, then I don't know what is.

 

[deadhand31]

He also said this: "it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition and with no plan to win the peace."

So let me get this straight.... countries like Australia, Spain, Britain, and countless others don't count as a coalition of the willing? So basically, he denies their validity, but he wants to strengthen our alliances? Right.....

And when he says he would give authority to the president because it was right, is that not supporting the president's actions? So we're going from "It was the right authority to have" from "The wrong war at the wrong time"? And that isn't a flip-flop?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I don't expect that anything will change this kind of stuff, but do try to get the facts straight.

First, the problem with this, "coalition of the willing," claptrap is that the Bush government specifically rejected getting real world support before going into Iraq.

Second, Spain left this "Coalition," some months back.

Third, Australia hasn't sent many troops.

Fourth, it's a pretty damn small coalition.

 

[deadhand31]

The first President Bush ca. 1988 "Read my lips, no new taxes."

How long did that promise actually last? I don't remember the actual quotes, but I do remember the jokes that were made when he had to flip-flop on that pledge.

I forget, which were the new taxes that came into play? I'm looking to know for intellectual curiousity. I keep hearing that he renegged on it, I just don't know what it was renegged with.

 

[deadhand31]

I don't expect that anything will change this kind of stuff, but do try to get the facts straight.

First, the problem with this, "coalition of the willing," claptrap is that the Bush government specifically rejected getting real world support before going into Iraq.

Second, Spain left this "Coalition," some months back.

Third, Australia hasn't sent many troops.

Fourth, it's a pretty damn small coalition.

If you remember, France threatened to veto any action that would have held Saddam accountable. France did their best to make sure that Saddam would stay in power. Now, when you have someone with veto power on the council telling you that they are going to veto any action that required total capitulation from Saddam, what are you going to do? Are you going to bow down to the surrender monkeys, or are you going to take action?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. So it is NOT a coalition at all, but Our Country Forging Courageously Ahead Alone If Need be.

My point would be that you cannot legitimately (though you can ideologically) claim that you have a coalition when you don't, whatever the reasons are that you don't.

Since the immediate issue was this, "coalition," could you perhaps explain in what way I was factually inaccurate?

I can point out that your claim of France's refusing to vote for anything that held Saddam accountable is factually inaccurate, which it is. They voted against UN support for an invasion.

 

[Flatlander]

Okay ... here's a premise, list a prominant flip flop by a political figure. Might I suggest we try and keep the discussions down and just post the ridiculous, contradictory statements that some of these folks make.

So, for example:


John Kerry - "I actually did vote for the $87 Billion before I voted against it."
3/17/2004 - New York Times


I realize, this may be the equivelent of yelling 'Food Fight' in a Junior high caf, but it may also be a bit humorous.

This is the original topic, as a reminder.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh.
It's not a flip-flop when you first claim you don't need one, then claim that you have one? It's not a flip-flop when you say that the people of Iraq will welcome our troops, then say that you never claimed that? It's not a flip-flop when you start a war on the grounds of something you claim to know absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt is true, then turn around and claim that you were only pretty sure and we couldn't take a chance?

 

[Phoenix44]

"I actually did vote for the $87 Billion before I voted against it."

You know, it's very easy to quote a statement like that to get a cheap laugh. It's a lot harder to state why it was said, because that would take 5 minutes of research.

As you know, there were several versions of that bill, and it was absolutely possible to have been for one and against another. One of the major controversies surrounding that bill was that Bush wanted to give GRANTS to Iraq...in other words, gifts of our hard earned tax money. Many in Congress wanted to give LOANS, which Iraq would be expected to pay back...especially in view of the trillions of dollars of oil in their oil fields. Another controversy was over the amount of borrowing we would have to do in order to spend that $87 billion.

Here's the REAL flip-flop: Bush said that he would veto that bill if the money was to be in the form of loans.

What I think is equally disturbing is that every time a member of the Bush administration says something unpopular, one of the underlings has to qualify it.

For example, Cheney's comment two days ago regarding the election: "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again.." implying that anyone who votes for Kerry would be voting for terrorism. That was an outrageous statement, and many Americans were furious. So the spin doctors immediately went to work. "Well, what he REALLY meant to say..."

Tell you what...he's the Vice President of the United States. What if I just believe that what he REALLY meant was EXACTLY the outrageous statement that he actually made?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Did anybody see this one?

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - President Bush said on Wednesday that he wanted to give a new national intelligence director "full budgetary authority,'' a sharp shift from an earlier position and an acquiescence to a major recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/p...=7809f56dfadc8165&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Last week John Stewart played video footage catching Cheney in a major flip flop. The first video has Cheney saying "I never said that" when asked by an interviewer why he said in an earlier press conference that "We're pretty sure" there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida. Stewart, of course, then showed the clip of the press conference the interviewer was referring to.

And then there is the great flip flop in my signature, below.


Regards,


Steve

 

[qizmoduis]

If that's not a flip flop, then I don't know what is.

I'd agree with your last statement. If you believe that's a flip-flop, then you DON'T know what a flip-flop is. Kerry's statements match my beliefs about the Iraq war very well. We need to spend whatever it takes in order to fix things in Iraq, but the fact is, we're spending too much. Any amount is too much when we're spending money to fix things we broke in a completely unnecessary war against a non-existent threat.

Then there's the billions of dollars padding the pockets of those no-bid contractor buddies of GW and Cheney.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm going to step back and quote myself here for a moment.

John Kerry - "I actually did vote for the $87 Billion before I voted against it."
3/17/2004 - New York Times

I think the irony here, and it has been on my mind of late, is where now is this 87 billion dollars?

As I recall, this 87 billion dollar expenditure included 67 billion for armed services and 20 billion for reconstruction.

Of the 20 billion for reconstruction, apparently only 1 billion has actually been used to 'reconstruct' anything ... the remaining 19 is sitting somewhere, in a very big bucket, waiting to be used. So much so that the Bush administration has asked to dip into that bucket (ala social security trust fund) and transfer some of those reconstruction money to security money.

Hey ... maybe John Kerry was right after all, with his vote against that 87 billion dollars.

Mike

 

[Marginal]

"We will not negotiate."

"We brought N Korea to the negotiating table."

Guess that counts as progress to the administration... Getting N Korea back to the table after shooing them away.

 

[michaeledward]

After months of declaring that:

'The Commanders on the Ground will tell us what troop levels they need.'

The headlines today are that 'Bush OKed cutting the number of Troops.'


So, is it the commanders on the ground, or the commander in chief in Washington that will decide the appropriate troop levels in Iraq.

 

[sgtmac_46]

After months of declaring that:

'The Commanders on the Ground will tell us what troop levels they need.'

The headlines today are that 'Bush OKed cutting the number of Troops.'


So, is it the commanders on the ground, or the commander in chief in Washington that will decide the appropriate troop levels in Iraq.

If Bush ok'ed it, who proposed it? If it's the commanders on the ground that proposed it, and Bush ok'ed it, then you really don't have a point.

In other words, if the commanders on the ground said that it was time to start cutting back troop strength, and Bush said 'OK' there is no contradiction.

 

[michaeledward]

If Bush ok'ed it, who proposed it? If it's the commanders on the ground that proposed it, and Bush ok'ed it, then you really don't have a point.

In other words, if the commanders on the ground said that it was time to start cutting back troop strength, and Bush said 'OK' there is no contradiction.

You are correct with that assertion. That is exactly what I am saying.

Many media sources reported this news; CNN, MSNBC, NRP, Greater Media Radion, the New York Times. In all of the quotes I saw, Secretary Rumsfeld never once mentioned the 'Commanders on the Ground', said they were able to handle the situation with fewer troops.

There were repeated efforts to the 138,000 "baseline". Currently, there are more than 156,000 troops in Iraq, to offer additional security for the election. It is interesting to note what the "baseline" has been since 2003 ... it has floated throughout the 130's.

Another point which has come up, although not reported widely in this country, is those 'insurgents' in Iraq which the President recently labelled as 'rejectionists', are reportedly in Negotiations with the American military for a cease fire; initiated by the Americans. While the President has boldly stated "You're either with us, or your with the terrorists", it appears the reality on the ground in Iraq is somewhat different. If the US military can negotiate with this sub-set of 'insurgents' (the "rejectionists") for a cease fire, then the number of required troops would certainly decrease.

As this latest topic is not widely reported, it is interesting to review the Presidents use of language concerning the makeup of the 'insurgency' in recent reports. Why did it change?