Posted on 03/19/2004 9:10:31 AM PST by JaguarXKE
In a previous post, "Liberal Thinker" posted a list of so-called Bush flip-flops. What it actually was was a cut and past of a list of BS that's been circulating liberal web sites for some time now. I'm posting a new thread so this doesn't get buried. I made this same reply on another conservative board. As a relatively new guy here (just joined last night) allow me to take this opportunity to blow gigantic holes in every one of these:
(and by the way, this list is just something Liberal Thinker cut and pasted from other liberal web sites – no original thought at all on the Troll’s part.
See Here:
But even though you're just mindlessly regurgitating liberal talking points (do they teach critical thinking in school any more?), Lets take these one at a time:
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Not quite accurate. Bush has always been for certain aspects of campaign finance reform. For example, he has always been for increased disclosure requirements so that the public could see fully where political contributions were from. The bill he signed was not a perfect solution and he expressed reservations about certain aspects, but the bill was bi-partisan and reflected the result of 6 years of debate. When he signed it, he said it was not perfect, but he felt the courts would address the provisions he felt might pose constitutional questions. Some excerpts from Bush's statement when he signed the CFR bill: My comments are in italics
"Today I have signed into law H.R. 2356, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002." I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns. ... Third, this legislation creates new disclosure requirements and compels speedier compliance with existing ones, which will promote the free and swift flow of information to the public regarding the activities of groups and individuals in the political process. I long have believed that complete and immediate disclosure of the source of campaign contributions is the best way to reform campaign finance. (This is the part of CFR he's always supported) ... However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections. ... I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election... [u]I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.[/u] As a policy matter, I would have preferred a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership. (Like the firefigters union supporting Kerry when much if not most of the rank and file supports Bush).... This legislation is the culmination of more than 6 years of debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens, and groups. Accordingly, it does not represent the full ideals of any one point of view. But it does represent progress in this often-contentious area of public policy debate. Taken as a whole, this bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law.
In other words, he signed the bill because, while it was not perfect in his view, it represented 6 years of bi-partisan agreement. Hardly a flop-flop.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
This was definitely not an issue where Bush flip-flopped, at least not in any major policy fashion. In fact he took swift action following 911 to gather the facts and garner opinions from his advisors: Very shortly after 911, Bush created a Presidential Task Force on Homeland Security. It was tasked to make recommendations to him within 40 days on how to help prepare Americans in their homes, neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, places of worship and public places from the potential consequences of terrorist attacks. The Task Force was co-chaired by the President's Homeland Security and Domestic Policy advisers and included all relevant Federal agency heads. On 29 October 01, Bush announced the new Cabinet position of Homeland Security. This was less that two months from 911 and based on the recommendations of the Task Force he had almost immediately set in place after 911. This is not a flip flop, but pretty impressive leadership.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
This was not a flip flop. Here, Bush simply responded to the relentless badgering of the Democrats who are hoping that such a commission will find something they can use against him in November. Bush didn't change his views, he just agreed to go along with them, thus taking the wind out of their sails, just like he did when he released all his Guard records after weeks of endless harping by liberals that he was AWOL (or worse) based on no evidence at all. I'm still waiting for Kerry to release his medical records from Nam.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Here again, he's dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't. First, he has agreed to the Democrats demands and had he not, they would have used it as a campaign issue. Secondly, he waited for David Kay to complete his investigation, then, by executive order, created an independent committee: "Last week, our former chief weapons inspector, David Kay, reported that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons programs and activities in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and was a gathering threat to the world. Dr. Kay also stated that some pre-war intelligence assessments by America and other nations about Iraq's weapons stockpiles have not been confirmed. We are determined to figure out why." Had he not formed this commission, the Dems, instead of screaming flip flop would be saying he was trying to hide something. I would think liberals would welcome the formation of this commission, but the truth is, it would not matter what Bush did or didn’t do, the Democrats would find a way to spin it in a negative light. One thing Bush has hopefully learned is that there is no "getting along" with liberals - they don't want to get along!
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
True, he did hold that view when he campaigned and he still does as far as nation building for the sake of nation building. But 911 plunged us into a war on terror and he viewed Afghanistan and Iraq as one (of many) campaign fronts in that war which we did not start. In both cases, there were real threats to our country at issue (and even the Dems thought so based on the same intel, so don't go there). With wars like Bosnia, what was the threat to our national security that was the basis for that war? There is a difference.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is not "for deficits". It is legitimate to make the argument that deficit spending has increased under Bush, but I hold Congress (both sides) as much responsible for that as Bush. Because we have deficit spending (and remember we are at war) does not mean that he is for deficit spending. In fact, he recently announced a budget plan that, if followed by Congress, would reduce the deficit by half within five years. It would be legitimate to debate the points of that budget proposal, but it does not support the contention that he is now "for deficits." To suggest so is intellectually dishonest. And remember, 911 was intended to bring us to our knees economically. In that, the terrorists have not succeeded, but they did cause us to have to increase our spending on defense and homeland security.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Not a flip-flop at all. Not even close. When he first announced tariffs on steel, he stated very clearly that they were temporary. His own words at that time:
Bush comments on temporary tariffs
“Today I am announcing my decision to impose temporary safeguards to help give America's steel industry and its workers the chance to adapt to the large influx of foreign steel. This relief will help steel workers; communities that depend on steel, and the steel industry adjust without harming our economy. These safeguards are expressly sanctioned by the rules of the World Trade Organization, which recognizes that sometimes imports can cause such serious harm to domestic industries that temporary restraints are warranted. This is one of those times. -- GW Bush March 02"
Had he not removed these tariffs, but made them permanent, THAT would have been a flip-flop. But instead, he removed the tariffs after he felt they had achieved their purpose: "Today, I signed a proclamation ending the temporary steel safeguard measures I put in place in March 2002. Prior to that time, steel prices were at 20-year lows, and the U.S. International Trade Commission found that a surge in imports to the U.S. market was causing serious injury to our domestic steel industry. I took action to give the industry a chance to adjust to the surge in foreign imports and to give relief to the workers and communities that depend on steel for their jobs and livelihoods. These safeguard measures have now achieved their purpose, and as a result of changed economic circumstances it is time to lift them." -- GW Bush Dec 03
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
I guess you could call this a flip-flop, were it not for the war on terror, which changed the landscape considerably. Bush took the action of the roadmap because he knew it would be harder to win Arab support for continued moves against al-Qaeda and the war against Saddam if its efforts were to take place against a backdrop of Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed. This is a very clear example of Bush being "an individual who, when presented with new facts, new realities and potential new outcomes changes his mind as so many liberals seem to hold in such high esteem. The difference is, he's not just changing his policy for political expediency, he's basing it on sound strategic logic.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the Constitution.
I am unaware of Bush ever being for Gay Marriage. I do know that his recent call for a constitutional amendment was driven by a few activist judges who were trying to re-define marriage and also by some mayors who were openly defying their state's laws.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
Really? From White house press release, April 03: “The President's 2003 Budget proposes to spend $3.5 billion on enhancing the homeland security response capabilities of America's first responders - a greater than 10-fold increase in Federal resources. This initiative will accomplish the following objectives:
[*]Provide the first responder community with much-needed funds to conduct important planning and exercises, purchase equipment, and train their personnel.
[*]Provide States and localities with the flexibility they require to ensure that the funds are used to address the needs of their local communities.
[*]Establish a consolidated, simple, and quick method for dispersing Federal assistance to States and localities.
[*]Encourage mutual aid across the Nation so that the entire local, State, Federal, and volunteer network can operate together effectively.
[*]Establish a process for evaluating the effort to build response capabilities, in order to validate that effort and direct future resources.
[*]Encourage citizens to participate actively in preparing their communities for the threat of terrorism and other disastrous events. “
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits.
You are not specific here, but what is or is not cut with respect to military and veteran's benefits is a legitimate subject for debate. Here's a bill that Bush signed in Dec 03, for example, that increases certain veteran benefits: Here
However, another issue that is very contentious is that of "Concurrent Receipt," which the President opposes for very sound fiscal reasons considering the necessity to fund the war on terror. However, it is an issue that merits debate. Concurrent receipt has been in place since the Civil War (not something new under the Bush administration) and basically says that disabled vets give up $1 of retirement pay for every $1 of disability pay they receive. While from a purely emotional appeal standpoint, it seems to make sense to repeal Concurrent Receipt, it is not a matter of cutting existing benefits, but rather whether we are going to increase (by about $58 Billion) benefits. It is worthy of debate, but Bush has not flip flopped, but has been very consistent. (But again, you were not specific as to your charge, so I'm addressing it the best I can).
Bush- "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care."
There has been no flip flip here at all. The first thing we did was go into Afghanistan and route the Taliban and attempt to get Osama. We are still there and we are still looking for Osama and recently the Pakistanis have agreed to help since he is most likely in their country. As for the quote, you probably don't know this since you just did a cut and past off all this junk from some liberal blog, but that quote is out of context. What he was actually saying is that he (Bush) doesn't care where Osama is, we are going to find him. We are still there and about to launch a major operation towards that end. No flip flip at all. None.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Yawn! Sierra Club talking points. There was nothing secret about it, that's first. Secondly, it is possible to have concern for the environment and still support domestic drilling to offset our dependence on foreign oil. To environmentalists, any drilling is too much, even though with today's technology is can be done is a safe manner that does not cause undue harm to the environment. Liberals have been intellectually dishonest in this debate. In commercials against drilling in Alaska, they portrayed areas in Alaska that were not part of proposed drilling sites - to play to the emotions of pinheads who don't know any better. When the Interior Department had pictures on their website of the vast, open mosquito-infested ranges that were the real sites of proposed drilling, the Democrats in congress had a conniption fit, claiming the administration was "playing politics." It’s ok for liberals to depict a false picture of the drilling locations - that' not playing politics - but we can't show the public the truth about Alaskan drilling sites. I am reminded of the big debate over the Alaska pipeline! Enviro-whackos told us it would decimate the Caribou herds. In fact, it helped the herds because it provided some shelter and warmth to the herds during harsh winters. The herds thrived as a result. There is no flip-flop here at all; the President is striking the right balance between the environment and the need to have a sound domestic energy policy.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Oh BS! "To ensure that the reforms and resources of the No Child Left Behind Act are reaching America's classrooms, President Bush announced that:
Five states (Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio) have taken the lead in having their school accountability plans approved by the Department of Education. These five states have now outlined specific steps for ensuring yearly progress in reading and math achievement for the students enrolled in their public elementary and secondary schools.
The President's FY 2004 budget proposal increases funding for the Reading First and Early Reading First programs by $75 million over last year, bringing the total to over $1.1 billion, to help children learn to read by the end of third grade and improve pre-reading skills in pre-school.
The President's FY 2004 budget will provide an additional $1 billion (9% increase) for the Title I program that provides funds to America's most needy public schools, bringing his total request for Title I funding to $12.35 billion. From FY 2000 to 2002, federal funding for elementary and secondary education programs increased by 49% -- including an increase of 27% ($4.7 billion) from FY 2001 to FY 2002. To implement the No Child Left Behind Act, states and local school districts have received more than $22 billion in this school year alone. "
And you might recall, Bush practically let Teddy Kennedy write the thing!
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will.
Actually, you (or more correctly whomever you cut and pasted your talking point from) have it backwards to some extent. Back in June 01, Bush said: "We have now completed our review. I have directed my national security team to undertake serious discussions with North Korea on a broad agenda to include: improved implementation of the Agreed Framework relating to North Korea's nuclear activities; verifiable constraints on North Korea's missile programs and a ban on its missile exports; and a less threatening conventional military posture.
We will pursue these discussions in the context of a comprehensive approach to North Korea which will seek to encourage progress toward North-South reconciliation, peace on the Korean peninsula, a constructive relationship with the United States, and greater stability in the region. These are the goals South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung and I discussed during his visit here last March. I look forward to working with him.”
Then, when it was clear that NK was pursuing nuclear weapons, in November 2002, Bush said the following:
“In June 2001, we offered to pursue a comprehensive dialogue with North Korea. We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach."
This is not flip-flopping, this is diplomacy and taking the correct approach based on changing circumstances. The bottom line is and always has been, we will negotiate with NK, but on our terms, not theirs! Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.
It wasn't necessary. Existing resolutions already provided for military action. The UN would have just kept kicking the can down the road and would have never taken action. But thankfully we have a President who doesn't feel he needs the UN’s permission to take whatever actions he feels are necessary in the national security interests of this country. The UN is an organization that has Libya in charge of their Human Rights council – do you really want to delegate matters of national security to this inept, basically useless organization? I sure as heck don’t. Besides, Congress (that would be OUR Congress) authorized the President to use force if and when HE saw fit:
"(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
This barely worth discussing. Major operations were accomplished. He even said in his speech that the war isn't over, just that major operations were completed and they were. But guess what, Saddam was no longer in charge of Iraq, so that mission was, indeed, accomplished. This is just a pathetic attempt by Democrats to nitpick about anything they can find to nitpick about.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the U.S. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
This is probably the only area where we "might" agree. I don't think Bush has been strong enough in strengthening our borders, and most conservatives would agree. So I'll give you this one…but that’s it! Next time,. Troll, try an original thought!
Jag
The late and unlamented LiberalThinker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.