Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search
 




Average Rating
0.00

(0 votes)

You must login to vote

Bush’s Flop-Flips
Pythagoras

(Note to Jess: Please view this post as its intended...just good honest debate...and nothing personal.)

Well, since consistency of opinion is so important to you I guess you'll be voting Kerry. Kerry's position has been very consistent, but when it has changed, it was mostly in reaction to Bush's flip-flops---like the 87 billion vote thing. Besides, Bush has flop-flipped on more and bigger issues that Kerry ever has. Here's a few of Bush's big flops:

1) When debating with Al Gore he said he was against nation building, but now we are doing it on the largest scale in our country’s history. (see Iraq and Afghanistan.)

2) Prior to invading Iraq and with an obvious attempt to link these figures together, GW said, “you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror... they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.” He would later say that there’s no question Saddam had ties to al Queda. He would admit finally that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 and that he had no connection to al Queda.

3) For months, Bush opposed the 9/11 commission, but eventually gave in to public pressure. Now, he touts its creation as one of his accomplishments. hmmm

4) During his first election campaign, Bush was for free trade, but then he imposed steel tariffs to limit said free trade. Then, when the world was going to fine us, he eliminated the tariffs re-allowing free trade. (Where does he stand? Did he let the world veto him?)

5) Bush was against big government and the creation of the “Homeland Security” department. But he now brags about its creation and has backed the largest federal government expansion in over 50 yrs.

6) In 2000 Bush felt the gov. should stay out of the same sex marriage debate, but in 2004 he backed a ban on same sex marriage with a constitutional amendment.

7) He once said we can’t win the war on terror, but within the month said that we can and are.

8) Lastly, he criticized the Clinton-Gore team for not putting pressure on OPEC to lower oil prices, but now in a far more severe situation, he has yet to do it himself. And a member of his team has said that Bush will not personally lobby them to change their minds.

(I would also point out that three days after the 9-11 attack—which was mostly done by Saudi Arabians----Bush smoked a cigar with prince Bandar on a balcony of the White House. Something about that rubs me the wrong way.)

So Jess, there you go. Bush is a bigger flip-flopper…so I guess you’ll be voting Kerry. (wink, wink)


Source: CBS News


------
What would you attempt if you knew you could not fail?


Related Items

Comments

The following comments are for "Bush's Flop-flips"
by Pythagoras

Flip-flopping
When you stick to the same opinion no matter what the evidence, no matter what the consequcnes, and (when you're a leader of an ostensibly democratic nation) no matter what the will of the people, you're an idiot. Holding a consistent opinion is only admirable when that opinion is backed by evidence and reason. And we all know how Bush fares on taht account.

I can't stand Kerry, either. But SOME of the time, at least, he's "flip-flopped" for good reasons, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

( Posted by: Viper9 [Member] On: October 21, 2004 )

on flip-flopping
Both candidates flip-flop, but the difference is as simple as it is radical.

Bush had an administration of less government intrusion domestically and in forgien matters. 9/11 changed that. He 180'ed and took positions that were not popular, that in fact would put his future re-election at risk, all because he thought it was the right thing to do.

Kerry panders to the masses of the moment.

Nuff said.

( Posted by: malthis [Member] On: October 21, 2004 )

Excuse me??!?!?
Hi ya Malthis...I like the argument you are making and on some levels it makes sense...Because all politicians pander to the masses at least to some degree since, as politicians, that is what they are supposed to do. It would be nice if Bush did it more often.

Take his stance against the homeland security department, against the 9-11 commission, against speaking to the 9-11 commission, against letting Rice speak to the 9-11 commission...all of which he changed his position (flip-flopped) on because he was pandering to public opinion.

And the reason his positions are unpopular is because the are wrong and damaging to the lives and lifestyles of the average american. Sure his policies are fabulous if you happen to be wealthy or a corporation, but if you are poor, middle-class, old or sickly...then they are not so good.

And lastly, to be re-elected you had to have been elected...he wasn't elected he was selected by the supreme court.

Thanks for the comments and the lively debate. :)

Pythagoras

(ps. Bush's positions were not only unpopular with the american people but with his own staff---Powell warned him against invading Iraq, Whitman questioned his handling of the environment, O'neill criticized his handling of the economy and Clarke and Tenet warned him of the impending 9-11 attacks...He ignored them all made before 9-11 and most of them after. If he had listened to his staff we'd be better off.)

( Posted by: Pythagoras [Member] On: October 22, 2004 )

no pander = dictator
If the president won't pander to the masses, wouldn't that make him a dictator?

It's like flip-flopping once you get into office:
from "A president by the people, for the people" to "A president by myself, for myself"

( Posted by: Revelation [Member] On: October 22, 2004 )


From birth to 18 I was raised an ultra liberal democrate. As an adult I stayed democrate because of the way it affects the population financially. Especially the poor. Even though I never stood by the gun bans etc. This election, even though I find it quite repulsive, I'll be voting for Bush. Because it seems that Kerry is to weak to run a war. He'd be too politically correct to do it right. He would back the terrorists for fear that they would find Americans as being meanies. Bush would be serving his last term. Wouldnt be able to be re-elected. And therefore would have nothing to gain by acting like a mother to the killers strapped with bombs. He is the only one who publiclly supports Israel who everyday have to deal with 9/11 style incidents. I wish there was a more militant democrate running. Yeet sincee there isn't :-( Voting for Bush.
Weve all got a little Bush, dick or Colan in us don't we? (tee hee)

( Posted by: Thinspiration [Member] On: October 31, 2004 )

Thinspiration
You said, "Kerry would be to weak to run this war." Here's an idea, if bush and Cheney hadn't f-ed up so much we wouldn't be in this war.

This nitwit invaded the one country in all of the middle-east with NO ties to al Queda and virtually to ties to terrorism. An easier case could have been made to attack Syria, Saudia Arabia or Iraq...you want to fight terrorism you have to deal with them...Preferably all of them.

You think Kerry is too weak...Well, is bush even capable?

To fight terrorism...you have to actually fight country's who support and provide safe harbor to terrorists...when you invade countries that don't do either you spread terrorism...not prevent it.

Its sort of like trying to putting out a fire with vegetable oil....and I'm pretty sure GW has tried that once or twice as well.

Pythagoras

( Posted by: Pythagoras [Member] On: November 1, 2004 )

Subtlety...
......is a virtue if you are going to look at, talk about, and form an opinion on politics.

I must admit to being a little bit bored with people quoting pundits from a few months ago. Especially when saying Kerry would be weak on the war.

Kerry has always said he would hunt down and kill the enemies of the US State who were a direct threat to the country. However, his implementation of this policy would be different to Bush, this is where you have to be careful of your opinion as it will be null and void if you do not know all of the information.

Kerry would assume a multi-lateral line in combatting world terrorism, and would use uni-lateral action only as a very last resort. Bush however has overstepped the line far too quickly for Iraq to ever have been a viable war. Bush has shown a total disregard for the security of other nations who are not so well equipped to defend themselves as is the US. Using other nations and calling it a multi-lateral force is wrong! Where would Bush stand if European countries who are helping in Iraq got attacked?

If the world has no say in who your President is then your President has know say in who get's attacked and who get's opened up to the risk of attack from terrorists. That is why International Law exists and bodies such as the UN exist, and these actually WORK.

Both of these bodies of Law have been undermined by the War on Terror.

Guantanamo Bay flouts the Geneva Convention because the people held there affect more than just the soil of the US.

The War on Terror is a selfish flexing of economic muscle to use generic, sensationalist terms.

Bush is now blaming his Generals for the failiures in Iraq, whilst saying he needs two more years before the region is stable, how long are people willing to let this go on.

Alex :-)

( Posted by: londongrey [Member] On: November 1, 2004 )

flip-flops and hip boots
Malthis, I was (and still am)grateful for your input on my post "The Empire Strikes Out", and took your advice to avoid going "over the top" to heart to the degree I felt would enhance my efforts.
I would appreciate your opinion on "Of Shoes and Boots and Flip-Flops, of Chemicals and Kings",
a refutation of charges at Lit and elsewhere of Kerry's inconsistencies. If you still have functional eyeballs, try "Our Liberal President Bush".
It's a bucketfull of words, but all comments are from like-minded(sensible)people.
Not that I'm seeking confrontation, but useful critical input such as before.
I've been missing all the great debate action has been in the comments-just recycled riechist rumor topside. Thank you

( Posted by: drsoos [Member] On: November 2, 2004 )

prophets and losses
Bush may support Israel too strongly. Some of his supporters want Israel to regain its' Biblical lands in order to fulfill Bible prophecy and thereby hasten the Second Coming.(If you have to make your prophecy happen are you not showing a lack of faith? Besides, it kinda takes away from the propheticness of it.) He may instead trigger a hellish Armageddon.

Old time religion does not make for good foreign policy. Who knows what other unannounced plans will come in a second term with no re-election pressure, or whose advice he will follow.

( Posted by: drsoos [Member] On: November 2, 2004 )

not me
I think you mis-read me. I speak of Bush, not Kerry(who wouldn't impose his own religion upon us). As to Palestinians vs Israel, I can't figure that one. I hate to reward terrorist behavior and I simply can't see the truth amidst the forest of opinion. Both sides exhibit heroic (atrocious) behaviors, and the history is more muddled than most by opinion.

( Posted by: drsoos [Member] On: November 6, 2004 )





Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.


Username:
Password:
Subject:
Comment:





Login:
Password: