Look who's flip-floppin' now

[RuntheDamnBall]

From a speech given in Troy, Ohio, this past saturday, full text available at http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3393:

THE PRESIDENT: I'm running -- I'm running because I know we have more to do to wage and win the war against the terrorists. America's future -- America's future depends on our willingness to lead in this world. If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This is not going to happen on my watch. (Applause.)

 

From an interview with Matt Lauer given today -- just two days later -- full text available at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5865710/

"I don't think you can win it," the president said, when asked if the war on terrorism can be won. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

 

Nuance? Flip-flop? Where is the steely resolve, the certainty, the strong leadership?

[blzrul]

No flip-flop here. Merely the tried-and-true Bush - Rove tactic called LOWERING THE BAR. Make the bar so low that any small success enables him to claim victory.

 

It worked great in TX schools. Test scores too low? Simple answer, dumb down the tests and lower the passing scores and VOILA! Instant geniuses (until the SAT comes along).

[_BiB_]

No one is going to win the "war on terror". Not Bush, not Kerry. It's around to stay. For a long, long time. Sadly, we have to get used to it. It will be a long, drawn out and constant "active defense" for years to come.

 

All it takes is one.

[DC Tom]

No flip-flop here.  Merely the tried-and-true Bush - Rove tactic called LOWERING THE BAR.  Make the bar so low that any small success enables him to claim victory.

 

It worked great in TX schools.  Test scores too low?  Simple answer, dumb down the tests and lower the passing scores and VOILA! Instant geniuses (until the SAT comes along).

12032[/snapback]

 

Kicking anyone with a single "D" grade or lower out of school also helped, too...

 

But as for "flip flopping"...the fundamental truth is that between Bush ("I'll win the war that can't be won...") and Kerry ("I voted for it before I voted against it"), neither one is even remotely capable of expressing himself. Would it be so hard for Kerry to have said "I voted for it...until so many meaningless and bloated amendments were attached to it that I couldn't in good faith support it."? Would it be so hard for Bush to say "We need to do more to win the war on terror...but to "win" the war we have to make terrorism unpalatable as a geopolitical strategy."? (Okay, that would have been hard. Too many big words for George.) Just face facts: both these guys are complete numbskulls...

[RuntheDamnBall]

But as for "flip flopping"...the fundamental truth is that between Bush ("I'll win the war that can't be won...") and Kerry ("I voted for it before I voted against it"), neither one is even remotely capable of expressing himself.  Would it be so hard for Kerry to have said "I voted for it...until so many meaningless and bloated amendments were attached to it that I couldn't in good faith support it."?  Would it be so hard for Bush to say "We need to do more to win the war on terror...but to "win" the war we have to make terrorism unpalatable as a geopolitical strategy."?  (Okay,  that would have been hard.  Too many big words for George.)  Just face facts: both these guys are complete numbskulls...

12055[/snapback]

Good post, DCT.

 

Kerry would actually have been better served by saying "I voted for it, but I thought it should actually be paid for, unlike the Republicans' plan." Period. Any sentence that reeks of complexity would have voters changing the channel by word five.

 

With Bush we are spending money we don't have so we can make money that doesn't exist, and watching a president promote himself based on his ability to win a war that he says is unwinnable. If Kerry would seize on this he would win over a lot of fiscal conservatives, I think.

[KD in CA]

No flip-flop here.  Merely the tried-and-true Bush - Rove tactic called LOWERING THE BAR.  Make the bar so low that any small success enables him to claim victory.

 

It worked great in TX schools.  Test scores too low?  Simple answer, dumb down the tests and lower the passing scores and VOILA! Instant geniuses (until the SAT comes along).

12032[/snapback]

 

 

Well they still won't have to worry, because they'll also have libs dumbing down the SATs in the name of 'cultural bias'.

[Chilly]

lol

[blzrul]

Well they still won't have to worry, because they'll also have libs dumbing down the SATs in the name of 'cultural bias'.

12104[/snapback]

So explain to me how a "minority" such as liberals could have such an effect? Particularly in a conservative state like TX?

 

My kid was a product of TX schools and is now enrolled in a northern school in a blue state where ... surprise ... she's a year or more BEHIND.

 

And she was in one of the "best' school districts in the state.

 

I guess the difference is that there all the funding went to football and here it goes go academics, with the students, parents and community working together to raise money for football and other sports. So the students have both sports AND a decent education.

[Alaska Darin]

So explain to me how a "minority" such as liberals could have such an effect?  Particularly in a conservative state like TX?

 

My kid was a product of TX schools and is now enrolled in a northern school in a blue state where ... surprise ... she's a year or more BEHIND. 

 

And she was in one of the "best' school districts in the state.

 

I guess the difference is that there all the funding went to football and here it goes go academics, with the students, parents and community working together to raise money for football and other sports.  So the students have both sports AND a decent education.

12497[/snapback]

The answer is obviously more money and not school choice. Heaven forbid.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Is there no one else who will address my original question up front?

 

I am surprised.

[Alaska Darin]

What's to address? As a politician, he shouldn't use an absolute. People will seize it (as you did) and use it against him. Especially when another terrorist incident occurs (and it will).

 

The war against terrorism likely won't ever be "won" in the traditional sense of the word. There's no way to remove the darkness from human beings and as long as it exists, there will be pawns willing to strap explosives to themselves and blow up day care centers in the name of whatever the fug.

 

Nobody addressed it because it was a fuggin' stupid question.

[RuntheDamnBall]

What's to address?  As a politician, he shouldn't use an absolute.  People will seize it (as you did) and use it against him.  Especially when another terrorist incident occurs (and it will).

 

The war against terrorism likely won't ever be "won" in the traditional sense of the word.  There's no way to remove the darkness from human beings and as long as it exists, there will be pawns willing to strap explosives to themselves and blow up day care centers in the name of whatever the fug.

 

Nobody addressed it because it was a fuggin' stupid question.

12634[/snapback]

Well, then, why HAS Bush been using absolutes? That was my question. In fact, he is CELEBRATED for speaking in and governing on absolutes. You don't base your campaign on "winning the war on terror" and then admit it can't be won without facing some questions. Especially when any possible change of heart, policy or attitude in the other candidate is viewed as a sign of weakness.

 

If you think that's a stupid question, I'm sorry. It's central to the campaign. And I'm sick of essential questions about Bush being shrugged off as if they don't matter. The press is asleep.

 

I think Bush is right in now admitting the war on terror can't be won. But that he is suddenly embracing the idea of changing peoples' hearts and minds, when he has heretofore claimed that one can't reason with terrorists, is a MAJOR shift. It should be discussed.

[Alaska Darin]

Well, then, why HAS Bush been using absolutes?  That was my question.  In fact, he is CELEBRATED for speaking in and governing on absolutes.  You don't base your campaign on "winning the war on terror" and then admit it can't be won without facing some questions.  Especially when any possible change of heart, policy or attitude in the other candidate is viewed as a sign of weakness.

 

If you think that's a stupid question, I'm sorry.  It's central to the campaign.  And I'm sick of essential questions about Bush being shrugged off as if they don't matter.  The press is asleep.

 

I think Bush is right in now admitting the war on terror can't be won.  But that he is suddenly embracing the idea of changing peoples' hearts and minds, when he has heretofore claimed that one can't reason with terrorists, is a MAJOR shift.  It should be discussed.

12641[/snapback]

Because he's a freakin' idiot politician with the same command of the language as about half the 'tards on this message board.

 

I do think it's a stupid question, as I explained above. If you say you've won the war on terror, and somebody blows up some stevestojan somewhere, all the lemmings are going to start jumping around like 2 year olds sharing a case of jolt and mountain of pixie sticks. There's simply little common sense in large groups.

 

You want to reason with terrorists? At least your head will no longer reside in your rectal cavity.

[Arondale]

Well, then, why HAS Bush been using absolutes?  That was my question.  In fact, he is CELEBRATED for speaking in and governing on absolutes.  You don't base your campaign on "winning the war on terror" and then admit it can't be won without facing some questions.  Especially when any possible change of heart, policy or attitude in the other candidate is viewed as a sign of weakness.

 

If you think that's a stupid question, I'm sorry.  It's central to the campaign.  And I'm sick of essential questions about Bush being shrugged off as if they don't matter.  The press is asleep.

 

I think Bush is right in now admitting the war on terror can't be won.  But that he is suddenly embracing the idea of changing peoples' hearts and minds, when he has heretofore claimed that one can't reason with terrorists, is a MAJOR shift.  It should be discussed.

12641[/snapback]

 

Obviously, GW's choice of words wasn't the best, as we have seen from both candidates, but anyone with half a brain can see the intent of the two quotes. I don't see anything in this that shows GW "embracing the idea of changing people's hearts and minds". I don't see anything about these quotes that indicates any change in philosophy about the war on terrorism.

 

I think it is pretty obvious that GW's response to Lauer was simply making the point that we can never eliminate terrorism. I doubt there is anyone out there that believes terrorism will ever be eliminated (including Kerry and Edwards, despite their attempts to attack GW on this) and I find it hard to believe that you think GW ever believed that.

 

And I think it is pretty obvious that GW's speech was implying that while we will never eliminate terrorism, we can certainly lessen their effectiveness and lessen their ability to repeat 9/11 or worse. I think we have done that for the past 3 years, but in no way have we "won" the war on terror, in the traditional sense of the word.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Ooops!

 

I don't know teacher, the dog must of ate my teleprompter?

 

[RuntheDamnBall]

Obviously, GW's choice of words wasn't the best, as we have seen from both candidates, but anyone with half a brain can see the intent of the two quotes.  I don't see anything in this that shows GW "embracing the idea of changing people's hearts and minds".  I don't see anything about these quotes that indicates any change in philosophy about the war on terrorism.

 

I think it is pretty obvious that GW's response to Lauer was simply making the point that we can never eliminate terrorism.  I doubt there is anyone out there that believes terrorism will ever be eliminated (including Kerry and Edwards, despite their attempts to attack GW on this) and I find it hard to believe that you think GW ever believed that.

12722[/snapback]

Look, honestly, I DON'T believe W ever thought this was a winnable war in terms of eradicating terrorism. But that doesn't take away that he said it, and made it integral to his campaign -- it is part of the fabric of his rhetoric.

 

I've taken the idea of "creating conditions" to make terrorism less acceptable to mean winning over the hearts and minds of people of other nations -- including the Arab world. I don't think anyone is winning the hearts and minds of terrorists. But I think that's what he's implied here, which heretofore has always been something that is decried by the Bush administration. It's been as if simply listening to the rest of the world and its concerns is a sign of weakness. If he has changed his mind about that, I appreciate it.

[Arondale]

Look, honestly, I DON'T believe W ever thought this was a winnable war in terms of eradicating terrorism.  But that doesn't take away that he said it, and made it integral to his campaign -- it is part of the fabric of his rhetoric.

 

I've taken the idea of "creating conditions" to make terrorism less acceptable to mean winning over the hearts and minds of people of other nations -- including the Arab world.  I don't think anyone is winning the hearts and minds of terrorists.  But I think that's what he's implied here, which heretofore has always been something that is decried by the Bush administration.  It's been as if simply listening to the rest of the world and its concerns is a sign of weakness.  If he has changed his mind about that, I appreciate it.

12731[/snapback]

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I have never believed that terrorism can be eliminated and I have never believed that GW and his administration thought that either. Maybe their is an assumption by myself, GW and others that when you say "win" the war on terror that does not imply elimination, it implies protecting this country from catastrophic attacks like 9/11 and crippling the general terror network out there. Maybe GW should have clarified that assumption early on, but I was never confused.

 

I don't think anyone is winning the hearts and minds of terrorists either, but you are twisting your own words. You say that "creating conditions to make terrorism less acceptable" means "winning over the hearts and minds of people of other nations - including the Arab world". You did not say it means winning over the hearts and minds of terrorists (unless you are implying the entire Arab world are terrorists!). I think it is vital and rather obvious that to win the war on terror we need other countries to agree to fight the battle as well. You can see through the success of Pakistan, Britain and others that others have done so. We are "creating conditions" where terrorism is less acceptable. GW did not mean, nor has he ever implied, that we will win this war on terror by "winning the hearts and minds of terrorists".

 

Not only did you twist GW's words, you twisted your own words.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  I have never believed that terrorism can be eliminated and I have never believed that GW and his administration thought that either.  Maybe their is an assumption by myself, GW and others that when you say "win" the war on terror that does not imply elimination, it implies protecting this country from catastrophic attacks like 9/11 and crippling the general terror network out there.  Maybe GW should have clarified that assumption early on, but I was never confused.

 

I don't think anyone is winning the hearts and minds of terrorists either, but you are twisting your own words.  You say that "creating conditions to make terrorism less acceptable" means "winning over the hearts and minds of people of other nations - including the Arab world".  You did not say it means winning over the hearts and minds of terrorists (unless you are implying the entire Arab world are terrorists!).  I think it is vital and rather obvious that to win the war on terror we need other countries to agree to fight the battle as well.  You can see through the success of Pakistan, Britain and others that others have done so.  We are "creating conditions" where terrorism is less acceptable.  GW did not mean, nor has he ever implied, that we will win this war on terror by "winning the hearts and minds of terrorists".

Not only did you twist GW's words, you twisted your own words.

12745[/snapback]

Not so. I was only saying that to defend myself. I thought you had implied that I believe we can win over terrorists, which I of course don't. That's why I included that.

 

What I meant by including the Arab world was not to imply they are all terrorists -- quite the contrary, I think if we can strengthen relations with the Arab world they will want to do everything possible to root out terrorism in their own nations. I also think we need to level with countries like Saudi Arabia and seriously consider what we are doing there. And we have to stop pissing Arab nations off with situations like Iraq, where our botched postwar planning is hurting us tremendously, 'catastrophic success' notwithstanding. Even if they didn't like Saddam in there -- nobody did -- it's clear they are not happy with what is going on right now. I think we've created a condition where terrorism is not only acceptable in Iraq, but is a viable #1 option. That is a problem.