"Waffle" House Blues

[hylandrdet]

I'm sorry but it appears that both candidates had flip flopped over the past couple of years.

Kerry said he'd voted for the war, but then refuse to finance the effort. He said that Saddam Hussein is a threat, but refuse to remove him. That sounds like flip flop to me, but you know what, that's a minor flip flop when compared to G.W.

Bush said that he went to war with Iraq because Saddam had WMDs; OK, we bite; no WMDs. Bush finds out that there were no WMDs, so he flip/flops and tell us that Iraq had ties to Al Queda; OK, we bite. Bush finds out that there was no ties to Al Queda, so he flip/flops and tells us this is about freedom.

Folks, I'm suffering from the "Waffle House" blues. Both of these guys are lying, but you really don't know which one of them is the better of the two evils.

Oh well, when in doubt, take a quarter with you to the voting booth; make sure you call "heads or tails" while the coin is in the air. Tell me what you think about my waffle house blues.

 

[nosarcasm]

both candidates have to adjust their position in the political arena, call it flip flopping if you like.

Kerry supposely voted for the war resolution to give the president leverage
in pressuring Saddam and hoped for the UN to continue to contain Saddam.

Bush had after 9/11 look at the probable enemies to the US.

His axis of evil pretty much nailed the nation states that have the most
adverse position to the US.

Why was he inclined to attack Iraq. I think it was more then one point
that convinced him to take out Saddam.

1. The strategic importance of oil reserves under Us control or influence.
The oil shocks from the seventies make a good argument why having
control of the region is important and brake the arab stranglehold.

2. Saddam tried to assassinate his Dad, it would convince me that Saddam
is a thug that might just to despise the US support Al Quaeda or other
militant group opposing US power.

3. WMD/ABC weapons. Unfortunatly the global economy as a side effect
proliferates technology that will enable more regimes in the future to
develop these weapons. Libya's conversion might stem from the realisation
the US is now serious on clamping down on the efforts of dictators to
develop them. Because Saddam intentionally hid the fact he destroyed them
the whole western intelligence community assumed he still had them.

4. freedom for the Iraqui people and revenge for the murdered Kurdish
women and children. It is a good political point to get support from moderates
and left leaning voters.

5. iraq- Al quaeda link. Unfortunatly the administration lied to keep support
for the war effort high. The weakness of democracies is that they cannot
sustain a long war effort. With "only" 1000 soldiers lost it is amazing that
people try to compare it to the bloody war against Vietnam. It has led
to leftist conspiract theories ala Moore and gives unnesary support for
their baseless accusations.

Kerry will if elected go back to the UN route, Bush will continue to go
it alone.

domestically is the real difference where Kerry will go the socialist road
in areas like healthcare, "tax the rich" , preserve all entitlements while
Bush will go for privatization. His fiscal irresponsibilty might be explained
with 9/11 but the next congress needs to be rained in on spending or
taxes inevitably will go up too. Not too mention the inflation risk.

 

[Gem]

hyla,

While I respect that youre feeling a little worn-out, we all are with less than a month to go before the elections, I have to disagree with your notion of Bush's "flip-flop."

Heres why:


If you do some reading, you will find that Bush had MANY reasons to go to war. Removing Saddam, the freedom of the Iraqi people, taking the first step towards establishing a democracy in the center of the Middle East, standing up to a dictator who had thumbed his nose at 14 years of UN violations, and yes, WMD.

We, the public, could have read more about all of those topics, because the information was out there, but the Bush Adminstration landed on WMD because that was the one reason that the ENTIRE WORLD could agree on.

The UN, France, Germany, Russia, and even the US Senate couldn't agree that is was worth going to war over removing an evil dictator, couldn't agree to go for the violations of UN Violations...but the entire world agreed that he had WMD...(read that again, its important).

So here is the President of the United States, we have been attacked by terrorists, we know they probably won't use planes again (the treatement of Richard Reid demonstrated why), and many experts say that the next thing we are likely to see is attacks in major cities using biological or chemical weapons...such actions would be horrific...10X more horrific than 9-11...and you, the President, know that you are taking MAJOR HEAT for what you did and did not do to stop 9-11...so you say, ok advisors, where would terrorists get WMD? And your advisors, gleaning information from THE ENTIRE WORLD (read that again, its important) say..."Iraq has them, and its likely that they might sell them to terrorists."

So you are the President...and here is your choice (Now, remember you stood on the rubble of ground zero, talked to familes of the dead...and promised you would do everything in your power to stop another attack): Allow the sanctions and inspections (which have been going on forever, and many in your administration feel aren't working) to go on...hoping like hell that Saddam DIDN'T have the WMD that THE ENTIRE WORLD BELIEVED HE HAD (read that again, its important), and hoping like hell that if he DID have the WMD that the ENTIRE WORLD believed he had, that he wouldn't sell them to terrorists...

Or

You could order our troops to war...taking out a man who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people, had WMD in the past, who the entire world beleived still had them, who harbored terrorists, who paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, creating the possibility of democracy in the middle east (which would GREATLY aid in the War on Terror), and send a message to other dictators that non-compliance with UN resolutions will eventually bring the largest and most powerful military in the world to your doorstep.

Forgive me, but I feel that this is a no brainer....I know that many disagree, I just don't see how you could...

Why was all of that important, you ask? Because he did not FLIP-FLOP on the reasons for war...everything I have just described (and more) were all reasons to go to war...the WMD were focused on because when trying to explain to the US why we were going the Administration had to stress to the American people why Iraq was a threat (and, to be honest, the average American is stupid...and unless you say "Because he wants to kill you!" they are unable to see the bigger picture of how a successful democracy (in whatever form they choose) could reduce the risk of terrorism in the future).

OK, so we discover that there are most likely no WMD...the US, predictably says "Well then it wasn't worth it to go to war...right?" And Bush says, "No...it was VERY worth it...and here's why...(go back to the beginning of the post and read again.""

That isn't a flip-flop hylan...thats the President explaining to the US why being Iraq is neccessary...

Now...lets look at John Kerry's "flip-flops" briefly:

John Kerry voted for the war. He had all of the same information Bush did to make his decision, he stated publically numerous times how Saddam was a threat who needed to be removed and how he believed that Saddam had WMD.

Reasons he might have done this? 1) He looked at the information and decided it was credible and neccessary to go to war. 2) He voted AGAINST the first Gulf War (a war with ENORMOUS global support, UN Support, etc) and has been taking crap for it ever since and wasn't about to make the mistake of being labled a "dove" again.

Then the primaries began...and Howard Dean took a major leap forward in the polls. Dean, the decisive anti-war candidate was winning major points by being able to say "I was against this war since the beginning, and Kerry wasn't." Kerry was losing...and right after he told the press that voting against the bill to send $87 billion to the troops would be reckless, he voted against sending $87 billion to the troops.

Now, aside from showing that Kerry is a man who will change votes based on his political needs...it also shows that he said voting against the bill was reckless...then voted against it.

Kerry states that this is because he didn't like the way the bill appropriated funds....however, in a time of war, decisive and rapid actions need to be made...when troops are on the ground, the vast majority of US Senators felt that the bill was good enough to be passed...not so Kerry and Edwards, who were trying to get the Democratic party's nomination.


Again, I know its tiring and confusing...but the only way Bush "flip-flopped" on the reasons to go to war is if you didn't do enough research about the reasons we went in the first place (no offense to you, lots of people didn't). Bush had all of the reasons we went in mind when he made the order, if you read his documented speeches leading up to it you can see him spell most of them out...

It would be a "flip-flop" if he said, "It wasn't worth it to go." Kinda like what Kerry is doing now....

 

[Avatar4321]

Kerry will if elected go back to the UN route, Bush will continue to go
it alone.

Just had to point out that Bush hasnt gone alone. We have 30 allies with us and the Iraqis themselves are helping us fight these terrorists. While i know you probably realize that you have to be careful not to fall into the liberal fallacy trap. They want to believe that you can either go to the UN or go it alone. Problem is there is a third option which has been done. we gather a group of nations that agree and create an international coalition that doesnt involve the UN.

 

[Avatar4321]

Great post Gem. Id add some rep to you but i cant do it till i recommend someone else

I so tired of the liberals trying to spin this information. They keep trying to claim Bush's only reason was WMDs which is blatantly false. All you have to do is read the state of the Union address directly before the war. Its very clear. Heck i was arguing all the points the President was making now six months before the war because he was making the same exact points then. Do they really think we are stupid here? How the heck is admitting that the intelligence might have been faulty concerning the WMDs after the evidence has come in a flip flop? How on earth does this compare to Kerry who changes his positions within days of each other. I remember the day a few weeks ago when the media was going ga ga cause Kerry finally settled on an anti war stance. two days latter he was saying the exact opposite. Heck the first debate which Kerry "won" was so full of position changes within 90 mins that the Republicans were able to make a top ten flip flops from the debate without even getting to some big ones he made. I mean Senator "Im the anti proliferation candidate but i want to give nuclear fuel to Iran" Kerry cant even stay consistant for 90 freakin minutes. As was pointed out earlier this week, Kerry and Edwards couldnt even hold their position against Howard Dean, do you want to trust them facing terrorists? With that said, great post again Gem

 

[nosarcasm]

Just had to point out that Bush hasnt gone alone. We have 30 allies with us and the Iraqis themselves are helping us fight these terrorists. While i know you probably realize that you have to be careful not to fall into the liberal fallacy trap. They want to believe that you can either go to the UN or go it alone. Problem is there is a third option which has been done. we gather a group of nations that agree and create an international coalition that doesnt involve the UN.

With go it alone I meant the position that the Us calls the shots without
distraction by the allies. In that szenario the Us gives out the goal
while the allies pitch in but are not allowed to veto descisions.
The approach is more hegemonic like during the cold war where the
Us called the shots. While it does not negate allied imput it keeps
the control of the operation in Us hands alone. And that is a good thing
in my book. The only problem at the moment is that it would help
to have more monetary support from Japan and Germany.

Japan still has to tread carefully because of its less then honest
apology for WW2 apologies. In Germany it depends on the next election.
More then likely the ruling socialist will loose. They had decisive defeats
in state elections lately. The conservatives will likely support the Us
war effort. They are highly distrustful of Islam as you can see in their
opposition to Turkey joining the EU.

With the additional resources the democrats will have no case for
the we are islolated whining. The price for German and Japanese support
will be a veto in the security council imo.