Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: strk on June 05, 2004, 07:58:37 AM
-
I don't think so. After attacking John Kerry for 20 years, the Globe has set its sights on Bush*. Enjoy
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/06/05/steadfast_bushs_amazing_flip_flops/
'Steadfast' Bush's amazing flip-flops
By Dan Payne | June 5, 2004
BUSH-CHENEY team likes to say president is "steadfast." And John Kerry is "flip-flopper." But Senator Kerry is bolted to floor compared to Bush. President Bush is no more steadfast than Tony Soprano is faithful.
Never burdened by reality, Bush says departing CIA chief George Tenet did "superb job." That assumes Tenet's job was to fail miserably to anticipate 9/11 and to goad Bush into going to war under false pretenses. Bush doublespeak is matched only by his amazing flip-flops, which are underreported. Armchair Strategist aims to fix this, with help from Center for American Progress, liberal (There, I said it!) think tank.
Bush can't get enough of Chalabi. Chalabi cons Bush's neocons into toppling Saddam; sits behind Laura Bush at State of Union speech; always looks marvelous in custom-made $1,000 suits. US paid him $335,000 a month for "intelligence."
US troops raid Chalabi's house. US soldiers raided Chalabi's home and seized documents and computers. (Hope they didn't wrinkle his suits.) While on US payroll, told Iran that US had cracked code for Iran's secret communications. Time magazine says, "The US's abandonment of Chalabi may prove to be the most head-snapping reversal of all."
Bush called Osama number one priority. "There's an old poster out West that says, `Wanted: Dead or Alive.' . . . The most important thing is to find Osama bin Laden. It's our Number One priority. We will not rest until we have found him." (Sept. 13 and 16, 2001.)
Now Bush doesn't care about him. "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." (March 13, 2002.)
Cheney: We will be greeted as liberators. On "Face the Nation" Cheney predicts war in Iraq will "go relatively quickly." On "Meet the Press," says "things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." (March 16, 2003.)
Bush: That's Cheney's story, and I'm sticking with it.
On Feb. 7, 2004, Tim Russert asks: "It's now nearly a year, and we are in a very difficult situation. Did we miscalculate how we would be treated and received in Iraq?"
Bush: "Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq." (Pentagon reports 820 US troops killed in Iraq and 4,682 injured, June 3, 2004.)
Bush opposes Department of Homeland Security. Former press secretary Ari Fleischer says Bush told Congress, "There does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security." (White House press briefing, Oct. 24, 2001.)
Bush supports Department of Homeland Security. "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America."
Bush: Al Qaeda and Saddam same. "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." (Sept. 25, 2002.)
Bush: Saddam had no role in 9/11. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." (Sept. 17, 2003.)
Bush acrobatics on 9/11 commission. Bush was against creating commission, then for it. Against National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testifying, then for it. Against testifying himself, then for it. Said he'd testify only for one hour. Then said no time limit but had to have Cheney along -- to keep their stories straight.
Bush says president should talk OPEC into lower prices. "The president ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots . . . The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." (Jan. 26, 2000.)
But not this president. With gas prices soaring, President Bush refuses to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." (Miami Herald, April 1, 2004.)
Bush then: gay marriage is state issue. "The states can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." ("Larry King Live," Feb. 15, 2000.)
Bush now: for constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." (Feb. 24, 2004.)
Flip-flops, ad nauseam. Against nation-building, then for it. Found WMD, then lost them. Against McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, then signed it into law. Tariffs? Not gonna have 'em; puts 'em on steel, then lifts 'em. Mocks Al Gore's idea for hybrid fuel car; calls for $1.3 billion to develop one. For extending ban on assault weapons in 2001; now against it.
Fashion idea for DNC conventioneers: Bush flip-flop shoes. If it flips, wear it.
Dan Payne is a Boston-based media consultant who worked on John Kerry's Senate campaigns and for Michael Dukakis during the 1988 presidential primaries. His column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
-
so what are kerries good points again? Besides making me safe by making it harder for me to defend myself with firearms?
lazs
-
Price of Ketchup will fall.....(can get good inside deals on that I heard;) )
-
Kerry doesnt have to stand next to midgets to look tall and proud :D
-
He did allways look kinda cool in those munster publicity photos.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Kerry doesnt have to stand next to midgets to look tall and proud :D
No, he has to stand on them.....
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so what are kerries good points again? Besides making me safe by making it harder for me to defend myself with firearms?
lazs
Give me one quote of kerry saying he will restrict firearms.
-
"you want an assault weapon? join the army."
senator john kerry
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"you want an assault weapon? join the army."
senator john kerry
lazs
How is that restricting firearms. That is just enforceing exsisting gunlaws.
-
"I will stand up to the NRA."
senator john kerry
you will probly need to have that one explained to you... the NRA does nothing but stand up for gun rights. Any stand against the NRA means that you will restrict gun rights in some way.
as far as "enforceing" current laws. The law (assault weapon) was put in by a democrat... it has had no effect that is positive and all attempts to get rid of it have been blocked by democrats, mostly, by putting abhorent riders on the bills.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"I will stand up to the NRA."
senator john kerry
you will probly need to have that one explained to you... the NRA does nothing but stand up for gun rights. Any stand against the NRA means that you will restrict gun rights in some way.
as far as "enforceing" current laws. The law (assault weapon) was put in by a democrat... it has had no effect that is positive and all attempts to get rid of it have been blocked by democrats, mostly, by putting abhorent riders on the bills.
lazs
Democrats do not control any aspect of the government right now. If the republicans really wanted to remove it they could.
-
you obviously don't understand how it works when the numbers are close. riders are put on bills... the riders in this case allowed for the suing of gun manufacturers for producing excellent products.. so to remove the ban you would also have to vote to sell the manufacturers down the river... most republicans couldn't do that and withdrew support.
Adding riders to bills should be illegal and each bill should cover only one item.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you obviously don't understand how it works when the numbers are close. riders are put on bills... the riders in this case allowed for the suing of gun manufacturers for producing excellent products.. so to remove the ban you would also have to vote to sell the manufacturers down the river... most republicans couldn't do that and withdrew support.
Adding riders to bills should be illegal and each bill should cover only one item.
lazs
The numbers are not close.
-
it doesn't matter... so long as riders are allowed to be put on bills.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
it doesn't matter... so long as riders are allowed to be put on bills.
lazs
I agree. My state - Virginia - has a constitutional provision that says that each piece of legislation can have one topic and one issue only. No riders.
-
I agree with you that virginia has it right.
the excuse fo rriders is that there is too much for our poor overworked politicians and lawmakers to do... that is a crock of course since the riders slow the process immensly... plus... the less they do... the better for all of us.
lazs
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Democrats do not control any aspect of the government right now. If the republicans really wanted to remove it they could.
Boy are you thick! If that were true the 9th district court would be much more conservative as I type.
-
Laz,
So if Kerry wasn't for more gun control, he would be ok?
Not putting words in your mouth, just wondering if that is your only issue with him.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Democrats do not control any aspect of the government right now. If the republicans really wanted to remove it they could.
So simple and logical I had not thought of it.. Seems pretty much right though..
Will be interesting too see what Bush does in September w/ the assult weapon ban.. Will pretty much be put up or shut-up...
kappa
-
mosgood and kappa.... No, even if kerry were not for gun control he would not be allright as you say.
as a democrat he would appoint liberal judges and not veto liberal bills.
kappa... no.. it is not at all that simple. If riders are attached to a bill that are philisophicaly 180 degrees from the theme of the bill, how can you vote for it?
I think you will find that most republicans are in favor of removing the so called assault rifle bill and most democrats are not.
lazs
-
kappa... no.. it is not at all that simple. If riders are attached to a bill that are philisophicaly 180 degrees from the theme of the bill, how can you vote for it?
If you are to understand that point you made, how could you ever call kerry a flip-flopper? Maybe you have not called him that? If not, you should defend against it..
I think you will find that most republicans are in favor of removing the so called assault rifle bill and most democrats are not.
I could be wrong but doesnt the bill 'expire' in september? They will have to vote to renew it? If nothing is done the law goes away??
kappa
-
kappa... if someone puts forth a bill say that says that gun manufactures can't be sued for making a well made product but then attaches a rider on it that renews the assault weapon bill.... How would I vote?
lazs
-
for it??
no wait..
Against it!!!
lol im not sure lazs.. I didnt mean to question your beliefs.. I suppose I was changing the subject... I meant only to agree with you about riders on bills and how they could change your original outlook on a bill.. Doesn't this happen with bills all the time? Was just commenting on the willingness of some to agree with the Kerry flip-flop label.. nothing more.. I suppose Virgina has the striaght arrow with their 'no riders'...
Am I right thought about he weapons ban will expire in September forcing a renewal of the bill or the bill goes away??
kappa
-
I will check but I have seen several pro firearms rights bills that have had the renewal of the assualt weapons restriction on em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs
you obviously don't understand how it works when the numbers are close. riders are put on bills... the riders in this case allowed for the suing of gun manufacturers for producing excellent products.. so to remove the ban you would also have to vote to sell the manufacturers down the river... most republicans couldn't do that and withdrew support.
Adding riders to bills should be illegal and each bill should cover only one item.
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
The numbers are not close.
108th congress:
Senate: R-51, D-48, I-1
House: R-229, D-205, I-1
A vote along party lines can't get a whole lot closer. The numbers are indeed close.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
kappa... if someone puts forth a bill say that says that gun manufactures can't be sued for making a well made product but then attaches a rider on it that renews the assault weapon bill.... How would I vote?
lazs
If you didn't read the fine print or if an addendum were added after the fact, you might change your mind...and be accused of flip flopping...but hey, that's just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
If you didn't read the fine print or if an addendum were added after the fact, you might change your mind...and be accused of flip flopping...but hey, that's just my opinion.
They don't read the bills, neither side does. none of them!! It's a dodge to get out of working and to have power and prestige.
-
I haven't accused kerry of flip flopping on bills (or anything else for that matter).. he has changed his position on say his vietnam stance but he is not flip flopping... people can change... what bothers me is that he is being cowardly and dishonest about it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by storch
They don't read the bills, neither side does. none of them!! It's a dodge to get out of working and to have power and prestige.
Yup. My dad was in politics and decided not to run for re-election when he saw all the dodginess going on. had he been less respectable my family would probably be filthy (pun intended) rich by now...kudos to him for having some morals...
sadly, politics is more about personal agendas and glory seeking than looking out for common people. I really doubt anyone married to a ketchup exec, or a guy who hasnt worked a day in his life can really understand life as we do.