DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on October 23, 2006, 11:44:02 AM
-
So, now, after months and months of you guys on the right saying that if you don't want to "STAY THE COURSE", then you want to "CUT AND RUN", here, your Moron-in-Chief now says that "Well, listen, we've never been "stay the course"".
How far down into the bullshit will you guys follow this guy? I'm sure RR and sirs will immediately defend Bush and try to split the difference but its plain and simple. Over and over again he said that he (and the "nation") would "stay the course". Now, he's saying "I never said that". Will you guys finally realize that the jig is up? Or will you now turn off the psychic circuit breaker and cross over into utter stupidity and defend Bush's statement?
I'm betting the latter. Simply because you will not want us on the left to be correct that BushCo is full of lies and will lie no matter what.
Have a great day!
Bush: Well, listen, we’ve never been “Stay the course,†George
By: John Amato on Sunday, October 22nd, 2006 at 8:37 PM - PDT
George Bush appeared on THIS WEEK today (he's making the rounds before the election) and answered avoided a few questions about the Iraq war and his handling of it. Isn't it interesting that Stephanopoulos never followed up on Bush's sudden memory lock: "We've never been stay the course"? I seem to remember him and his cultists repeating that mantra over and over again—so a follow-up question was needed, but as usual, forgotten.
Video-WMP Video-QT
BUSH: Well, listen, we've never been "stay the course", George. We have been, "We will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics"…
Emailer Doug:
BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
transcript below the fold
BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the
temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on
the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the
course. [12/15/03]
BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course.
[4/13/04]
BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s
why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]
Full transcript of the segment:
-
"We will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics"…
-
And your point?
There are numerous quotes of him saying "STAY THE COURSE." Do you deny this?
-
There are numerous quotes of him saying "STAY THE COURSE." Do you deny this?
But the context of his statement is clear. There is difference between staying the course and cutting and running. And there has never been doubt that reacting to changing conditions on the ground was part of the course.
Not sure what the point of amato's post was but it seems to me that for someone like you who decries semantics and nitpicking , you and he are doing a bunch of it.
-
Laughable.
He's been saying "Stay the course" forever.
Now, he's saying he didn't.
There's no semantics here.
And lest we forget, everyone who was against "Staying the course" was accused of "cutting and running". Now Bush is laying the groundwork for doing exactly what the Dems and those of us who believe that the Iraq invasion was illegal have been calling for him to do all along: Get out of Iraq (which has been branded "cutting and running").
The invasion of Iraq has wasted the lives of 3000+ American soldiers and over half a million Iraqis.
-
Laughable. He's been saying "Stay the course" forever. Now, he's saying he didn't. There's no semantics here.
And lest we forget, everyone who was against "Staying the course" was accused of "cutting and running". Now Bush is laying the groundwork for doing exactly what the Dems and those of us who believe that the Iraq invasion was illegal have been calling for him to do all along: Get out of Iraq (which has been branded "cutting and running").
Sure would be nice some day if you could actually reference & quote folks in context. The folks who have in support of "staying the course" NEVER interpreted that as staying forever, no end in sight, no change to tactics what-so-ever. That's made up AMBE by the folks who hate Bush with such venom, they can't see and more importantly think straight. The goals has always been to leave, simply the how and when were what was fluid. The criticisms of the "cut & run" ground are specific to those that advocate leaving no matter the circumstances that we'd be leaving in. Bush isn't talking that, and YOU KNOW THAT. But you have to play these mental semantic games to get your Bush bashing fix in, regardless of the context in which Bush and others have been making their statements
-
What are the goals?
-
Now Bush is laying the groundwork for doing exactly what the Dems and those of us who believe that the Iraq invasion was illegal have been calling for him to do all along: Get out of Iraq (which has been branded "cutting and running").
And could you provide a quote where he says exactly that? Cutting and running has been defined as leaving Iraq at some arbitrary date certain. And no one including the President has said we would stay there forever.
-
What are the goals?
Missed Iraq war 101? The goals are
a) remove Saddam from power thus removing the WMD thread
b) for us to leave, when the new Democratic Iraq could handle their own security & defense measures and/or when the Iraqi Government tells us to leave.
That's been the goal since the get go. Where have you been?
-
Missed Iraq war 101? The goals are
a) remove Saddam from power thus removing the WMD thread
b) for us to leave, when the new Democratic Iraq could handle their own security & defense measures and/or when the Iraqi Government tells us to leave.
That's been the goal since the get go. Where have you been
And what does that have to do with the "War on Terror?"
-
As I prophecied.
You drank the Koolaid. As usual.
Did he or did he not say that we would "Stay the course" and is now saying that he never was "stay the course"?
That is the point.
-
No the point is you are taking a soundbite and claiming you have some massive change in story.
I know it and you should know it. The whole thread is just weak ass bullshit gotcha games.
Just because folks like Amato and those at think progress think honesty in debate is a fools game, there is no reason for you to follow suit.
Nail Bush on the real stuff. Someone as evil as he should give you plenty of genuine fodder.
This isn't it.
-
Missed Iraq war 101? The goals are
a) remove Saddam from power thus removing the WMD thread
b) for us to leave, when the new Democratic Iraq could handle their own security & defense measures and/or when the Iraqi Government tells us to leave.
That's been the goal since the get go. Where have you been
And what does that have to do with the "War on Terror?"
Did you miss Goal a)? You do know the WMD threat was in reference to his WMD getting offloaded to terrorists, right? At no time was it in reference to Saddam trying to take out Chicago
-
This isn't it.
This IS it along with the other 300,000,000 things that he's lied about and tried to re-write history on. Soon, he'll be claiming they never said there were WMD in Iraq.
-
Like i said. This isn't it. And since you hung your hat on an out of context distortive quote, it still isn't it. Deal with it.
You disparage his credibility yet bring none of your own.
-
Did you miss Goal a)? You do know the WMD threat was in reference to his WMD getting offloaded to terrorists, right? At no time was it in reference to Saddam trying to take out Chicago
So, Saddam had no WMD, which we know from numerous reports. Why then does the administration still refer to "The War on Terror" as a part of the current Iraq War objectives?
When will we know that Iraq can maintain their own security?
-
So, Saddam had no WMD, which we know from numerous reports......
.....AFTER we in, yea. that's not what the "numerous reports" said prior
Why then does the administration still refer to "The War on Terror" as a part of the current Iraq War objectives?
Does the name AlZarqawi ring a bell? You know, big AlQeada guy, #1 in Iraq in fact, that we ended up taking out in Iraq. Lots of Terrorists seeping into the country, trying to undo the Democracy that the Iraqis voted in. And the more of them we kill means the less terrorists that could come here. Am I making any headway yet?
-
Does the name AlZarqawi ring a bell? You know, big AlQeada guy, #1 in Iraq in fact, that we ended up taking out in Iraq. Lots of Terrorists seeping into the country, trying to undo the Democracy that the Iraqis voted in. And the more of them we kill means the less terrorists that could come here. Am I making any headway yet?
Not really. There was no guarantee they were ever coming here to begin with. There was no love for Saddam or the Baathists from the Islamic fundamentalists.
As for Democracy, how is that going?
And security, how is that going? Last I've read one had to take an armoured bus from the Baghdad airport to the green zone. There seems to be more and more sectarian violence. What solutions have been proposed to stop that?
-
Why then does the administration still refer to "The War on Terror" as a part of the current Iraq War objectives?
The insurgents and sectarians tactics rely on terror.
Roadside bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, assassination, disappearing and suicide bombings.
This sound like conventional warfare to you?
-
The insurgents and sectarians tactics rely on terror.
Roadside bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, assassination, disappearing and suicide bombings.
This sound like conventional warfare to you?
Do you expect them to fight superior technology by lining up on a battlefield an yelling "charge!" ?
-
No but i expect you to recognize terror tactics for being terror tactics, and i hope that clears up any queries you may have concerning the link of iraq to the war on terror.
-
There was no guarantee they were ever coming here to begin with. There was no love for Saddam or the Baathists from the Islamic fundamentalists. As for Democracy, how is that going? And security, how is that going? Last I've read one had to take an armoured bus from the Baghdad airport to the green zone. There seems to be more and more sectarian violence. What solutions have been proposed to stop that?
Aside from their pledge to take us out, and recent attacks in the U.S., 911 having been the latest successful one, you're right, no "gurantee" Just their promise. And the one thing that Baathists & Islamic Fundamentalists have in common is an even greater hatred for us
Democracy coming along pretty fair for a country in such an infant state. How long did it take us to get our country up and running democratically? How long were we in Japan after WWII. I'd say Iraq having a Constitution and functioning Democraticaly elected Government is a good step in the right direction. You don't? Ready to reinstate their dicatator, so the trains can run on time?
Security definately needs work. You advocating more troops?
-
No but i expect you to recognize terror tactics for being terror tactics, and i hope that clears up any queries you may have concerning the link of iraq to the war on terror.
Nonsensical. Terror tactics are used all across the world and we do not fight wars in those areas. They are used in Northern Ireland, Nepal, and Sri Lanka for example, yet we do not fight there. Clearly terror tactics were employed after we invaded and conquered Iraq, but that could only be expected as a response to a superior force (you even agreed). So what does that have to do with the "War on Terror?"
And the one thing that Baathists & Islamic Fundamentalists have in common is an even greater hatred for us
Evidence? Baathists never showed an appalling hatred of the United States beforehand, why now? The Islamic Fundamentalists tried to murder Baathist leaders in the past as well. Clearly their hatred towards Baathists is well-documented.
Democracy coming along pretty fair for a country in such an infant state. How long did it take us to get our country up and running democratically?
Technically it was up and running before it was a country.
How long were we in Japan after WWII.
Two points.
1. Japan was a non-hostile environment.
2. We were fighting a war in Korea very shortly after WWII and then monitoring the Chinese and Soviets.
Nice try, but extremely poor comparison.
You don't? Ready to reinstate their dicatator, so the trains can run on time?
Why the attitude? I ask questions and you can't answer them without being a complete asshole.
Security definately needs work. You advocating more troops?
It does need work. Throwing troops at the problem may not necessarily be the answer.
-
Nonsensical. Terror tactics are used all across the world and we do not fight wars in those areas. They are used in Northern Ireland, Nepal, and Sri Lanka for example, yet we do not fight there. Clearly terror tactics were employed after we invaded and conquered Iraq, but that could only be expected as a response to a superior force (you even agreed). So what does that have to do with the "War on Terror?"
You are kidding, right. We are in Iraq and one of the tactics we fight against is terror. So there is a connection between terror and the war in Iraq.
To say that terror happens elsewhere and since we don't have troops on the ground in those places( i dispute that we aren't fighting terror globally) then we are not fighting terror in Iraq is what is nonsensical. It doesn't matter if the tactics are justifyable. They are still terroristic by any definition of the word.
-
Evidence? Baathists never showed an appalling hatred of the United States beforehand, why now?
When I get home, I'll endeavor to find a report by Wolfowitz I think who documented very clearly that despite the issues that Arabs had with each other, they had no problem pooling their resources for attacks against us and Israel
Technically it (democracy) was up and running before it was a country.
Yea, i suppose an oppressive ruthless dictatorship, can be called a democracy. I mean they did vote for Saddam at an incredible 100%. Imagine the odds of that happening
1. Japan was a non-hostile environment. (AFTER the war. You'd be hardpressed to find WWII soldiers who'd vouch that japan was non-hostile during the war. Point being that we had no idea, what the "enviroment" was going to be like, and we were there for years.)
2. We were fighting a war in Korea very shortly after WWII and then monitoring the Chinese and Soviets. (And....? That refutes how long we were there, how again?)
Nice try, but extremely poor comparison.
Well, that's 1 opinion
I ask questions and you can't answer them without being a complete asshole
How is making the logical next step of a position, based on your questioning "being an asshole"? You seemed to be implying how terrible or non-functional their Democracy currently is. You seem to be claiming how we mucked it all up. You seem to be implying how we should have left things as they were? How is my query about you possibly wanting to reinstate Saddam some bogus snide issue?? You'll not e at no time have I dropped down to personally insulting you.
-
Bush has credibility? Since when?
Since he ran on "accountability" and "no nation building" and "cutting spending" and broke all those?
Could you just point to one thing that Bush has done that makes him have credibility?
-
Bush has credibility? Since when? Could you just point to one thing that Bush has done that makes him have credibility?
Since he actually backed up his rhetoric with actions i.e. taking out Saddam. There's just 1
-
Bush has credibility in this case and in this thread.
Bet you wish you could claim the same.
-
I don't know what it is that you're calling credibility. But whatever it is, I don't want it.
-
You are kidding, right. We are in Iraq and one of the tactics we fight against is terror. So there is a connection between terror and the war in Iraq.
But it is circuitous logic Bt. Of course they are using such tactics. Most military experts beforehand had predicted so beforehand. To use it as political fodder and connect it to 9/11, which has been done (even in this very thread) is ridiculous. Yes, it is a nasty unconventional war, but it has little relationship to international terrorism. It is guerilla war mixed with nasty religious sectionalism. Brutal, disgusting, horrible. Yet, it is nothing like 9/11 or the London or Madrid bombings. It isn't the same thing and I think you know that.
When I get home, I'll endeavor to find a report by Wolfowitz I think who documented very clearly that despite the issues that Arabs had with each other, they had no problem pooling their resources for attacks against us and Israel
Consider the source, but I'll certainly read it if you find it.
Yea, i suppose an oppressive ruthless dictatorship, can be called a democracy. I mean they did vote for Saddam at an incredible 100%. Imagine the odds of that happening
I was talking about America in answer to your question. *sigh*
You'd be hardpressed to find WWII soldiers who'd vouch that japan was non-hostile during the war. Point being that we had no idea, what the "enviroment" was going to be like, and we were there for years
Of course after the war, we didn't occupy it before the war was over! We had a very good idea of what occupied Japan was going to be like. I suggest you read some material on the occupying government of Japan and the first American forces stationed there. We certainly knew what we were getting into.
And....? That refutes how long we were there, how again?
Well Sirs, it may surprise you to know that if you look at a map of Japan it is remarkably close to the Korean peninsula. Amazingly we used Japan quite a bit during the war in Korea. I suggest using a map as reference. See, we didn't have satellites and the amazing communications equipment we do now. Now, refer to that map again and find some interesting locations such as China and Vladivostok. See their location re: Japan. See the strategic importance of Japan? We weren't there for so many years conducting nation building or policemen exercises. Again, I urge some reading material on the formation of the Japanese government. Or, if you'd like the West German government. Or, the French government.
You'll note at no time have I dropped down to personally insulting you.
I take being asked if I support fascist dictators as a personal insult. Maybe it is a German cultural thing. You see, I understand the rather blunt historical reference you made. I'll note that linking you and fascist dictators is no problem for you.
-
I don't know what it is that you're calling credibility. But whatever it is, I don't want it.
Credibility is something you need not worry about, Brass
-
But it is circuitous logic Bt. Of course they are using such tactics. Most military experts beforehand had predicted so beforehand. To use it as political fodder and connect it to 9/11, which has been done (even in this very thread) is ridiculous. Yes, it is a nasty unconventional war, but it has little relationship to international terrorism. It is guerilla war mixed with nasty religious sectionalism. Brutal, disgusting, horrible. Yet, it is nothing like 9/11 or the London or Madrid bombings. It isn't the same thing and I think you know that.
I don't believe i said it was the same thing as 9-11, Madrid or London. Perhaps you can point out where i did.
I have simply stated that the tactics used in Iraq are terroristic in nature. So it is a true statement that we are fighting terror in Iraq. To state differently is nonsensical.
-
I never want to have 'credibility' like Bush has.
-
I have simply stated that the tactics used in Iraq are terroristic in nature. So it is a true statement that we are fighting terror in Iraq. To state differently is nonsensical.
But do you agree that relating it to international terrorism is equally nonsensical?
-
I never want to have 'credibility' like Bush has.
As I said, crediblity, in any form or fashion, is a concept you need not worry about. It's just too foreign a concept for you
-
But do you agree that relating it to international terrorism is equally nonsensical?
I believe another thread suggested direct talks with Syria and Iran re: Iraq. Kinda makes it international, doesn't it?
-
I President Bush starts thinking that Representative Murtha is right, and suggests bulling back in the style that has been suggested by Mrs. Sheehan.....
This is no reason for rejoicing among the people who want this to happen?
Why would someone get mad at an opponent for coming around to a new way of thinking?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZE20lzZZF0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZE20lzZZF0)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJmbomyq0fc
-
I have simply stated that the tactics used in Iraq are terroristic in nature. So it is a true statement that we are fighting terror in Iraq. To state differently is nonsensical.
But do you agree that relating it to international terrorism is equally nonsensical?
Saddam was a good hoast to Abu Nidal , he was a reliable supplyer to Hamas , and he was known to give cash to the family left behind by a suicide bomber.
How is Saddam unrelated to international terrorism?
-
Consider the source, but I'll certainly read it if you find it.
You see, we had this conversation before. I referenced precisely that articles coming from far left web sites in "objectively" criticising Bush really couldn't be taken that seriously. I do believe you opined how you would use your vast "critical thinking" skills, and devine objective conclusions, regardless of where it came from. Strangly, they coincided consistently with the left wing web sites, yet with RW web sites, pundits, and papers we must "consider the source". Either we "consider the source" for all pieces of commentary and criticism, or we don't. I'll still keep my eye out for the report I was referencing. I can only recall that it was a high ranking Clinton fella, either in the Intelligence agency, or Terrorism agency. But obviously if his viewpoint is running counter to yours, I guess we just have to "consider the source"
I was talking about America in answer to your question
Strange, I thought we were discussing Iraq
We had a very good idea of what occupied Japan was going to be like. I suggest you read some material on the occupying government of Japan and the first American forces stationed there. We certainly knew what we were getting into.
Oh we did, did we. Over a million Japanese solidiers killed at the hands of the Americans, and we knew precisely how they were going to greet us? Care to provide some of those "materials"? The ones that declare how their citizens, especially those most loyal to Yamamoto & the Emperor were going to behave, please.
it may surprise you to know that if you look at a map of Japan it is remarkably close to the Korean peninsula. Amazingly we used Japan quite a bit during the war in Korea. I suggest using a map as reference
Geography wasn't the issue, it was the duration of our being there. But if you wish to play the geography angle, Let's see, Iran just to the east, you got Syria over there to the west, rock's throw from being able to help out Israel in a pinch. Pretty stretagic location to keep close eyes on all of them, with the ability to provide major military assets in a heartbeat. See the current strategic importance of our being in Iraq? Here's a link to a map for a greater perspecitive....just in case http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.alternative-learning.org/international/meast.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.alternative-learning.org/international/middleast.html&h=650&w=650&sz=29&tbnid=6guq2KLNyaootM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmiddle%2Beast%2Bmap&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2
I take being asked if I support fascist dictators as a personal insult
Funny, I've looked all up & down the thread, and at no time did I ever claim that you supported fascist dictators. You seemed to support something to make things work better in Iraq, because we were apparently making everything so much worse. I then provided a suggestion. You were free to disagree with it. But take it as a personal insult?
-
No the point is you are taking a soundbite and claiming you have some massive change in story.
I know it and you should know it. The whole thread is just weak ass bullshit gotcha games.
Just because folks like Amato and those at think progress think honesty in debate is a fools game, there is no reason for you to follow suit.
Nail Bush on the real stuff. Someone as evil as he should give you plenty of genuine fodder.
This isn't it.
At this point, i think of Bush as the flesh-eating staph we have the misfortune of calling Mr. President.
Lying about the 'little' stuff is a pretty good indicator that the man is a liar, and such an easily identifiable lie must not matter too much because...well, he's got you all here to explain it all away, and tell us we don't have credibility.
Send out the troops, the Liar in Chief is at it again.
What on earth will you do when there's a president who doesn't require such backup?
-
At this point, i think of Bush as the flesh-eating staph we have the misfortune of calling Mr. President. Lying about the 'little' stuff is a pretty good indicator that the man is a liar, and such an easily identifiable lie must not matter too much because...well, he's got you all here to explain it all away, and tell us we don't have credibility. Send out the troops, the Liar in Chief is at it again. What on earth will you do when there's a president who doesn't require such backup?
Feel better? Get it all out of your system yet? But of course, you don't hate Bush. do you Lanya. I mean necrotizing fasciitis is nothing to really dispise now, is it
-
At this point, i think of Bush as the flesh-eating staph we have the misfortune of calling Mr. President. Lying about the 'little' stuff is a pretty good indicator that the man is a liar, and such an easily identifiable lie must not matter too much because...well, he's got you all here to explain it all away, and tell us we don't have credibility. Send out the troops, the Liar in Chief is at it again. What on earth will you do when there's a president who doesn't require such backup?
Feel better? Get it all out of your system yet? But of course, you don't hate Bush. do you Lanya. I mean necrotizing fasciitis is nothing to really dispise now, is it
No, it isn't. It's something to clinically observe, see how much it eats into the skin and tissue, and try your very best to make it go away so it doesn't kill the patient. (US.)
It doesn't care if you don't like it.
So I don't bother with dislike. I try for change through elections in House and Senate.
-
But of course. Personally, as a healthcare provider myself, I hate it. That and ALS, my 2 most despised pathological processes
-
Lying about the 'little' stuff is a pretty good indicator that the man is a liar,
You might have a point if this is an example of Bush lying about the little stuff.
But it isn't, so you don't.
This isn't a case about blindily defending Bush.
This is once again a case of you and Brass failing to come even close to making your case. Your pathetic attempt to take a quote out of context and then make it proof positive of a little lie shows the shallowness of your thought process. What kind of brain numbed zombie stepford wife or husband would take a such weak post from think progress and think they had something worthy of submitting for examination proof of an impotent charge.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301053.html
Bush's New Tack Steers Clear of 'Stay the Course'
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; Page A01
President Bush and his aides are annoyed that people keep misinterpreting his Iraq policy as "stay the course." A complete distortion, they say. "That is not a stay-the-course policy," White House press secretary Tony Snow declared yesterday.
Where would anyone have gotten that idea? Well, maybe from Bush.
"What you have is not 'stay the course' but in fact a study in constant motion," White House press secretary Tony Snow said yesterday. (By Ron Edmonds -- Associated Press)
"We will stay the course. We will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed," he said in Salt Lake City in August.
"We will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course," he said in Milwaukee in July.
"I saw people wondering whether the United States would have the nerve to stay the course and help them succeed," he said after returning from Baghdad in June.
But the White House is cutting and running from "stay the course." A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned "stay the course" into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining that "stay the course" does not actually mean stay the course.
Instead, they have been emphasizing in recent weeks how adaptable the president's Iraq policy actually is. Bush remains steadfast about remaining in Iraq, they say, but constantly shifts tactics and methods in response to an adjusting enemy. "What you have is not 'stay the course' but in fact a study in constant motion by the administration," Snow said yesterday.
Political rhetoric, of course, is often in constant motion as well. But with midterm elections two weeks away, the Bush team is searching for a formula to address public opposition to the war, struggling to appear consistent and flexible at the same time. That was underscored by the reaction to a New York Times report that the administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to disarm militias and assume a larger security role. The White House initially called the story "inaccurate." But then White House counselor Dan Bartlett went on CNN yesterday morning to call it "a little bit overwritten" because in fact it was something the administration had been doing for months.
The president has shifted language on Iraq before. At a news conference in August, he returned to his prewar argument that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Hussein "had relations with Zarqawi," Bush said. Weeks later, the Senate intelligence committee concluded that Hussein "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye to Zarqawi" and that the U.S. government knew that before the invasion. At his next news conference, Bush was asked about that. "I never said there was an operational relationship," he said.
Bush used "stay the course" until recent weeks when it became clear that it was becoming a political problem. "The characterization of, you know, 'it's stay the course' is about a quarter right," Bush complained at an Oct. 11 news conference. " 'Stay the course' means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is: Don't do what you're doing if it's not working -- change. 'Stay the course' also means don't leave before the job is done."
By last week, it was no longer a quarter right. "Listen, we've never been stay the course, George," he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. "We have been -- we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics. Constantly."
Snow said Bush dropped the phrase "because it left the wrong impression about what was going on. And it allowed critics to say, 'Well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,' when, in fact, it's just the opposite."
Republican strategists were glad to see him reject the language, if not the policy. "They're acknowledging that it's not sending the message they want to send," said Steve Hinkson, political director at Luntz Research Cos., a GOP public opinion firm. The phrase suggested "burying your head in the sand," Hinkson said, adding that it was no longer useful signaling determination. "The problem is that as the number of people who agree with remaining resolute dwindles, that sort of language doesn't strike a chord as much as it once did."
If anything, it is striking a Democratic chord, party strategists say. A commercial by Democratic Senate candidate James Webb in Virginia shows a clip of Bush saying "We'll stay the course in Iraq," followed by a clip of Republican Sen. George Allen, saying "I very much agree with the president. . . . And we need to stay the course." A caption on the screen says "Civil War; No End in Sight; We Need a New Course."
An ad for Democratic Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. in Tennessee shows Republican Bob Corker saying "I think we should stay the course," then rewinds and repeats "we should stay the course." Ford then comes onto the screen. "I support our troops, and I voted for the war," he says. "But we shouldn't stay the course as Mr. Corker wants. . . . America should always be strong. But we should be smart and honest, too. We need a new direction."
Juxtaposed against "stay the course," "new direction" has become the Democrats' poll-tested mantra, even if they don't define precisely what that new direction would be. "There's a reason why every Democratic candidate in the country is talking now about change in direction," said Democratic National Committee pollster Cornell Belcher. "When you ask 'change in direction' versus Bush's direction, you get solid majorities of 60 percent or so for change."
So now even some Republican candidates are changing direction, at least in terms of their language. "We can't continue to keep doing the same things and expect different results," Allen said last week. "We must adapt. We must adjust our tactics." Corker now says on his campaign Web site: "We need to fix our strategy in Iraq so we can get the job done and bring our troops home."
-
This is what Bush said:
"Listen, we've never been stay the course, George," he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. "We have been -- we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics. Constantly."
Snow clarifying said Bush dropped the phrase "because it left the wrong impression about what was going on. And it allowed critics to say, 'Well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,' when, in fact, it's just the opposite."
Both Snow and Bush are correct.
So where is the "little lie" ?
-
Posted by: Plane
Insert Quote
I President Bush starts thinking that Representative Murtha is right, and suggests bulling back in the style that has been suggested by Mrs. Sheehan.....
This is no reason for rejoicing among the people who want this to happen?
Why would someone get mad at an opponent for coming around to a new way of thinking?
________________________________
Maybe because when Rep. Murtha proposed his redeployment strategy, he was smeared, called a coward on the floor of the House of Representatives by a mindless harpy from Ohio, Jean Schmitt, reviled as a 'cut'n run' Democrat, and Cindy Sheehan is called a whore and worse. ANd every one who agrees with them was called an appeaser, traitor, etc.
But when the election comes round and the GOP sees that more people agree with Murtha?
They suddenly say, "Oh, we've never said "Stay the course." "
So you can see why it is a LIE. A big, god damn lie, only trotted out when they're afraid they might be losing power.
THe truth doesn't matter to the GOP. Only power.
Now do you get it? WHy it matters? Why words matter? "Your word is your bond." Little Georgie needs to learn that.
-
This is what Bush said:
"Listen, we've never been stay the course, George," he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. "We have been -- we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics. Constantly."
Snow clarifying said Bush dropped the phrase "because it left the wrong impression about what was going on. And it allowed critics to say, 'Well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,' when, in fact, it's just the opposite."
Both Snow and Bush are correct.
So where is the "little lie" ?
-----------------------------------
There is no one so blind as he who will not see.
-
They stopped using it because they didn't like how people had stopped seeing it as "Bush the Decider" and were now coming around to it being viewed "Bush the dumb fuck who is so egotistical he won't change even if it means only Laura and Barney support him".
If things were going the way they are lying and saying they are, then he'd still be saying they're going to stay the course.
The fact that you guys are STILL obstinately trying to say they never said "stay the course" points to real delusion and outright stupidity, imo.
Can you even point to one mistake Bush has made since taking office?
-
They stopped using it because they didn't like how people had stopped seeing it as "Bush the Decider"
If the message is not getting across, isn't it wise to rephrase it?
I see nothing wrong with that. I certainly don't see it as a lie, which is yours and lanya's claim.
Nor do i see the dems constant changing of slogans and mantras as a lie. It is simply fine tuning the message.
How many time have you reworked your own replies in here to make sure your point was understood.
Why should the Bush admin be any different.
-
Can you even point to one mistake Bush has made since taking office?
Expanded Government greater than any President before hand
Farm Subsidy Bill signed
Executire order for Steel Tariffs
Medicare Drug Presription Bill signed
Amnesty program support
Those are just 5, off the top of my head. I'm confident I could push that to 15-20 with time to think about it.
-
And none having to do with Iraq?
Hmmm. How convenient.
And all wonky money related issues.
-
And none having to do with Iraq? Hmmm. How convenient. And all wonky money related issues.
That wasn't the question, but to answer your above modifier
Did not have an effective post-saddam plan in place
Did not have back-up plans ready to impliment at a moment's notice
Did not appreciate the level of insurgent blow back, once Saddam was taken out
So much for this "Bush loving worshipper" not being able to come up with even "one" mistake. Or are you going to modify your questioning even further?
-
October 24, 2006 -- 02:54 PM EST // link)
He even fooled Laura?
Laura Bush, when asked on the Today Show (9/18/06) what she tells people when asked about Iraq: "Well, I say the--exactly what the president says, that we need to stay the course."
The wife really is always the last to know.
-
Posted by: Plane
Insert Quote
I President Bush starts thinking that Representative Murtha is right, and suggests bulling back in the style that has been suggested by Mrs. Sheehan.....
This is no reason for rejoicing among the people who want this to happen?
Why would someone get mad at an opponent for coming around to a new way of thinking?
________________________________
Maybe because when Rep. Murtha proposed his redeployment strategy, he was smeared, called a coward on the floor of the House of Representatives by a mindless harpy from Ohio, Jean Schmitt, reviled as a 'cut'n run' Democrat, and Cindy Sheehan is called a whore and worse. ANd every one who agrees with them was called an appeaser, traitor, etc.
But when the election comes round and the GOP sees that more people agree with Murtha?
They suddenly say, "Oh, we've never said "Stay the course." "
So you can see why it is a LIE. A big, god damn lie, only trotted out when they're afraid they might be losing power.
THe truth doesn't matter to the GOP. Only power.
Now do you get it? WHy it matters? Why words matter? "Your word is your bond." Little Georgie needs to learn that.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
So it is personally Bush that is hated , even if he were to reverse course you would hate him just as much?
I am perplexed to learn that it is not what he does or says , it is just personal.
-
Read my post again.
Read where I object to the president's party calling Murtha names, reviling him. Reviling anyone who wanted to redeploy outside of Iraq.
That is what I object to. Especially now for Bush to say "I never was a Stay the Course person" ...that is a lie, and he's simply trying to keep the GOP in power.
If the president were to come before the whole country and say, "I was wrong. I DID say we should stay the course. I DID call Murtha and others like him "cut and run" Democrats. And now, I see they were right, I was wrong, I got us in a horrible mess, and we have to get out."....
Then you may ask me if he has done enough to make amends. Do not be surprised if I say no. But it's a start.
-
Read where I object to the president's party calling Murtha names, reviling him. Reviling anyone who wanted to redeploy outside of Iraq.
You want to show me where in this paltry attempt to show a "little lie", where Bush said we should redeploy?
Or are little lies not little lies when spoken by a progressive?
-
Read my post again.
Read where I object to the president's party calling Murtha names, reviling him. Reviling anyone who wanted to redeploy outside of Iraq.
That is what I object to. Especially now for Bush to say "I never was a Stay the Course person" ...that is a lie, and he's simply trying to keep the GOP in power.
If the president were to come before the whole country and say, "I was wrong. I DID say we should stay the course. I DID call Murtha and others like him "cut and run" Democrats. And now, I see they were right, I was wrong, I got us in a horrible mess, and we have to get out."....
Then you may ask me if he has done enough to make amends. Do not be surprised if I say no. But it's a start.
Are all Democrats responsible for everything any Democrat says?
President Bush has been a lot more respectfull of Democrats than the Advradge Republican.
So unless you beleive him to be a valve for all Republicans statements your hatred is misplaced.
Could you re- read what Bush himself ever said that made you so mad?
Do you really think that his recent statement is a total reversal?
-
Read where I object to the president's party calling Murtha names, reviling him. Reviling anyone who wanted to redeploy outside of Iraq.
You want to show me where in this paltry attempt to show a "little lie", where Bush said we should redeploy?
Or are little lies not little lies when spoken by a progressive?
-------------------
I did not say Bush said we should redeploy outside of Iraq. Murtha said that.
Bush called him cut and run Dem, etc. etc., said he (Bush) was gonna stay the course and win.
And now he's saying "Oh I never was a stay the course person, oh no." So that is a lie. Big, little, however you want to characterize it, it's a LIE.
-
Once again this is what he said:
Well, listen, we've never been "stay the course", George. We have been, "We will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics"…
I call that a rephrasing or a clarification.
You call it a lie. You probably call it a lie so that your party can gain power. Which means you are doing the same thing you accuse Bush of doing. How does that make you feel? Like some flesh eating staph infection?
-
Are all Democrats responsible for everything any Democrat says?
President Bush has been a lot more respectfull of Democrats than the Advradge Republican.
So unless you beleive him to be a valve for all Republicans statements your hatred is misplaced.
Could you re- read what Bush himself ever said that made you so mad?
Do you really think that his recent statement is a total reversal?
In order:
No.
Good for him, and it wouldn't be hard to be a lot more respectful. But calling someone "a cut and run Dem" isn't "a lot more respectful." I don't get called that by Republicans that I know.
He's the president, and he's lying to my face. I am angry about it. It pisses me off.
I could re-read it but I won't.
Yes of course it's a total reversal. Candidates all over the country were getting tarred with the ugly Bush Brush and he decided to change course---and LIE about changing course. That's the person you are supporting and that's the person you're lying for...or simply denying reality for.
He never said stay the course lalalalalalalalal I can't hear you....Is that how you do it?
-
He never said stay the course
He didn't say that. He said what he said. In the context he said it.
Nail him on something real. This one isn't it.
-
Posted by: Plane
Insert Quote
I President Bush starts thinking that Representative Murtha is right, and suggests bulling back in the style that has been suggested by Mrs. Sheehan.....
This is no reason for rejoicing among the people who want this to happen?
Why would someone get mad at an opponent for coming around to a new way of thinking?
________________________________
Maybe because when Rep. Murtha proposed his redeployment strategy, he was smeared, called a coward on the floor of the House of Representatives by a mindless harpy from Ohio, Jean Schmitt, reviled as a 'cut'n run' Democrat, and Cindy Sheehan is called a whore and worse. ANd every one who agrees with them was called an appeaser, traitor, etc.
But when the election comes round and the GOP sees that more people agree with Murtha?
They suddenly say, "Oh, we've never said "Stay the course." "
So you can see why it is a LIE. A big, god damn lie, only trotted out when they're afraid they might be losing power.
THe truth doesn't matter to the GOP. Only power.
Now do you get it? WHy it matters? Why words matter? "Your word is your bond." Little Georgie needs to learn that.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
So it is personally Bush that is hated , even if he were to reverse course you would hate him just as much?
I am perplexed to learn that it is not what he does or says , it is just personal.
Plane, even if he were to reverse course, admit he lied, he still: smeared a good man, John Murtha, and anyone else who wanted to get out of Iraq. "They just want to cut and run."
Um, that's the president of the US calling a man I respect a coward, basically. Calling a lot of citizens cowards. And Murtha is a man who actually completed his service requirements and went into battle twice...
So you see, just "reversing course" would not quite do it. Is it personal when someone calls you a coward? It is what he SAYS. It is also what he DOES.
-
He never said stay the course
He didn't say that. He said what he said. In the context he said it.
Nail him on something real. This one isn't it.
You go ahead and parse George Bush's words, I'm not going to. The meaning is plain.
From the WaPo article I posted in this thread: 'Bush used "stay the course" until recent weeks when it became clear that it was becoming a political problem.'
They note that he's cutting and running from stay the course. Yay WaPo, finally some good reporting.
-
First of all, can you show where Bush called Murtha a coward? I don't recall him doing that.
Reacting to conditions on the ground is nether reversing course, nor redeploying nor cuttting and running.
It is simply reacting to changing conditions on the ground.
-
You go ahead and parse George Bush's words, I'm not going to.
Au contraire, that is exactly what you are doing. Everytime you strip the quote of its context.
And of course he used the phrase "stay the course". I don't believe he was denying that. I believe he was explaining what that means to him.
But it really doesn't matter.
I would much rather complete the mission, do our job and help achieve the goal, constantly adjusting the tactics than to cut and run on some date certain. I wouldn't be surprised if most americans felt the same way.
Is Rove in the middle of this?
-
I don't get called that by Republicans that I know.
And yet, you have no qualms about saying all Republicans want women to get cancer.
Go figure.
-
There is no reason to prove these ridiculous pinpoints to you guys.
Its' a waste of time to even bother pointing these things out to you because you'll never agree with anything we say.
You're all operating from an ego-based platform and it will never be the way we say it is. It will always be that "we hate Bush" or "we just want to throw mud" or some nonsensical argument that has nothing to do with our original point.
Bush has plainly been saying STAY THE COURSE and he said they've never been STAY THE COURSE. That is a lie. Even Rumsfeld has said that Bush is not backing away from STAYING THE COURSE.
Laura said that she agrees with the "president" that we should STAY THE COURSE.
Snow got on tv and tried to claim that Bush said STAY THE COURSE only 8 times when in fact it can be documented that he has said it at least 30 times. Now he wants to say that he's never been STAY THE COURSE when clearly he has been.
The case is close and you guys are less credible for having tried to obfuscate the whole thing with your storm of bullshit.
Plane is whining about Bush "coming around" or whatever and it is just pathetic. As Lanya points out, when lots of others where calling for an end to STAYING THE COURSE, they were assailed and called traitors and cowards and appeasers. Now, here is Bush pullling this bullshit out of his pocket and you're all eating it up like it was ice cream.
It's over. Everyone understands that the GOP is the really damaged goods since it was hijacked by a bunch of slick-talking snake oil salesmen who convinced all you non-critical thinkers that they were the annointed ones come to help bring back baby jeebus by killing the "bad men" and all you had to do is WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY TOLD YOU TO and wave your flags and you bought it. They're infallible in your minds and must be defending kneejerk-style whenever someone attacks them. No matter if it is Reagan himself, risen from the grave, to point a skeletal finger towards the West Wing whilst gurgling sans lip and tongue, "Judas!" You list off abstract ideas that they threw out for you like doggie biscuits for you to disagree with and you act like they validate your presumption that you are removed somehow, that you are not a true-believer.
Now you're defending torture and advocating big brother antics and getting caught in the swirling waters as they (and you) are flushed down the toilet of history.
You hitched your wagon to Hitler imitators and now everyone will be asking your children in the near future "Where was your mother, when?"
Have a great day.
-
Bush has plainly been saying STAY THE COURSE
"The Course" includes possible corrections depending on information from the ground. Information from the ground has changed.
If you're driving down the road, and the road curves to the right, is "staying the course" following the road, or leaving the road to continue straight?
Republicans think it's following the road. Democrats apparently believe it's going straight, regardless of where the road goes.
-
Considering W has been going straight no matter what the roads does, I'd say you have it wrong as usual.
I have noted, however, that you are one of the Defenders of the Decider.
-
Considering W has been going straight no matter what the roads does, I'd say you have it wrong as usual.
Not so much.
Gonna declare victory and hit enter?
-
"The Course" includes possible corrections depending on information from the ground. Information from the ground has changed.
Those are tactical decisions made by military brass everyday. I think we all know that.
What is clear is that "stay the course" and "cut and run" were failing as campaign slogans. They have no real meaning in military terms.
What has changed is that people are recognizing that there is no current effective strategy for dealing with the overall sectarian civil war in Iraq. When Condi Rice recently visited the Iraqi leader, she had to circle the Baghdad airport for quite a while for security fears. Then she couldn't use the highway into the green zone because of real fears that she might be killed in a roadside attack. After flying her in on a helicopter, she finally met with the Iraqi leader. Yet, they had to meet in the dark because power had been cut to a large portion of the green zone.
What does that mean? There is little control in Iraq. It isn't even up to Afghanistan standards where we at least control a few urban centers. This is a military problem that is inexorably tied to the political sphere.
For the Republicans it is a political problem. Hence why there's no more reference to those two idiotic slogans. That's why good leaders don't say things like "bring them on" unless they are talking about situations where they know they will win. For Bush it is a legacy problem, and despite the early years where we were told that Bush has no interest in his legacy - all indication is that he is very much interested in how history will view him. Well, he's made it easy. He's Lyndon Johnson, only without the civil rights record, though with the record spending levels and a hell of a welfare program on prescription drugs. Ultimately the Iraq War will be his legacy and in all likelihood will prove Bush to be a terrible president and one that may cost the Republican Party dearly.
-
President Bush did not actually say most of the things that make Democrats angry.
But since Democrats want to be angry , he might as well have said them as far as they are concerned.
This self manufactured outrage rings hollow even if loud.
You may choose to be angry at an image of Bush that you have imagined , but is this anger for the sake of anger really winning over a lot of voters?
-
President Bush did not actually say most of the things that make Democrats angry.
What didn't he say, Plane?
-
President Bush did not actually say most of the things that make Democrats angry.
What didn't he say, Plane?
You are either for the Republicans or you are unpatriotic.
-
True, I think it was more of a sentiment than anything. Plus, I'd say it was "support this war, or you are unpatriotic."
And really, Democrats should look to themselves for part of the blame. How many Democrats opposed the military action in Iraq when it came up for vote? How many opposed the original Patriot Act?
-
Two that I know of: Sherrod Brown voted no on going to Iraq, as did Russ Feingold.
Patriot Act...not sure.
Torture, Brown voted yes. Shame.
-
Bush has plainly been saying STAY THE COURSE
"The Course" includes possible corrections depending on information from the ground. Information from the ground has changed. If you're driving down the road, and the road curves to the right, is "staying the course" following the road, or leaving the road to continue straight?
Republicans think it's following the road. Democrats apparently believe it's going straight, regardless of where the road goes.
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/061026/asay.gif)