Bush is now explicitly lying on national television in order to rewrite history...

[jAZ]

Bush was on "This Week"...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/22/bush-well-listen-weve-never-been-stay-the-course-george/#more-11239


Before:
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]

Lies to re-write history:
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"…

<embed src="http://movies.crooksandliars.com/This-Week-Bush-10-22-06.wmv" autostart=false></embed>

[jspchief]

Talk about removing context from the quotes....

[banyon]

Talk about removing context from the quotes....

Yeah, they've only said that a bajillion times before he Kerry-flopped on it.

[banyon]

I've been thinking of how patteeu can explain this and I want to help him out and come up with an expanation. I think I've got one.

You see, Bush is actually a mystical entity, like the wizard Merlin. He actually lives his life backwards through time. So, when he says "we've never been stay the course", maybe he's right, because he won't be in the future (his past). Then, later (in our past) he will be "stay the course".

This also explains why almost none of his policies or speeches make hardly any sense to us: In the future, we will all be very, very stupid.

[jspchief]

Yeah, they've only said that a bajillion times before he Kerry-flopped on it.Sounds to me like in the first "stay the course" quotes he's referring to sticking with the job until it's done. And in the second "flip-flop" he's saying that they are going to stick with the job unti lit's done, while clarifying that they are flexible in their tactics.

So basically he says the exact same thing both times. What am I missing?

[jAZ]

Sounds to me like in the first "stay the course" quotes he's referring to sticking with the job until it's done. And in the second "flip-flop" he's saying that they are going to stick with the job unti lit's done, while clarifying that they are flexible in their tactics.

So basically he says the exact same thing both times. What am I missing?
The "...we've never been 'stay the course'..." part it seems.

If you don't want to own a sound bite a year later... don't use it a year earlier. Especially, if you think it's unclear or in accurate.

He can't have it both ways.

And for the record, the "...we've never been 'stay the course'..." statement is a complete lie, no matter how neuanced you want to be.

His (their) rhetoric before was a disservice to the discussion. The Dems have finally found a way to turn that phrase around on the Republicans and now they want to disown their own rhetoric.

No matter how you slice it, it's pathetic behavior on his part.

[jspchief]

The "...we've never been 'stay the course'..." part it seems.

If you don't want to own a sound bite a year later... don't use it a year earlier. Especially, if you think it's unclear or in accurate.

He can't have it both ways.

And for the record, the "...we've never been 'stay the course'..." statement is a complete lie, no matter how neuanced you want to be.

His (their) rhetoric before was a disservice to the discussion. The Dems have finally found a way to turn that phrase around on the Republicans and now they want to disown their own rhetoric.

No matter how you slice it, it's pathetic behavior on his part.while I agre that the two quotes alone contradicts each other, I think the context of what he's saying each time makes it quite clear that he isn't contradicting himself.

I've said it numerous times... Bush gives you guys plenty of real stuff to be outraged about. What's the point of manufacturing outrage over stupid shit like this? This is petty partisan BS, not real politics.

[banyon]

while I agre that the two quotes alone contradicts each other, I think the context of what he's saying each time makes it quite clear that he isn't contradicting himself.

I've said it numerous times... Bush gives you guys plenty of real stuff to be outraged about. What's the point of manufacturing outrage over stupid shit like this? This is petty partisan BS, not real politics.

I listened to the entire interview on ABC This Week on Sunday Morning. I heard the quote in context, and AFAICT it was still a contradiction in context also. I remember looking up at the TV and thinking "Did he really just say that" in a :eek: kind of way.

[banyon]

To be "fair and balanced" about it, Kerry did say in his interview that increasing the # of troops was a terrible idea, when it was exactly what he advocated in his 2004 campaign.

[Cochise]

while I agre that the two quotes alone contradicts each other, I think the context of what he's saying each time makes it quite clear that he isn't contradicting himself.

I've said it numerous times... Bush gives you guys plenty of real stuff to be outraged about. What's the point of manufacturing outrage over stupid shit like this? This is petty partisan BS, not real politics.

Welcome to a jAZ thread. ;)

Also, autoplay on video clips is teh ghey.

[banyon]

Welcome to a jAZ thread. ;)

Also, autoplay on video clips is teh ghey.

No autoplay on my page. :D

[jspchief]

I listened to the entire interview on ABC This Week on Sunday Morning. I heard the quote in context, and AFAICT it was still a contradiction in context also. I remember looking up at the TV and thinking "Did he really just say that" in a :eek: kind of way.JAZ linked the interview. It seems abundantly clear that what Bush is saying is they aren't going to just cut and run, but also clarifying that they are flexible in their approach to achieving the goal.

In the previous quotes, he was simply saying that they aren't going to give up. He's still saying that.

Other than the actual words that Bush used, how is he contradicting himself? Is his policy a contradiction from what it was this time last year?

And honestly, even if he did change his policy, is that a bad thing? Is it so important to get a "gotcha" that we should ignore that the president is saying he's flexible in how he handles this? I certainly don't want a guy that's unwilling to flow with what the war dictates, simply for fear of contradicting himslef on a policy from a year ago when the situation may have appeared to require a different approach.

[patteeu]

I've been thinking of how patteeu can explain this and I want to help him out and come up with an expanation. I think I've got one.

You see, Bush is actually a mystical entity, like the wizard Merlin. He actually lives his life backwards through time. So, when he says "we've never been stay the course", maybe he's right, because he won't be in the future (his past). Then, later (in our past) he will be "stay the course".

This also explains why almost none of his policies or speeches make hardly any sense to us: In the future, we will all be very, very stupid.

I thought it was clear that when I said that Dick Cheney was Gandalf, it meant that George W. Bush was Frodo. He was happy go lucky at first, but when a great responsibility fell in his lap, he rose to the challenge. And while he had much help and guidance from the great Gandalf, in the end, he makes the tough choices himself and faces the consequences with courage, knowing that he's doing the right thing.

[patteeu]

I've been thinking of how patteeu can explain this and I want to help him out and come up with an expanation.

Of course, my answer is just what jspchief says. It's not a contradiction at all.

The past quotes were statements made with the Bush definition of "stay the course" in mind which means that we would not leave Iraq until the job is done but that we would constantly change tactics as necessary.

The "This Week" quote is a response to the mischaracterization of that phrase by Bush haters where they've dishonestly attempted to redefine the phrase to mean "we will continue to do exactly what we have been doing with no variation." In the "This Week" interview, GWB is clearly repudiating that redefinition.

[banyon]

Of course, my answer is just what jspchief says. It's not a contradiction at all.

The past quotes were statements made with the Bush definition of "stay the course" in mind which means that we would not leave Iraq until the job is done but that we would constantly change tactics as necessary.

The "This Week" quote is a response to the mischaracterization of that phrase by Bush haters where they've dishonestly attempted to redefine the phrase to mean "we will continue to do exactly what we have been doing with no variation." In the "This Week" interview, GWB is clearly repudiating that redefinition.

Yeah, but the post-election options presented by Baker's group aren't going to be "stay the course", they are going to be "How the hell do we get out of Dodge?". Bush is just subtly and deceptively, IMO laying the groundwork for that.

I also think that it's really disingenuous to label those like Rep. Murtha who offer alternatives as "cut and runners" and say that we must "stay the course" (meaning that reasonable alternatives cannot be considered and that their way is the only way) and then say, oh we didn't really mean "stay the course".

[banyon]

I thought it was clear that when I said that Dick Cheney was Gandalf, it meant that George W. Bush was Frodo. He was happy go lucky at first, but when a great responsibility fell in his lap, he rose to the challenge. And while he had much help and guidance from the great Gandalf, in the end, he makes the tough choices himself and faces the consequences with courage, knowing that he's doing the right thing.

Adept Havelock was right. Cheney is the Steward of Gondor who is so delusional he cannot tell what is going on right in front of him (Faramir's alive/Iraq is not the land of honey and wine). Hopefully James Baker (Pippin) will be there to help drag Bush (Faramir) off of the burning funeral pyre.

[patteeu]

Yeah, but the post-election options presented by Baker's group aren't going to be "stay the course", they are going to be "How the hell do we get out of Dodge?". Bush is just subtly and deceptively, IMO laying the groundwork for that.

Maybe, maybe not. Even if Baker's group does recommend a dramatic change in course, it's not guaranteed that Bush will adopt the recommendation. But you never know, he might. I really don't think that's what Bush's comment was about though.

I also think that it's really disingenuous to label those like Rep. Murtha who offer alternatives as "cut and runners" and say that we must "stay the course" (meaning that reasonable alternatives cannot be considered and that their way is the only way) and then say, oh we didn't really mean "stay the course".

I think it's disingenuous for people to try to suggest that "stay the course" means being inflexible and foolish. If Murtha made a detailed proposal instead of pandering to the anti-war crowd with a policy that appears to be nothing more than a dressed up retreat, it would be worthy of being treated with something beyond a label.

[PastorMikH]

Bush caught in another lie...

"I did not have sex in the oval office"


Oh, wait, that wasn't Bush was it? Ooops, my bad.

[banyon]

Maybe, maybe not. Even if Baker's group does recommend a dramatic change in course, it's not guaranteed that Bush will adopt the recommendation. But you never know, he might. I really don't think that's what Bush's comment was about though.



I think it's disingenuous for people to try to suggest that "stay the course" means being inflexible and foolish. If Murtha made a detailed proposal instead of pandering to the anti-war crowd with a policy that appears to be nothing more than a dressed up retreat, it would be worthy of being treated with something beyond a label.

You're gonna feel funny when a staged withdrawal/redeployment is exactly what they do.

[Cochise]

When I hear the term "explicitly lying" I dont really think of that meaning, if you carve out the context and compare phrases all from a points of view that are not the obvious one.

[patteeu]

You're gonna feel funny when a staged withdrawal/redeployment is exactly what they do.

I won't feel funny. It's a fact that we will eventually withdraw at least some of our troops. I'll be somewhat surprised if we withdraw and leave a new Saigon situation behind where the violence quickly takes the friendly government down, but it wouldn't completely shock me either. In any event, I don't think that's what is going on here.

[memyselfI]

LOLOL. Tonight Keith had one at least 6 different clips of DUHbya using his 'stay the course' mantra. Hysterical. ROFL

[Ralphy Boy]

I think Bush is a goofball who constantly says erratic screwball things. That said, jAZ, you're reaching. Taking it out of context like you did is easy to do, but if your hatred didn't color the words you heard, you'd know he wasn't "lying on national television".

People like you make it harder for people who actually have a fair mind to think because you throw stupid quotes like that out there that some people will take as fact. If only they would actually listen to it themselves like I did, they'd most likely not see anything wrong with it.

Good job, your well on your way to becoming a campaign commercial and speech writer. :rolleyes:

[jAZ]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qZE20lzZZF0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qZE20lzZZF0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[jAZ]

So is Bush permitted to define a political slogan to mean one thing at one time and another thing at another time without being called a liar?

[Ugly Duck]

Lets look at how "we will stay the course" becomes "we have never been stay the course." It ain't too hard to figure out why neocons are redefining "stay the course." Its election time, and the voters have just been polled on the war in Iraq:

(CNN) -- One in five Americans believes the United States is winning the war in Iraq, according to a poll. The number has dropped by half since December.

The poll of 1,013 adult Americans interviewed by telephone found two-thirds -- 64 percent -- of those polled oppose the war in Iraq.

A majority, 57 percent, want the United States to announce it will pull all troops by a certain date. The Bush administration argues against setting a timetable, saying it would embolden the enemy. But the onslaught of daily violence has apparently soured public support for the war.

With two weeks to go before November's midterm elections, 51 percent of those polled believe Democrats would do a better job on Iraq, while 40 percent said Republicans would.

[Rausch]

The irony is that the reason you see the Reps as FOS but not the Dems is exactly why you have the nation you live in.

You absolutely MUST be willing to turn a blind eye to 50% of what you read/hear to tolerate the $#itstains we have representing us...

[jspchief]

So is Bush permitted to define a political slogan to mean one thing at one time and another thing at another time without being called a liar?I think maybe the policies carry more weight to me than the slogans.

Like I said earlier in this thread. How can you really be outraged about this? If you're so against Bush's current policy on the war, shouldn't you be excited about the prospect that he may be changing? Isn't that ultimately more important than these sound bites?

The fact that you bitch about this rather than recognize that it may be a window for a policy change just demonstrates what a partisan clown you are. You're potentially going to get what you want in regards to action in Iraq, but you're too busy playing "gotcha" with politicians to notice.

This shit is why our current system is jacked up.

[patteeu]

I think Bush is a goofball who constantly says erratic screwball things. That said, jAZ, you're reaching. Taking it out of context like you did is easy to do, but if your hatred didn't color the words you heard, you'd know he wasn't "lying on national television".

People like you make it harder for people who actually have a fair mind to think because you throw stupid quotes like that out there that some people will take as fact. If only they would actually listen to it themselves like I did, they'd most likely not see anything wrong with it.

Good job, your well on your way to becoming a campaign commercial and speech writer. :rolleyes:

Give jAZ a little bit of a break. He's just started taking classes to be a political spinmeister so he's not very good at it yet. He'll be able to fake out the unsuspecting suckers and maybe even confuse the fairly informed in no time if he puts his nose to the grindstone.

[patteeu]

So is Bush permitted to define a political slogan to mean one thing at one time and another thing at another time without being called a liar?

Yes, as long as he's being clear about what he's saying like he has been all along in this situation.

[banyon]

Yes, as long as he's being clear about what he's saying like he has been all along in this situation.

Yeah, jAZ. If there's anyone we can count on to always be clear about what they are saying it's Bush. :spock:

[Pitt Gorilla]

Yes, as long as he's being clear about what he's saying like he has been all along in this situation.So, what about Kerry? Did he really "flip-flop" by voting on two separate pieces of legislation?

[patteeu]

So, what about Kerry? Did he really "flip-flop" by voting on two separate pieces of legislation?

My problem with that pair of votes that Kerry cast wasn't that he flip flopped but that he decided that short term deficit/tax politics were more important than funding the war effort. Saying he voted for the funding before he voted against it doesn't change the fact that funding for the war was, at best, a secondary consideration for him.

[patteeu]

Yeah, jAZ. If there's anyone we can count on to always be clear about what they are saying it's Bush. :spock:

If you have trouble understanding him, you're lucky because you've got me here to break it down for you.

[banyon]

If you have trouble understanding him, you're lucky because you've got me here to break it down for you.

Awesome. Get to work.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

[bunnytrdr]

Bush caught in another lie...

"I did not have sex in the oval office"


Oh, wait, that wasn't Bush was it? Ooops, my bad.With Clinton, he ran the option play: "I did not have sex with that woman..."

Knowing full well that he would be able to read the opposition. If they filled the A gap and proved he had sex with THAT woman, he would merely opine, that he did not have sex with that woman, but another one.

Of course, once the video tape has the full goods on the guy, he could just pull the keeper, and say,I did not have SEX with that woman." which is the option he chose, saying that it really wasn't sex that he had.

Personally, It would have been fun had he kicked it out to the tailback and went with, I did not have sex with that woman, as in, somebody else did.

[penchief]

If "stay the course" was misunderstood by all of us does that also mean we misunderstood "cut and run," too?

Is the president now closer to "cut and run" than he is to "stay the course?" If so, is he just being pragmatic or is he a "flip-flopper" of enormous magnitude?

"Stay the course" IS the Bush Administration. Now that those disingenuous assholes are worried, it's so screwed for them to suggest that we just misunderstood their meaning for the last three years.

Now that the president appears to be a "cut and runner" what are the chances that he will take responisbility for his pre-midterm election policies?

Elections = Accountability.

I urge all Americans to do their duty and ask the necessary questions while ignoring slogans, rhetoric, and personal attacks. Focus on the details of the issues. Don't be swayed by emotional appeals to selfish interests, please.

[Adept Havelock]

Near as I can tell, it guess it all depends on what your definition of "stay the course" is. ;)

[patteeu]

Awesome. Get to work.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

I'm sure it seemed very important (finding bin Laden) two days after 9/11 when al Qaeda was still a fully functional organization. Six months later after al Qaeda had been routed from their bases in Afghanistan, including their Tora Bora "stronghold," priorities had shifted to the point that finding Osama was no longer number one. Changing situations require changing approaches. I notice a consistent theme here.

[patteeu]

If "stay the course" was misunderstood by all of us does that also mean we misunderstood "cut and run," too?


I don't really think it has been misunderstood by very many who have made an effort to understand. Instead, I think it's been mischaracterized by people who knew better.

The difference between "stay the course" and "cut and run" is that STC is based on making a stable Iraq the priority. C&R is based on making US withdrawal the priority. People who support a STC approach think we can/will still win. Most of the people who favor a C&R approach think we've already lost or that what we are fighting for isn't worth it. The President continues to talk like a person from the first group. Jack Murtha talks like a person from the second group.

[penchief]

I don't really think it has been misunderstood by very many who have made an effort to understand. Instead, I think it's been mischaracterized by people who knew better.

The difference between "stay the course" and "cut and run" is that STC is based on making a stable Iraq the priority. C&R is based on making US withdrawal the priority. People who support a STC approach think we can/will still win. Most of the people who favor a C&R approach think we've already lost or that what we are fighting for isn't worth it. The President continues to talk like a person from the first group. Jack Murtha talks like a person from the second group.

But what if a phased redeployment is the answer to stablizing Iraq? "Stay the course" has always been a line drawn in the sand by this administration for domestic political purposes .

To suggest that their coining of the slogans, "stay the course" and "cut and run" isn't the divisive "either-or" phony choice republicans have become famous for is missing the point big time.

[patteeu]

But what if a phased redeployment is the answer to stablizing Iraq? "Stay the course" has always been a line drawn in the sand by this administration for domestic political purposes .

To suggest that their coining of the slogans, "stay the course" and "cut and run" isn't the divisive "either-or" phony choice republicans have become famous for is missing the point big time.

I admit that there might be some people who really think getting US troops out is the way to stabilize Iraq, but I think that group is really pretty small. Most of those who want to get out want to do it for the sake of (a) our soldiers (and perhaps aquaintances), (b) winning politically, (c) and the deficit (the tug of war for spending between military and social/humanitarian causes).

[penchief]

I admit that there might be some people who really think getting US troops out is the way to stabilize Iraq, but I think that group is really pretty small. Most of those who want to get out want to do it for the sake of (a) our soldiers (and perhaps aquaintances), (b) winning politically, (c) and the deficit (the tug of war for spending between military and social/humanitarian causes).

Winning politically is more fruitful than winning militarily. Winning politically should be the goal. If pragmatism was ever needed it's needed now. Winning politically means winning the hearts and minds and promoting our superior philosophy in an intelligent way. We have to do this not only in regard to the Iraqi people but in regard to the rest of the world. We have to demonstrate that we are reasonable. Winning militarily does nothing without winning politically.

This administration's military aggression without a plan to stablize the country and appease the population has betrayed their stated motives. They sure as hell weren't looking out for the people of the U.S. or the people of Iraq. It's quite obvious that they were looking out for their own political prospects and the benefit that military success in Iraq might bring to their quest for a "permanent republican majority."

If they really were looking out for us then they would have at least had a plan.

[patteeu]

Winning politically is more fruitful than winning militarily. Winning politically should be the goal. If pragmatism was ever needed it's needed now. Winning politically means winning the hearts and minds and promoting our superior philosophy in an intelligent way. We have to do this not only in regard to the Iraqi people but in regard to the rest of the world. We have to demonstrate that we are reasonable. Winning militarily does nothing without winning politically.

This administration's military aggression without a plan to stablize the country and appease the population has betrayed their stated motives. They sure as hell weren't looking out for the people of the U.S. or the people of Iraq. It's quite obvious that they were looking out for their own political prospects and the benefit that military success in Iraq might bring to their quest for a "permanent republican majority."

If they really were looking out for us then they would have at least had a plan.

When I said "winning politically" I meant, using a perceived loss in Iraq as ammunition against Republicans.

[penchief]

When I said "winning politically" I meant, using a perceived loss in Iraq as ammunition against Republicans.

Sorry. At least you know that my hopes for Iraq include winning.

All I've ever wanted from this administration is pragmatism and fairness. I don't like having to be outspoken. I just want to believe that there's a recognition by the people of this country that it's our responsibility to monitor the behavior of our elected officials. It's our job to hold them accountable and I don't like the idea that we hand them the vaseline before we bend over.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Changing situations require changing approaches. I agree completely. However, that's what Republicans refer to as a "flip-flop."

[patteeu]

Sorry. At least you know that my hopes for Iraq include winning.

All I've ever wanted from this administration is pragmatism and fairness. I don't like having to be outspoken. I just want to believe that there's a recognition by the people of this country that it's our responsibility to monitor the behavior of our elected officials. It's our job to hold them accountable and I don't like the idea that we hand them the vaseline before we bend over.

No need to be sorry, my post was ambiguous.

I believe you when you say you want us to win.

[patteeu]

I agree completely. However, that's what Republicans refer to as a "flip-flop."

If there are Republicans out there who are calling GWB a flip flopper over this then I have a bone to pick with them.

[banyon]

I admit that there might be some people who really think getting US troops out is the way to stabilize Iraq, but I think that group is really pretty small. Most of those who want to get out want to do it for the sake of (a) our soldiers (and perhaps aquaintances), (b) winning politically, (c) and the deficit (the tug of war for spending between military and social/humanitarian causes).

I'd like to get our troops out, but not for the reasons you listed.

My reason is that it's the right effing thing to do.

[banyon]

HANNITY: A lot of debate has no emerged over the phrase “stay the course,” and what that actually means. “Well, the President is backing away from staying the course.”

RUMSFELD: Aww, that’s nonsense.

HANNITY: He’s not backing away from staying the course?

RUMSFELD: Of course not. The concern was that it gave opponents the chance to say, “Well, he’s not willing to make adjustments,” and of course, just the opposite is true.

[patteeu]

I'd like to get our troops out, but not for the reasons you listed.

My reason is that it's the right effing thing to do.

That's not a reason. Why do you think it would be the "right effing thing to do?" The answer to that question is your reason.

[patteeu]

HANNITY: A lot of debate has no emerged over the phrase “stay the course,” and what that actually means. “Well, the President is backing away from staying the course.”

RUMSFELD: Aww, that’s nonsense.

HANNITY: He’s not backing away from staying the course?

RUMSFELD: Of course not. The concern was that it gave opponents the chance to say, “Well, he’s not willing to make adjustments,” and of course, just the opposite is true.

As usual, Rumsfeld is right.

[banyon]

That's not a reason. Why do you think it would be the "right effing thing to do?" The answer to that question is your reason.

I believe that the war is immoral, and that is a reason, although I also believe that it is impractical, and a general waste of our resources, time, and young American's lives.

[patteeu]

I believe that the war is immoral, and that is a reason, although I also believe that it is impractical, and a general waste of our resources, time, and young American's lives.

Yes, I agree. That is a reason.

[jspchief]

So Jaz, which would bother you more?:

1. Bush "lying" to the public when he told them he'd stay the course last year?

2. or Bush actually staying the course and not altering his strategy in an attempt to get the best possible results?

[penchief]

I believe that the war is immoral, and that is a reason, although I also believe that it is impractical, and a general waste of our resources, time, and young American's lives.

It hurts us more than it helps us.