Bush's flip-flops

[Derek Bodner]

From an unnamed source (not named because I dont like the man  But he wrote a nice piece).

------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Bush,

I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!
Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:

1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture . Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because ‘The Donald R.’ went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam’s right-hand man , Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.

1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.

1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.

1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:

“I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously.” --October 3, 2000

2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:

Powell: “We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” --February 24, 2001

Rice: “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” --July 29, 2001

2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.

2003: WE DON’T BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!

2003: “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!

2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a " catastrophic success ." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.

Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?

I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.

And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.

That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.

We can't take another minute of it.
 

[Lurker]

Not to mention the latest:

Originally we didn't need no stinkin' help from the UN.  We could handle the whole enchilada by ourselves.

Then just earlier this week....oops, sorry guys but could you please, please help us fix the mess we made.

[ziggy]

I posted something a week or so ago about the whole flip flop thing.  Kerry has been so clearly defined as a flip flopper, that everytime someone from the left tries to define Bush as a flip flopper it comes off as making Kerry look bad.  It is so often seen as a rationalization for Kerry's flip flopping, and as tacit acknowledgement that yes indeed Kerry does flip flop, but so does Bush.  Everytime I see this, I can just see Bush saying to Kerry, "I'm rubber and you are glue, whatever you say about me bounces off me and sticks to you".

Beyond all of that though I believe this does define the entire election, and is explaining why Kerry has faded recently.  Kerry can change that between now and the election, but it will require a clear change in approach.

The difference between Bush and Kerry is one of "Strategic Vision", and "Tactical Response".  Most, if not nearly all, of what this author raised as flip flops for Bush were related to issues prior to 9-11.  That day changed everything, so nearly everything you did prior is minimized because the world changed so dramatically on 9-11.  So the issue is what have you done since 9-11.

Bush has developed the Bush Doctrine, which pretty clearly defines how he and this adminstration will approach the world and terrorism.  We will declare war on terrorism, and we will take the battle to them.  We will do what is necessary to defend ourselves against terrorism, and we will pursue a coalition of the willing to do it with us.  If our neighbors, allies, or world bodies choose not to take action or support us, then will do it without them.  We will take pre-emptive action before a threat becomes imminent to protect ourselves.  The role and approach of the UN was based upon the world after WWII, and the Cold War, and not in the world during the age of international terror.  The role of the UN must change, and if it doesn't then we will go on without a body that is stuck in a world of the past.  Bush has a highly defined  "Strategic Vision" for dealing with worldwide terrorism, and he has not wavered much from the "Strategic Vision".

Bush has changed his tactics in dealing with specific threats and circumstances in attempting to implement his strategic vision.  To not do so would be foolish.  Bush has been called as a flip flopper but also as being black and white and uncompromising.  That would seem to be contradictory.  The reality is Bush has tried to stay true to his strategic vision, but he has changed his tactics in dealing with particular circimstances.

Now one may not like Bush's strategic vision, and they may not like his tactical execution.  Each are rightfully issues for debate, and determining whether or not his vision is the vision we should have, and whether he has done a good or bad job in implementing tactical decisions.  To beat Bush, Kerry has to frame the debate that way.  Bush has done a fairly good job of setting that out as the playing field, but Kerry has not responded well to that.

Kerry is seen by many in a very different way.  While Bush is seen as being consistent and unwavering in his strategic vision, Kerry is seen as not really having a strategic vision.  Kerry confuses tactics with strategy, and when he changes his positions he changes them from a strategic and not a tactical perspective.  People can accept changes in tactics to everchanging circumstances, but they do not like to see strategic direction changing depending upon how the wind is blowing.  Without a clearly delineated strategic vision, his change in tactics is seen as a change of strategy, and one who changes startegy like that is seen as a poor decision maker, and one who lacks clarity and purpose.

Howard Dean had a very clearly defined strategic vision, and he stuck to it.  Dean though made some tactical blunders, which made him seem to be foolish, like the Sadaam statement.  Kerry on the other hand has no clear strategic vision of what he wants to do, and he seems to change his strategic vision depending upon the political expediancy of the moment.  That is why there is no ground swell in support of Kerry, even among those on the left.  He was seen as having the best chance of beating Bush, but because he does not articulate a vision of what he wants to accomplish he does not move people to support him.  Many on the left were FERVENT supporters of Dean, because he had a strategic vision that many people agreed to or bought into.  His vision was not supported by the majority of his party, which is the single biggest reason he failed.

One of Kerry's biggest blunders is how he responded to the Bush Doctrine.  He disagreed that we were in a "war" on terror, and that we should in fact approach this from a law enforcement perspective.  Law enforcement is by it's nature after the fact.  You arrest criminals and prosecute crimes after they have been committed.  In that situation you wait until the terrorists strike and then take appropriate action in retribution and prosecution.  In many ways this was the Clinton approach.  Bush says we need to take the war to them.  We need to hunt them down and kill them before they kill us.  Kerry's approach is to accept that it will happen and we deal with these things as they happen.  Bush's approach is to say we will do what it take to prevail so that it doesn't happen in the first place.  Those are very debateble approaches, but Kerry's is seen as containment and not victory.

[ziggy]

Mark O. Hatfield: For me, choice for president is clear: Bush


As a young Navy officer in World War II, I was one of the first Americans to see Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped in 1945. That experience lives with me today, and it helped to shape the view I held during my public service career: a view that war is wrong in nearly every circumstance.

As Oregon's governor, I was the only governor in the nation who refused to sign a statement supporting President Johnson's Vietnam War policy.

As a senator, I joined with Sen. George McGovern in an unsuccessful effort to end that war. I was the only senator who voted against both the Democrat and Republican resolutions authorizing the use of force in the 1991 Gulf War.

In my final years in the Senate, I opposed President Clinton's decision to send American troops to Bosnia.

During my 30 years in the Senate, I never once voted in favor of a military appropriations bill.

I know that this record will cause many to wonder why I am such a strong supporter of President Bush and his policy in Iraq. My support is based on the fact that our world changed on Sept. 11, 2001, a day on which we lost more American lives than we did in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I know from my service in the Senate that Saddam Hussein was an active supporter of terrorism. He used weapons of mass destruction on innocent people and left no doubt that he would do so again. It was crucial to the cause of world peace that he be removed from power.

Having seen atrocious loss in World War II, I understand the devastation of armed conflict. We have paid dearly with American and Iraqi lives for our commitment, but we cannot afford the alternative. Nor can we afford a president who puts a wet finger in the air and turns over his decisions to pollsters.

President Bush has indeed taken heat for his resolve in pursuing the war on terrorism and efforts in Iraq. His steadfastness and resolve in the face of his critics are deserving of praise.

As terrorists continue to plot against our country and our interests, the American people must choose between action and inaction, between security and insecurity.

I believe the choice is clear. I will proudly cast my vote for President George W. Bush.


Mark O. Hatfield served as a Republican U.S. senator from Oregon from 1967 to 1997.

 

[westkoast]

Ziggy while I agree 9/11 changed everything...how did it change the threat that Sadaam posed and the weapons he had in his hands?  Push aside his comments about using force and war in the debate with Gore because quite frankly 9/11 did change that.  However,  Did the towers comming down all the sudden turn Sadaam into a neo-hitler and POOF made his arsenal appear with WMDs in it? Sadaam went from a non-threat with no real weapons to someone who had to be dealt with NOW because he had chemical and possibly biological weapons of mass destruction.  Which all the sudden were aimed at the US and our intrests.  9/11 did change everything...our foreign policy, added reasons to goto war, and plenty of other things that would take me hours to type.  What 9/11 did not change is the threat Sadaam posses to our country.  Al Queda, which was in Afganistan then and having alot of funny business going on in Saudi Arabia, is the group that had their status changed.

Another flip flopping he has done is going on record saying the war on terrorism cannot be won, then makes a speech saying we are winning in front of the press just recently.

As for the article posted, not a bad read.  However, no mention of homeland security and the amount of money spent (or in this case NOT spent) on it.  30 spent here compared to 350+ spent overseas.  Why is it a choice between security and insecurity?  If only it was that cut and dry.  Its not about security and insecurity....no president is going to overlook security.  The real issue is what route is going to be taken to secure the US.  Is it going to be a focus in on homeland security?  Or is it going to be us using our military force to take out a target overseas?  Bush is spending alot on security, security for Iraqi people and other military spots.  Alot more than the security at home.   One other problem I had with the article was the comment about paying attention to 'pollsters' uhhh....arent we the voice?  If WE, the tax paying, voting Americans, feel strongly about a certain decision should the president not pay attention to us?   Why has the definition of democracy been so skewed by so many people lately (Ok three people including the guy in this article)?  The American people are suppose to have a say.  If we were polled and felt that the people we appointed to represent us are doing just the opposite then they should pay attention to polls right?  Polling is one of the ways that the citizens speak to the people they put in place to represent them.  Of course polls and the people taking part in them can have a media influence on them.....but to assume every single person throwing their two cents in on the poll is being a media sheep insults the very people who voted for those officials in the first place.  I also dont believe a president should always follow what polls would say but this article makes it sound like polling is a joke.  Its not.  Its a tool that the masses use to express their stance on issues.

[Ted]

This latest move by Kerry supporters to call Bush a flip-flopper while blasting him last week for being too black and white-it's my way or the highway seems like so much flailing about wildly, trying anything they can to somehow make John Kerry look like less of a non-leader.

What is Bush? Rigid and unmovable from his plan whether or not it's succeeding or failing? Or is he a flip-flopper? Which is it guys?

The perception that Bush is committed to his values and beliefs on how to deal with terrorism is set in stone. Trying to assail that makes you look terribly desperate.

The perception that Kerry can be blown about by political winds is not set in stone, maybe in wet concrete, but it can be changed. The way to change that perception is certainly not found through assailing Bush's greatest perceived strength. How about trying to make Kerry look strong, committed and resilient? It'll be hard to overcome that particular 18-year Senate career in the next six weeks, but that's the way to do it.

[Derek Bodner]

his latest move by Kerry supporters to call Bush a flip-flopper

Actually, I'm not calling him a flip flopper.  I'm calling him a hypocrit.

[Lurker]

The perception that Bush is committed to his values and beliefs on how to deal with terrorism is set in stone.

The thing is that this isn't what Bush is commited to....his commitment is to maintaining power, control and monetary rewards for himself & his posse.  Bush is not out after terrorism....if he was then we would make large number of hit and run attacks around the world.  We are not attacking terrorist training sites or fighting nations that support terrorists.  We are not ferreting out supporters and taking them out.  We are mired in a Vietnam-like war based on eliminating one man (mission accomplished) that we have no chance of winning and costing hundreds of lives weekly.

If we want to wage a war on terrorism then let's do it.  Let's use world wide intelligence to locate and destroy training camps.  With our technology we can drop cruise missles just about anywhere in the world.  There may be some collateral damage but not any more than the number of civilians dying on a daily basis in Iraq.  And after a few major strikes around the world terrorists are going to find it tougher to gain support.  If Bush wants a "you're with us or against us" mentality then take it all the way.  Not just Iraq.  Leave Iraq now and attack another terrorist-supporting regime.  Use black-ops and assassins to eliminate financial supporters of terrorism.  Make people around the world understand that the US will stop at nothing to eliminate anyone who supports random violent attacks on innocent people.

[Ted]

Actually, I'm not calling him a flip flopper.  I'm calling him a hypocrit.

Bods, you act as if I responded to something YOU said. Did you write the article?

[ziggy]

[We are mired in a Vietnam-like war based on eliminating one man (mission accomplished) that we have no chance of winning and costing hundreds of lives weekly.
 

With all due respect if you really believe that we have no chance of winning in Iraq, then what is the point of attacking the terrorists anywhere else?  We can't win anyway, right?

[spursfan101]

Bush said so himself. There really is no way to WIN the war on terror. It's a never ending battle; one that can't be fought with one country alone, but that would require all of the countries of the world.

[Ted]

The thing is that this isn't what Bush is commited to....his commitment is to maintaining power, control and monetary rewards for himself & his posse.

Same old Michael Moorish bull crap.

Bush is not out after terrorism....if he was then we would make large number of hit and run attacks around the world.  We are not attacking terrorist training sites or fighting nations that support terrorists.

What is this? Deliberate misinformation or blissful ignorance? Iraq supported terrorism. Saddam Hussein gave tens of thousands of dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. And although no direct link to Al Qaida has been proven, there were definitely contacts made. Saddam supported terrorism.

We are not ferreting out supporters and taking them out.  We are mired in a Vietnam-like war based on eliminating one man (mission accomplished) that we have no chance of winning and costing hundreds of lives weekly.

Again, ignorance or deliberate misinformation? At the current rate, we'd have to be in Iraq with the name attrition rate FOR SIXTY YEARS before this conflict matched the toll in Vietnam. Go pull out a history book before you make stupid references to a much more horrific event. The civilian death toll in Iraq is nothing like what the Vietnamese experienced, not even close. And we've been in Iraq for almost a year and a half and we've lost 1,000 soldiers; that's a couple of months in Vietnam.

We ARE ferreting out supporters. Every day we arrest terror suspects in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our allies in Pakistan and elsewhere are doing the same.

If we want to wage a war on terrorism then let's do it.  Let's use world wide intelligence to locate and destroy training camps.

Lunacy. Yeah, let's destroy a few tents. Maybe we'll take out a few donkeys, you know, cripple their transportation infrastructure. If we're lucky, we'll blow up a few boxes of hand grenades and some AK-47 rounds while we're at it. That'll really hit Al Qaida where it hurts. Great frickin' idea! Maybe we'll get really lucky and take out some fifteen-year-old potential suicide bombers. Let's just ignore the deep-pocketed financiers of terrorism.

And after a few major strikes around the world terrorists are going to find it tougher to gain support.

HOLY SH*T! That's the missing piece! That's the answer! We blow up six tents, a box of grenades, a donkey and a few fifteen-year-olds and Osama Bin Laden is going to get scared! Iran's going to see a terrorist training camp in Sudan blown to bits and of course they'll say, "Hmm, maybe we better rethink our plans to produce nuclear weapons. And we'd tell all those Jihad preaching Imams to put a cork in it . . . I mean, dang, those could have been our tents!!"

That's the answer! YEAH! VOTE KERRY!

Leave Iraq now and attack another terrorist-supporting regime.

Bad idea. First, it makes us look even worse than we do. The difficult truth is that we've committed to an experiment in democracy in Iraq. A lot of people see freedom as the only thing that will permanently defeat fundamentalism. I don't know whether they're right or not, but it's worth a try. And it's not the worst thing we could be doing. If we can build some sort of freedom for the Iraqi people, they may just like us a teeny little bit after we've gone. We leave them with no infrastructure and ready for civil war, they're definitely going to hate us forever.

Use black-ops and assassins to eliminate financial supporters of terrorism.  Make people around the world understand that the US will stop at nothing to eliminate anyone who supports random violent attacks on innocent people.

Now you're talking! I like this idea a lot! I'm not being sarcastic here; I really agree with you. Take the kid gloves off with supporters of terrorism. If we prove that some Parisian billionaire is supporting Al Qaida financially, we take him out, we send in Jason Bourne. This tactic probably won't work in all situations, though. If the financial supporter of terrorism is the head of an enemy regime, taking him out might not be possible. If Kim Jong Il of North Korea says he's going to sell a tactical nuke to Osama, we might not be able to assassinate him. What do we do then? Wait for Osama to set off his new toy in New York? LA? San Antone?

We ARE making A LOT of progress in the war on terror. Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown the world that we will do exactly what you say we should do in your last sentence. Libya, long one of our bitter enemies, has opened its doors and has agreed to halt its own WMD development operations. Iran and North Korea are now sweating too. Did you know that North Korea refused for a long time to even come to the negotiating table to talk about nukes and WMDs with us? They came back to the table after we toppled Saddam. To say that Iraq is the only place we're expending resources in the war on terror is just plain incorrect, and I think you know that.
 

[spursfan101]

All the terrorists really want is some basic health insurance, socialized medicine, and a sound environmental policy to protect their deserts.  :nod:  

[Ted]

Bush said so himself. There really is no way to WIN the war on terror. It's a never ending battle; one that can't be fought with one country alone, but that would require all of the countries of the world.

So what's your point. Ziggy's talking about the War in Iraq, not the War on Terror. B)  

[Ted]

All the terrorists really want is some basic health insurance, socialized medicine, and a sound environmental policy to protect their deserts.  :nod:

Well, why don't we just give them Sweden. It's not like the Swedes can put up a fight. And the terrorists will just love the 68 percent income taxes.