President George W. Bush's "Fool me once"

  1. http://dossiers.genfoods.net/blies.html
    There was only one problem with President George W. Bush's claim Thursday that the nation's top economists forecast substantial economic growth if Congress passed the president's tax cut: The forecast with that conclusion doesn't exist.

    Bush and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went out of their way Thursday to cite a new survey by "Blue-Chip economists" that the economy would grow 3.3 percent this year if the president's tax cut proposal becomes law.

    That was news to the editor who assembles the economic forecast. "I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month. "I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. 'It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan. That's simply not the case. Newsday, Feb 23, '03
    ===================
    Coalition of the Willing

    In this case, it was more of the "coalition of the unasked." In this case, Slovenia, who was never consulted about the war, learned it was on Washington's list. It sparked riots, and even a bribe wasn't enough to get the country on board. The White House, redfaced, apologized.

    "Ljubljana - The United States has mistakenly named Slovenia as a partner in its war against Iraq - and even offered it a share of the money budgeted for the conflict.

    "One day after hundreds of Slovenians hit the streets to protest the inclusion of their nation in the US war budget, Prime Minister Anton Rop said Washington had goofed.

    "Slovenia was one of the states named in the $75-billion US war budget, which must be approved by Congress and includes grants to partners in the US-led military action. Slovenia was slated to get $4,5-million from the budget, which Rop said will not be forthcoming.

    "'We are a part of no such coalition. We are a part of a coalition for peace,' Rop said." Independent Online, 3/28/03
    =================================
    Bush was attempting to push through a $750 billion cut while cutting social programs and sending the economy into serious deficit. The Bush budget also failed to account for a war in Iraq. Shortly after the Senate passed a tax cut for $350 billion, the President asked for $84 billion to cover the war.

    Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), the architect of the new strategy, and other top Democrats said Bush is also misleading the public about who benefits under his new tax cut plan, particularly the elimination of taxes on dividends. While Bush says the dividends cut will help most Americans, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that people earning less than $46,000, will get, on average, a $12 tax break, Democrats note. Washington Post, Feb 23, 2003.
    ==========================
    "It takes a brazen politician to make up a story that can be proven false and then to keep lying about it after being busted repeatedly. A case in point is President Bush's repetition last week of a story about a fictitious Chicago campaign statement, just days after his budget director was called on it by 'Meet the Press' host Tim Russert.

    As the New Republic's Jonathan Chait first reported and we, among others, also wrote about, Bush's claim that he listed three exceptions under which he would run deficits during a 2000 Chicago campaign stop -- war, national emergency or recession -- is blatantly false.
    No one has found any evidence that Bush made such a statement, and the White House has pointedly failed to provide any.

    What makes this revisionist history so egregious is that Bush had actually promised that he would protect the Social Security surplus and not support deficit spending.
    But, as Chait recounts, when federal revenue projections declined in August 2001, Bush and his aides began listing exceptions justifying dipping into the Social Security surplus that the president had 'always' supported. Then, Bush began using the mythical Chicago statement in October to defend himself against criticism of the overall budget deficits that seemed imminent. Salon, June 18, 02
    ---------------------------
    the SEC determined in the mid 90s that the Bush case did not warrent further investigation (although it said its finding "must in no way be construed as indicating that (Bush) has been exonerated"). Nevertheless, Bush twice lied about the incident.

    "Bush sat on the board's audit committee at the time. By mid-1990, he decided to dump almost two-thirds of his Harken stock, reaping $848,000. Not long after, Harken reported a $23 million quarterly loss and the company's shares fell by more than 20 percent.

    "Asked later if his [Harken] stock sale had been related to the company's impending setback, [Board member] Bush replied, 'I absolutely had no idea and would not have sold it had I known.'

    "In fact, SEC records show that Harken's president had warned board members two months before Bush's sell-off that the company had liquidity problems that would 'drastically affect' operations....
    "Asked by a reporter this week about his business past, Bush snapped, 'Everything I do is fully disclosed; it's been fully vetted.'

    "Has it? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Wednesday that Bush's tardy SEC filings were the result of a 'clerical mistake' by Harken lawyers.

    "However, Bush said in 1994 that he had indeed filed all the required forms on time and that the SEC must have misplaced them."San Francisco Chronicle, June 5, '02
    ================
    This lie was part of the case made against Saddam Hussein. Although it was clearly a lie, and an exposed one, Bush continued to repeat it in the months leading up to the invasion. Given that the invasion was justified as necessary for self-defence, this could be an argument of an illegal attack on Iraq.

    "After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment but were "consistent" with making ordinary artillery rockets -- a finding that meshed with Iraq's official explanation for the tubes. New evidence supporting that conclusion has been gathered in recent weeks and will be presented to the U.N. Security Council in a report due to be released on Monday, the officials said.

    Iraq imported the same aluminum tubes for rockets in the 1980s. The new tubes it tried to purchase actually bear an inscription that includes the word "rocket," according to one official who examined them." Washington Post, Jan 23, 03
    -------------------------------------
    "President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used 'for missions targeting the United States.'

    "Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were 'six months away from developing a weapon.' And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy 'for a long period of time.'

    All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. Washington Post, Oct 21, 02
    ===================
    After the war was done, officials inside the White House admitted that the real reason they wanted to go to war was a show of power, not regime change or WMD.

    "Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans. 'We were not lying,' said one official. 'But it was just a matter of emphasis.'

    "Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins. But U.S. forces will find some, they say. On Thursday, President Bush raised the possibility for the first time that any such Iraqi weapons were destroyed before or during the war." ABC News, April 25, 03
    •  
  2. 19 Comments

  3. by   elkpark
    I don't know how Shrub has gotten away with all this for four years -- he's changed his position or lied to us about practically everything he's ever taken a position on, yet, somehow, the Republicans get away with painting Kerry as the "flip-flopper" ... (He gives whole new meaning to the old phrase, "Teflon president"!)

    http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=42263 ("President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief")

    As for the infamous WMDs, key members of his administration were on record prior to the invasion of Iraq as having said Iraq did not have significant WMDs. Once Shrub and the neocon chickenhawks saw an excuse for invading Iraq, the choir was singing a different tune. Lucky for Shrub that the American public has such a short memory! :chuckle Not so lucky for the hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis who have been killed in his immoral and ill-begotten war ...

    Colin Powell on Tape in 2001: Iraq Has No WMDs
    In a development that further undermines Bush administration claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March, a two-year-old videotape has surfaced showing Secretary of State Colin Powell boasting that sanctions had prevented Saddam from reconstituting his WMD programs.
    At a Feb. 2001 press conference, Powell told reporters that the sanctions program was put into place "for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction."
    After explaining that the situation required continual monitoring, Powell said of the sanctions, "Frankly, they have worked. [Saddam has] not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." ... (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/989348/posts)

    Condoleeza Rick in 2000:
    "How the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. 'The first line of defense...should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.'" Condoleeza Rice, January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs 2/1/2000 (http://windsofchange.net/cgi-bin/mt-...?entry_id=3635)

    Condoleeza Rice in 2001:
    "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnew...-name_page.html

    Dick Cheney in 2002:
    MR. RUSSERT: In this same article, August Hanning, the chief of the German BND, their CIA, says, quote, “Iraq will have the atomic bomb in three years.” Do you agree with that assessment?
    VICE PRES. CHENEY: I’m reluctant to put that kind of time frame on it. I don’t think we can be that precise, but we do know that he was working on it back in 1981 when the Israelis took out the Oseric reactor. We know he was working on it before the Gulf War. We know as a result of things we found after the Gulf War, as a result of defectors, for example, his own son-in-law came out in 1995 and talked about all of this, that he had an aggressive program throughout that period of time. And now, of course, for the last three years there’ve been no inspectors and there’s good reason to believe that he continues to aggressively pursue the development of a nuclear weapon.
    Now will he have one in a year, five years? I can’t be that precise. I don’t know enough to be able to put that kind of time frame on it.
    All I know is he’s got enormous resources because of his oil wealth. There’s nobody watching. He’s had the technical expertise that he put together in the past to pursue this kind of a program and that he’s one man out there who’s not only acquired weapons, he’s used them—chemical weapons against the Kurds and against the Iranians. I think it would be a great tragedy if Saddam Hussein were to be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and that’s one of the concerns I shared as I traveled through the region last week.
    MR. RUSSERT: Will we allow that to happen? Will we allow him to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction?
    VICE PRES. CHENEY: The president’s been very clear that we will do everything we need to do to make certain that that doesn’t happen.
    (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/...p-03-24-02.htm)
  4. by   DC2RN
    Iraq HAD WMD and they USED WMD on their own people and the Iranians!!! Until you can PROVE that Sadam Husssein destroyed those weapons, I still believe that they are still there, somewhere!

    It seems pretty obvious that Sadam's "Stay In Power" Strategy was to hide the WMD, and play the UN Inspectors like a fiddle. His strategy worked, until we got some real leadership in the White House. Sadam was a boil on the butt on the US that NEEDED to be lanced. Better sooner than later!

    We are even finding shells with nerve gas in them. Admittedly, they were made before the first Gulf War. Tell the Kurds and the Iranians that nerve gas made before the first Gulf War does not count. I bet you that they won't respond to that argument ........... because they are DEAD! Nerve gas made before the first Gulf War is a deadly WMD in my book!

    The people who say we should have acted to prevent 9/11, are the same people who said we should have done nothing, and left Sadam in power.
  5. by   elkpark
    As far as I'm concerned, "lancing the boil" would be getting rid of this sorry administration in November ...
  6. by   Mkue
    Quote from elkpark
    I don't know how Shrub has gotten away with all this for four years -- he's changed his position or lied to us about practically everything he's ever taken a position on, yet, somehow, the Republicans get away with painting Kerry as the "flip-flopper" ... (He gives whole new meaning to the old phrase, "Teflon president"!)
    [/url])
    All one has to do is look into Kerry's voting records and congressional quotes and statements he has made on the campaign trail Kerry pretty much has earned the flip/flopper title.
  7. by   movealong
    Quote from dc2rn
    iraq had wmd and they used wmd on their own people and the iranians!!! until you can prove that sadam husssein destroyed those weapons, i still believe that they are still there, somewhere!

    it seems pretty obvious that sadam's "stay in power" strategy was to hide the wmd, and play the un inspectors like a fiddle. his strategy worked, until we got some real leadership in the white house. sadam was a boil on the butt on the us that needed to be lanced. better sooner than later!

    we are even finding shells with nerve gas in them. admittedly, they were made before the first gulf war. tell the kurds and the iranians that nerve gas made before the first gulf war does not count. i bet you that they won't respond to that argument ........... because they are dead! nerve gas made before the first gulf war is a deadly wmd in my book!

    the people who say we should have acted to prevent 9/11, are the same people who said we should have done nothing, and left sadam in power.
    1. we helped saddam come to power, because we thought it was in our interests, when compared to the fundamentalist policies in iran. this action cost thousands or millions of iraqi lives.

    2. at the height of the genocidal anfal when saddam was murdering thousands of civilians by the day, the west, was still funding saddam to the tune of billions, because we thought it was in our interests both against iran, and to make a quick buck.

    3. after saddam invaded kuwait, we encouraged rebellion within iraq, we then stood by and let saddam exact terrible revenge on the people we had previously incited, because we afterwards thought it was in our interests to keep a 'strong' leader in charge.

    4. prior to the war, the official reason given for removing saddam was that he was manufacturing wmd, which may then be used against us in the west. yet, we (us and the eu) who alledgedly have such strong objections to wmd, stood by and continued to financially support saddam when he used wmd on his own people (see point two).

    5. one of the main reasons given for advocating democracy in the region, is that democracies tend to be more stable and breed less terrorists. less terrorists means less attacks on us.

    6. it is in our interests to free up iraq's enormous oil reserves.



    you're right, there is no evidence to date that saddam was continuing to produce wmd.

    the report cited the cia states the evidence they used was old and outdated.
  8. by   fergus51
    Quote from mkue
    All one has to do is look into Kerry's voting records and congressional quotes and statements he has made on the campaign trail Kerry pretty much has earned the flip/flopper title.
    By that token, hasn't Bush? He's changed his position on numerous issues, why is that different than Kerry?
  9. by   pickledpepperRN
    Pdf of full report:
    http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf

    http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/i...4iraqrpt-6.pdf

    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5395999

    Senate report cites CIA for 'failures' on Iraq
    'Mischaracterization' of data on weapons of mass destruction

    NBC, MSNBC and news services
    Updated: 3:17 p.m. ET July 09, 2004

    WASHINGTON - The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies fell victim to false "group think" when assessing Iraq's weapons capabilities and produced overstated or incorrect conclusions that led the Bush administration to justify the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, according to a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday.

    A "series of failures ... led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the bipartisan, unanimous report said.

    Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who heads the committee, told reporters that assessments that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and could make a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade were wrong.
    "As the report will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence," he said. "This was a global intelligence failure."

    Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the committee, said some lawmakers, himself included, "would not have authorized that war ... if we had known then what we know now."

    Roberts did not go that far, but said the war would have had to have been justified by some other reason, such as a humanitarian crisis.

    At a rare news conference at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., deputy director John McLaughlin, who takes over as acting director after George Tenet leaves Sunday, said: "We get it. Although we think the judgments were not unreasonable when they were made nearly two years ago, we understand with all we have learned since then, that we could have done better."
  10. by   pickledpepperRN
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/in...partner=GOOGLE

    WASHINGTON, July 12-President Bush vigorously defended his strategy against terrorism today, asserting that the war against Iraq was right and that the United States, while relying heavily on firm diplomacy, would not shrink from future pre-emptive strikes in defending itself.

    "Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq," Mr. Bush said in a speech at the Oak Ridge nuclear installation in Tennessee. "We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them."

    "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take," the president said.

    Moments later, Mr. Bush again embraced the doctrine of self-defense through pre-emptive strikes when necessary.

    "To overcome the dangers of our time, America is also taking a new approach in the world," he said. "We're determined to challenge new threats, not ignore them or simply wait for future tragedy."

    Mr. Bush has made similar remarks many times before. But today's speech was significant in view of the Senate Intelligence Committee's scathing report, issued last week, concluding that the road to war in Iraq was paved with faulty intelligence that greatly exaggerated the danger from deadly weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein.

    The president alluded to the panel's findings, declaring that they would "help us in the work of reform." He also reminded his listeners that previous presidents regarded Saddam Hussein as a menace, and that there was international concern about Mr. Hussein's possession or development of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons.
    "In 2002, the United Nations Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs," Mr. Bush recalled. "As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply."

    Mr. Bush also defended the Central Intelligence Agency, whose data-gathering and analysis were harshly criticized by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Mr. Bush said "outstanding work done by the C.I.A." had helped to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. He also said that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose performance has been criticized in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks, has been transformed into an effective terrorism-fighting unit.

    Trying to dispel the notion that the United States has become an arrogant, go-it-alone nation on his watch, Mr. Bush said, "We are protecting the peace by working with friends and allies and international institutions to isolate and confront terrorists and outlaw regimes."

    Senator John Kerry, the president's presumptive Democratic opponent, dismissed Mr. Bush's speech. "The gravest threat we face is terrorists or hostile states getting their hands on a nuclear weapon," Mr. Kerry said in a statement. "Since that dark day in September, have we reached out to our allies and forged an urgent global effort to ensure that nuclear weapons and materials are secured? Have we taken every step we should to stop North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs? Have we restructured our intelligence agencies and given them the resources they need to keep our country safe?

    "The honest answer, in each of these areas, is that we have done too little, often too late, and even cut back our efforts. It's not enough to give speeches-America will only be safer when we achieve results."

    Mr. Bush chose the Oak Ridge nuclear site as a backdrop at least in part because it houses components of Libya's now-abandoned nuclear program. "These materials voluntarily turned over by the Libyan government are also encouraging evidence that nations can abandon these ambitions and choose a better way," he said. "Libya is dismantling its weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile programs."

    Mr. Bush said the kind of resolve that led to Libya's renunciation of nuclear ambitions could work with other countries. "We're working with responsible governments and international institutions to convince the leaders of North Korea and Iran that their nuclear weapons ambitions are deeply contrary to their own interests," he said.

    Mr. Bush reiterated his stance that a free Iraq can be an incubator for democracy in the Middle East rather than a spawning ground for terrorists. "Iraq, which once had the worst government in the Middle East, is now becoming an example of reform to the region," he said. "And Iraqi security forces are fighting beside coalition troops to defeat the terrorists and foreign fighters who threaten their nation and the world."

    The president seemed to be trying to show that he is not bothered by reports that the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has found no close working relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda terrorists who carried out the attacks.

    "America must remember the lessons of Sept. 11," he said. "We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialize. And so my administration looked at the intelligence on Iraq, and we saw a threat."

    Administration critics have repeatedly accused Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of implying strong ties between the old Baghdad regime and Al Qaeda, and even encouraging a public misperception that Saddam Hussein might have played a part in the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Those accusations, and rebuttals from the administration that it acted based on what it knew at the time and that the Iraq war will stand the test of history, are already paramount themes in the contest between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry.

    In any event, Mr. Bush said today that the campaigns in Iraq and Aghanistan, where the United States led a campaign that overthrew the Taliban government that had sheltered terrorists, have been worth the costs. "Delivering these nations from tyranny has required sacrifice and loss," he said. "We will honor that sacrifice by finishing the great work we have begun."
  11. by   julieftRN
    Quote from movealong
    1. we helped saddam come to power, because we thought it was in our interests, when compared to the fundamentalist policies in iran. this action cost thousands or millions of iraqi lives.

    2. at the height of the genocidal anfal when saddam was murdering thousands of civilians by the day, the west, was still funding saddam to the tune of billions, because we thought it was in our interests both against iran, and to make a quick buck.

    3. after saddam invaded kuwait, we encouraged rebellion within iraq, we then stood by and let saddam exact terrible revenge on the people we had previously incited, because we afterwards thought it was in our interests to keep a 'strong' leader in charge.

    4. prior to the war, the official reason given for removing saddam was that he was manufacturing wmd, which may then be used against us in the west. yet, we (us and the eu) who alledgedly have such strong objections to wmd, stood by and continued to financially support saddam when he used wmd on his own people (see point two).

    5. one of the main reasons given for advocating democracy in the region, is that democracies tend to be more stable and breed less terrorists. less terrorists means less attacks on us.

    6. it is in our interests to free up iraq's enormous oil reserves.



    you're right, there is no evidence to date that saddam was continuing to produce wmd.

    the report cited the cia states the evidence they used was old and outdated.
    what were we funding him with? food??
  12. by   DC2RN
    Quote from movealong
    1. we helped saddam come to power, because we thought it was in our interests, when compared to the fundamentalist policies in iran. this action cost thousands or millions of iraqi lives.
    if i remember correctly, saddam's major foreign supporter was the soviet union. all of his major weapons (planes, tanks) were soviet and french made. saddam was a socialist who saw himself as another stalin. iran was taking american hostages at the time, so i do not think it was irresponsible to help prop up an enemy next door to iran. this was before he showed his true colors.

    Quote from movealong
    2. at the height of the genocidal anfal when saddam was murdering thousands of civilians by the day, the west, was still funding saddam to the tune of billions, because we thought it was in our interests both against iran, and to make a quick buck.
    the west was buying his oil. he just happened to get control of the money. saddam gasses his people, but it is all our fault because we bought oil from him. blame america first!!! that is like saying because you own a computer with windows, you support every dirty trick microsoft has done to maintain a monopoly.

    Quote from movealong
    3. after saddam invaded kuwait, we encouraged rebellion within iraq, we then stood by and let saddam exact terrible revenge on the people we had previously incited, because we afterwards thought it was in our interests to keep a ‘strong’ leader in charge.
    i could not agree with you more. we should have finished the job then, but the senior bush was a compromiser and diplomat, and not a leader. at least this bush finished the job.

    Quote from movealong
    4. prior to the war, the official reason given for removing saddam was that he was manufacturing wmd, which may then be used against us in the west. yet, we (us and the eu) who alledgedly have such strong objections to wmd, stood by and continued to financially support saddam when he used wmd on his own people (see point two).
    who in the world (including any of our "allies") did not believe that saddam had wmd. if he had nothing to hide, why did he kick out the un weapons inspectors? why risk so much in terms of sanctions by throwing the inspector out? all of the mobile labs that the un inspectors found the first time they went in, mysteriously disappeared. do you think saddam had a change of heart, and destroyed those programs, but forgot to get proof. how naive are you? he had programs, and it is buried in syria or his desert.

    Quote from movealong
    5. one of the main reasons given for advocating democracy in the region, is that democracies tend to be more stable and breed less terrorists. less terrorists means less attacks on us.
    true. we don't disagree on that.

    Quote from movealong
    6. it is in our interests to free up iraq's enormous oil reserves.
    let me complete that thought: "and give the revenue back to the iraqi people, instead of saddam." it is a much better situation than giving the money to saddam and all the crooked un food for oil workers who where on the take.

    Quote from movealong
    you're right, there is no evidence to date that saddam was continuing to produce wmd.

    the report cited the cia states the evidence they used was old and outdated.
    see above.
  13. by   Mkue
    Quote from fergus51
    By that token, hasn't Bush? He's changed his position on numerous issues, why is that different than Kerry?
    after reading many congressional records and voting records of Kerry I'm appalled at the lack of confidence and indecisiveness of John Kerry. His own party has questioned his ability to stick to one side of an issue. I don't think it's too much to ask of someone, especially running for the highest office in the country to be a little more firm and forthright. Kerry is "for" something than "against" it, depending on what group he is speaking to.
  14. by   fergus51
    Quote from mkue
    after reading many congressional records and voting records of Kerry I'm appalled at the lack of confidence and indecisiveness of John Kerry. His own party has questioned his ability to stick to one side of an issue. I don't think it's too much to ask of someone, especially running for the highest office in the country to be a little more firm and forthright. Kerry is "for" something than "against" it, depending on what group he is speaking to.
    I'm not asking why you think Kerry is a flipflopper. I am asking why Bush isn't when he does the same thing (ie changes his position)?

close