Bush flip-flops on Iraq
 

I was honestly surprised to read this...

REF:http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...667842419.html

Who would have thought it? Just a week before the election and Bush is changing tactics, or at least admitting he needs to change tactics, in Iraq. Whilst I applaud him for, eventually, admitting the obvious, I think this is a classic case of "flip-flopping"...

What that I hear the Republicans howl? That's not flip-flopping? Well, funny, because that's what most of the world has been telling you guys for months...

:)


Mr Mephisto

Where's the flop? Changing tactics isn't a flip, nor a flop. Voting for the war before you voted against is a flip-flop. Being the war hero "who defended this country as a young man", who said Saddam needed to be taken out of power, who said we were justified, who said it was the right thing to do, then coming back and saying wrong war wrong time wrong place, calling it a mistake on national TV, is a flop. That is providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Bitching about the support for our troops?!?! Who does this assfuck think he is, he voted against the money for the troops. Who know's maybe I should take a step back, it could be all the botox has finally started to negatively effect Kerry's brain.

Kerry has no spine or conviction, and he sold our boys out by saying that.

Thanks for summarizing about 6 months worth of talking points. I haven't had them drilled into my head enough.

so let me paraphrase... "it's okay for bush to change his mind on something, but not for kerry."

why couldn't you have said that in the first place? it would have saved me a valuable 7.6 seconds from reading it all.

I don't see a problem with changing tactics on the battlefields of Iraq. Adaptation in warfare is essential to victory.

The only purpose I see this article serving is as just another anti-Bush opinion/editorial.

Borderline troll....but we seem to reacting well to it.

Personally I see this as a Good sign, and perhaps a light of reason in the administrations Iraq Policy....Good for Bush.

It's not that Kerry "flip flops", it's the fact that he would go about "disarming" Saddam of his imaginary weapons, and putting him out of power in a different manner than Bush did. Being realistic, Bush “flip flops” just as much as the next guy.

It was certainly NOT a troll.

My question or comment on "flip-flops" was tongue in cheek. Let me quote myself.

Thank you for proving my point.


Mr Mephisto

I'm neither republican nor democrat, but I have a hard time calling a change in tactics a flip-flop. change in objective? yes. but not tactics.

Ummm whats the flip flop, did a position change?

I'm sorry but there isn't a single 'flip' or 'flop'.

Dunno what lefty website you get all the stuff you cut and past is Mephisto, but you are grasping with this one.

The Washington Post and Hearst Newspapers. It's referenced at the end of the quotation. Plus there's a link. I always reference my stories.

Did you actually read the whole thing before calling into question my post?

If people see this as a troll, I respectfully state that it was not intended as much. I'm sorry you see it that way.

I actually say I applaud Bush for this change in tactics. I also used "quote marks" and a smiley to denote the tongue-in-cheek nature of my use of the word flip-flop.

It seems that not only do Republicans/Bush-lackeys not only have double standards, but they also have no sense of humour.


Mr Mephisto

Yes I read, and while the washington post IS left wing, I mean the site that links all these for you for easy pasting. I rather doubt you search the internet every day to cut and paste.

This is NOT a classic case of flip-flopping. Flip flopping would be saying 'We never should have gone into Iraq' or 'I voted for it before I vote against it'.

If you ment it to be sarcastic, you might want to work on it, calling it 'classic' doesn't lend itself to sarcasm.

Well, I say it's about time Bush begins to 'adapt' and 'change' strategies. I see this as a very potentially good thing, albeit extremely late.

Actually, I do read several news items every day. And I posted the actual link to the story. It's the Sydney Morning Herald.

It wasn't sarcasm. It was meant to be humourous, whilst pointing out an apparent dichotomy (which several posters on this thread agree).

You may need to work on your sense of perspective. Pomposity does not lend itself to humour.

Mr Mephisto

October 28, 2004 - Could this be our "October Surprise"?

I believe it to be a tactic to turn undecided voters in his favor. Maybe it will work, maybe not.

I don't know what the hell john kerry stands for
Kerry Says Saddam 'Might Be Gone' Had He Been President
Fri Oct 29 2004 10:02:35 ET

NBCNEWS Brokaw interviewed John Kerry Thursday evening.

Brokaw: "If you had been President, Saddam Hussein would be in power."

Kerry: "Not necessarily."

Brokaw: "You said you wouldn't go to war against him."

Kerry: "That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."

Brokaw: "But he wasn't destroying them."

Kerry: "That's what you have inspectors for. That's why I voted for the threat of force, because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren't carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it."

it's funny that you don't understand what he stands for... it's pretty clear in the what you posted. to paraphrase "we needed to continue inspections to make sure saddam had destroyed his weapons, which the threat of force would push him towards, and if we found that he had not and would dismantle them, then we would have had to go to war, but we would have had more allies."