|
|
And the Fish Goes: Flip Flop, Flip Flop
Well, at least Kerry's consistent about his inconsistencies. While not the strongest example of his muddled wishy-washy-ness, it does seem to be the most recent.
Not that it matters. If saying, doing, and believing mutually conflicting things from time to time was an impediment to office, we'd all be saying, "Bill who?"
Well, in reading this, a few things come to light as rather interesting:
1 - Kerry says he wants to look to the future and not engage in personal attacks.
2 - He then criticizes the Pres for not reacting to the WTC attackes while reading a book to elementary school children. Now, Pres. Bush maintains that he didn't react as he wanted to project an image of being calm and in control as he was on national TV. Note that he is the only President that had to react to a national tragedy while live in front of the cameras . Personally, I support this decision. There wasn't anything that he could've done in those intervening moments that his people weren't already doing.
3 - Other articles quote Kerry as saying that he sat in stunned silence - which is interesting given the fact that he's currently implying that he would've engaged in immediate action.
4 - When questioned on what plan he had in case of an attack during the current election, he said he didn't have one.
And people expect me to elect this man to office? Are they nuts?!?
Posted by: ron on August 7, 2004 01:53 PMPersonally I find the president sitting around reading books to kids instead of being the leader of the free world, more than a little disturbing. I know your Republican spin misters have been working over time to make it seem noble, but the guy didn't know what to do, so he froze. I sympathize it was a big shock, but at the same time my sympathy ends because if you take on the big chair, your job is to not be shocked. Now if he hadn't have spent his national guard duty time drinking and campaigning for a family friend, and spent a little time in country he might not have that problem. As for Kerry sitting in stunned silence, such is his right he wasn't the president. I sat at my desk typing away after I made sure my wife was safe. Because it wasn't my job to do anything, just like it wasn't Kerry's job to do anything about that, because the President was suppose to be on duty for handling those kinds of issues. Instead he saw fit to read stories to school children while the national response was impeded by a lack of leadership.
So I'm with you, when some insanely ask me to elect W back, I too think they are freaking nuts. America needs leadership, and Kerry is the only choice on the ballot that offers that.
Here's a more useful site for you to review. It's the top 10 Bush Flip Flops, it might be educational for you.
Ah, yes, in ManDrake's world, there is nothing Bush could have done correctly.
Posted by: InsaneIdiot on August 9, 2004 08:34 AMYes ManDrake, I can see how the President could've rushed out and changed the entire outcome of 9/11. During those 7 minutes, he could've rushed out, magically been transported to Air Force 1, scrambled fighters and sent them, well, where? The FAA wasn't even sure of which planes were missing, where they were, and what the hell was going on. Nor were they contacting the military for assistance for most of the time the planes were in the air. The simple fact is that he couldn't have done a damn thing at that point. When you are in a position of leadership, you realize that there is an entire network of folks out there to support you. You've planned ahead and made sure your people are trained and have a clear understanding of what to do in the event of an emergency. Pres. Bush relied on that network because there wasn't a thing he could've done. Therefore, since 7 minutes wouldn't have made a bit of difference (read the 9/11 commission report if you don't believe me), he chose to project an image of control. This isn't spin control as you put it, these are simple facts. Great leaders don't run around like chickens sans heads, they move with purpose and efficiency.
Posted by: Ron on August 9, 2004 08:53 AMAs for the flip-flop article you mention, here are some thoughts...
1 - If there is already a probe in place, why have another unless and until the first probe is proven to be inadequate - which is what happened here.
2 - Doesn't quote enough facts - in fact, it only points to an LA Times interpretation of the facts, which may or may not be valid.
3 - How is this a flip-flop? The quote states that on 3/9 they were still working on the timeframe and then on 3/11, they decided on unlimited timeframe. If you're negotiating, then you'll probably never have an agreement until then end of the process and taking a snapshot in the middle will always be innacurate.
4 - Well, Bush did get his view of the support, vote or no vote. And after the Security Council view, the vote would've been redundant. Also, there may be some legal issues that might have caused issues with getting the vote completed. I'm not sure as I can't speak to the legality of the UN's charter. Lastly, need I remind you that we didn't need a vote to go into Iraq like we did? The treaty specified this quite clearly as I remember...
5 - This one is just amusing. The President looks at the situation, just a few weeks after 9/11 when everyone is running around like madmen making suggestions. At that point, this suggestion was made and when the President was asked to support it, he may not have had enough evidence to see it as necessary. Given subsequent events, it became clear this was necessary. Then, the site claims that Bush claimed responsibility - which this site's quotes quite clearly don't demonstrate .
6 - This one is very interesting. In this case, a specific state's (Mass.) Supreme Court upheld a gay marriage in such a way that it would've forced EVERY single state to honor this marriage, regardless of their belief. So, in this instance, Bush was trying to stop this states attempt. While I don't agree with the President's stance on this issue, there are certainly extenuating circumstances that need to be considered here.
7 - Well, are we nation building? Yes. But, let's look at what Clinton was doing with regards to nation building. Somalia? They weren't a threat to our security. Afghanistan certainly was, therefore, they had to be removed - and the international community supported us in this. Once we removed the government, we have an obligation to the people to make sure they have a government and not lawless anarchy. Whether or not you like us being in Iraq, we have the same obligation there as well.
8 - Bush mocked the tax cut, not the automobiles. Then, he showed his support, not in the form of a basically meaningless tax cut (the number of hybrids that would be available for the cut wouldn't significantly impact their development) but in the form of substantial monies for research - which will help their development.
9 - He did support assault weapons bans (which again, I disagree with). What he did do was prevent additional bans from getting added on. Read the text and you'll see that this was the case. Support for the ban was never removed.
10 - Of course the manufacturers wanted more time - that's more profits. However, our country needs to get more efficient and having competition does this. I know this because my company manages to deliver it's product at a cost of less than 1% of goods sold. Additionally, our country is moving out of raw materials production (has been for years) and unless we become significantly more efficient, it will probably be a good thing for us to get out of this arena.
Also, note that almost none of these flip-flops included a vote - which is what Kerry spends his time flip-flopping on..
Posted by: Ron on August 9, 2004 09:28 AMAh, yes. See, this is why I have decided to step away from political online. I get so tired of the copy/paste debates that happen. It is much harder to really converse about these areas when it is so disconnected and minus actual face-to-face speech.
That and your "opponent" (and you for that matter)does not have the luxury to fall back on other internet posters to help you. If you don't know what you are debating about, and cannot go without fishing for help, step aside.
joshua - I certainly agree - this does make it much more difficult to have a discussion when you have to go back and forth. However, I still think that debate, in any form, is relevant. As for not having other posters to fall back on, I typically try to use news services, radio and TV news, and other sources to debate, rather than links to other posts or blogs when I can as I agree - it's much better to use original source material, which I'm currently trying to do by reading the 9/11 commission book.
Posted by: Ron on August 9, 2004 12:48 PM