The White House announced at a press conference Monday that it has stopped using its signature sound-bite, “stay the course.” The reason, spokesman Tony Snow explained, is that the phrase doesn’t reflect the complexity of the administration’s policy about the war in Iraq. So does that mean the White House will stop mischaracterizing critics of its war policies as appeasers who want to “cut and run”?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- gster on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
54 Comments
“So does that mean the White House will stop mischaracterizing critics of its war policies as appeasers who want to ‘cut and run’”?
Doubtful.
FLIP
FLOP
“Stay the course”; great sound bite, lousy policy. Good phrase to use by those running against the Administration in the 2006 elections (yes, for once, the midterm elections seem to be “national”).
I suspect that once the recommendations of the commission headed by James Baker are made, there will be some reminiscent of those made by others, labeled “cut and run”. It will be interesting to watch how, if any of these be adopted, they are characterized as a “change in tactics” rather than a “change in strategy”.
If I recall correctly, the remaining strategic aim of our involvement in Iraq is the creating of a democratic society. With the inevitable civil war now in full swing, I anxiously await word on how any change which may occur contributes to that end.
Brownlee seems to be having a problem with his logic.Changing from “Stay the Course” does not in any way mean that the critics he mentions are not still appeasers who want to cut and run. Brownlee! Stop breathing the air in that room. It’s causing illogical leaps.
Course correction?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/24/stay.course/index.html
We were told there were two and only two choices: (a) stay the course and (b) cut and run.
Well, if Bush is no longer “stay the course” then he must now be choice (b).
As for putting any hope in the “bipartisan Baker Commission” keep in mind that Bush has ignored them all along. The only way to get anything “bipartisan” implemented is to create a bipartisan government. In other words, elect Democrats to the Congress to hold Bush’s feet to the fire!
Wow hotlick, can you be any more partisan? I’m curious, do you get paid to write the stuff that you do? And if so, by whom? Because you seem to have the gop talking points down real good! Even if there is no logic or facts to back them up.
How I wish that Hotlick would put on a tin hat and grab a rifle and go fight himself.
But then he’d have to stop being a hypocrite. Can’t happen.
Here’s a nice short video that recaps the Bush lies leading up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YJsPNn8guc&NR
“STAY THE COURSE” will go down in infamy right alongside “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”!
I think you all really know that “Mission Accomplished” was for that ship’s accomplishment. It wasn’t really saying that all of the missions of the war were accomplished yet.
…but then again, maybe Al Gore really DID invent the internet.
Yes, toying with words and phrases is fun for both sides.
I am hearing today on NPR that the administration is talking “timeline benchmarks for progress.” Was it not just pretty recently when any talk of “timelines or deadlines” was the same thing as “aid and comfort to the enemy.”
While Karl Rove is saying that his view of the polls add up to Republican majorities in the house and senate, his “changing the course” on the rhetoric he has coming out of Bush’s mouth, makes me believe that the formerly “fat foock” (said with the ultimate Tony Saprano derision) is scared to death.
Bush really just misbespokenated!!
SM – if you believe that the ship did the Mission Accomplished sign then you are probably stupid enough to believe the claim that Gore “invented the internet”. Not even Gore believes that – and he never claimed it either. That is another Limbaugh lie.
SM, nope that’s not true according to Rumsfeld in Woodward’s book ‘State of Denial’.
From the book:”Shortly after U.S. troops took Baghdad, Rumsfeld saw a draft of Bush’s planned victory address from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. “I took ‘Mission Accomplished’ out,” Rumsfeld told Woodward. “I was in Baghdad and I was given a draft of the thing and I just died. And I said, it’s too inclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back. They fixed the speech but not the sign.” As Woodward points out — with none of the equivocation that marred his earlier Bush books — Rumsfeld’s story proves that White House spokesmen were lying when they claimed that the “Mission Accomplished” banner had been devised by the sailors on the Lincoln.”
It seems my humor was lost on you Ben.
As an old enlisted man, I suspect the “Mission Accomplished” sign was the result of some staffer with knowledge of the contents of the draft contacting an Admiral and suggesting how great it would be for there to be such a sign on deck. The Admiral took it from there. Thus, one might say that the sign was done by the ship; true, as far as it goes, but (of course) not going on to disclose the originator of the idea.
dave s-Yes, I can be more partisan. I’m holding back.Yes, the GOP pays me millions.I’m rich, BIATCH!
Well, SM, since BOTH misrepresentations were from the same side (GOP) I had trouble seeing your “both sides” reference.
There are likely quotes and links out there to lead one to think one way or another regarding that imfamous sign. My point is that the sign isn’t all that important regardless of what view you take.
And about that “Gore invented the Internet” comment, I realize you were trying to be sarcastic, but here is the text from an email by Vint Cerf and Robert E. Kahn. You might want to go look them up. The email was dated 9/28/2000.
“[A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.”
Absolutely correct dave s. I remember the days of the ARPANet that was funded as a result of that effort.
I also remember bringing down the entire system a few times one night. We got a panicked call from Stanford wanting to know what the heck we were doing. They were not plaesed.
Relax folks. I know the history of Al Gore and the internet as well.
If only the people from his own home state would have given him their electoral votes ….
yep … or if the voters who went to nader had stayed with him.
Yeah, or if the evil republicans hadn’t stole the election. Because, clearly, that’s the only way Bush could have won. Clearly.
Flip
Flop
flup
dud
just like bush
how are they going to steal 2006 and 2008?
Liberal Logic 101:
If the Democrats win, it was a fair and just election. No problems whatsoever.
If the Republicans win, it was just another evil election theft by those dastardly republicans and Karl Rove…..Karl Rove! NOBODY really wants to elect republicans? Who’s that stupid? Doesn’t everyone think like us libs?
SM – actually the logic is based on the same thing the US State department uses to judge the fairness of elections in palces like Ukraine. They use exit polling to determine how people voted and then compare that to what the official count says. If the difference is too much it is taken as an indication of a dishonest count.
Remember the uproar after the Russian-backed candidate supposedly won in Ukraine? That was overturned because of the exit poll results.
Wow. With that evidence I’m now convinced the election really WAS stolen. Thanks for clearing that up.
SM, did you see the non-partisan GAO report about the 2004 election? They came to the conclusion that there was no way to prove or disprove that the election had been tampered with because it was too easy to do it and cover your tracks!
I think we need to go back to paper ballots and spend a couple of days counting them to insure that it’s done right. It’s just too important to do it any other way.
That’s right SM; the Russians claimed the election was fair.
Maybe after the election, Bush will come out with a new slogan “Full Speed Ahead”, for his headlong rush into disaster.I was thinking today, you no longer hear anyone saying “The World’s a safer place without Saddam! Especially untrue if you live in Iraq!
“We are only stopping to pick up ice cubes”
George Bush as captain of the Titanic.
Good one, Ben! But the ice cubes are $1 each. We’re not running a charity here.Yes, Nader screwed you guys. I voted for him that year (here in Kansas)just to give him some (false) hope that people wanted him. With any luck the Repubs will get that lucky again in ‘08. Of course, Perot didn’t help us any one year.
I’m going to go out on a limb and make two conditional predictions:
IF the Dems take both houses next month,
1) I think you’re going to see Bush belatedly fulfill his 2000 campaign promise to be a “uniter, not a divider,” and work cooperatively with the Dems. This will cause the public to see him as a “good president”, and he’ll instinctively go for that.
2) Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation will be announced in December or January.
On election fraud, exit polling represents one of the “gold standards” of modern scientific procedures, known as statistical sampling. According to statistical science, there was an extremely high probability of GOP-favoring election fraud, and there was an extremely high probability that a Kerry win in Ohio was fraudulently converted to a Bush “win”.
Let’s consider modern technology. Consider paperless voting machines whose chips record votes and the chips are vulnerable to hacking. We could have a networked system in which candidates’ running-totals were immediately shown to voters in their booths, i.e. as soon as a voter hit “send” for his/her ballot, the running- total would add another vote on the booth screen, which would also be shown on a polling place screen, and also on a county screen.
The data would be time-recorded, in each booth, in each polling place, and at county offices, just like WEBlog submissions and email are.
At the same time, the individual voter’s ballot would be printed out in two copies, with a time-stamp, and the voter would take one, and place it upside-down on a stack of ballot printouts, while retaining the other.
Each polling place would have a Democratic and Republican representative who would ultimately transport the ballot printouts to a facility jointly guarded by Democratic and Republican Party representatives.
The software should be designed not by some jimmy-jackos working for a voting-machine company in Ohio, but by top-flight computer security-expert faculty at Stanford, Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, U Illinois and MIT.
Finally, each voter would be assigned a random-number, which would be printed on his/her ballot printout. If the voter inspected the ballot and saw that it misrpresented his/her actual votes, he or she would go to the polling place person, give the number, which would be entered and the ballot voided, and the voter would be given a new randomized number and the opportunity to vote again. If defective again, the voter would be given a printed ballot, and a black marker pen to manually vote, and write down the time of submission, which would then be placed upside down on the manual printout stack. The person would be able to call Democratic, Republican or Independent headquarters and say, “My electronic vote didn’t work. Here’s my voting number. I voted using a paper ballot.”
So this would create a strong evidence trail.
Is this too cumbersome? Not if you want to protect a democratic republic. Having hackable chip machines made by a company that said, “We’re going to deliver Ohio to the GOP,” may have happened once, but it cannot be acceptable anymore.
A very thoughtful and probably almost fool proof system heart. Which is exactly why we will never have anything like it.
I no longer trust our voting system after the thefts of 2000 and 2004. That is why I am confident that while the voters intention will be to return control of Congress to the Democrats in 2 weeks, it is up for grabs whether they will get their wish. Give their miserable administration, bush cheney and rove are entirely too sure of the outcome for my liking.
Sounds good Heartlander. But Jesse Jackson and his ilk wouldn’t go for it because you might have to prove that you are a citizen to get a voter number.
JR: Of course, election theft allegations are leftist drivel. But regardless, shouldn’t you wait until you actually lose before setting up excuses?
outlander,Point me to the studies that say voter fraud (non-citizens voting) has been a substantial problem in the past few elections. Because I can find plenty of evidence that election fraud (problems with voting machines, too few voting machines, intimidation of voters, etc.) HAVE been a problem.
Outlander
You have been really stretching at the limits of credibility here lately. Let’s see if we can get you to go ahead and snap.
Do you Outlander, believe that george bush won legitimately in 2000?
My guess is your answer will be yes.
The next one is harder.
Were the situation reversed and Gore had been declared the winner, do you deny that you would regard that election just as suspiciously as I do now?
The Bush administration’s new slogan is….. TIMELINE!
Yep, that’s it, timeline. But they are not advocating a timetable for a pull out! That would be cutting and running! ;-P
JR, I agree, Bush is almost as cocky as he was in 2000, when the media was declaring Kerry the winner. I suspect he knows about plan B.
“I no longer trust our voting system after the thefts of 2000 and 2004.”jr-Why don’t you blame Tennessee for not voting for their own homeboy? Why not blame Nader for taking away too many votes?Typical Lib.
butlick–What about the topic?Your stew-pud repugs would never admit being wrong.Next strategy?Cut and run while claiming victory.You KNOW it’s true.I don’t expect you to admit it.
The only topic I’m interested in at this time of the morning is donuts. Mmmmm donuts.
I like your idea heartlander and would add one additional feature. Allow me to vote anywhere in the County. With my ID the computer can bring up my appropriate ballot. This was I can vote at/near work.
donuts? nah, bacon and eggs.
Just PLEASE don’t tell my doctor!
Im sure you do hotlick. Lots of donuts. I guessed right. A 400 pounder. Guess you missed the posts in Welcome back to work at Bombardier. LOL
hotlick can’t help it Paul. It’s not easy being jobless. lol
The comments about donuts, while true, was not written by me. It was a troll using my name.Tracy-There is whining all over the place on this thread about the “stolen” election.
OK, hottie.Just trying to get back into the swing of things here.
BTW–Next strategy?Cut and run while claiming victory.You KNOW it’s true.I don’t expect you to admit it.
Since the subject has moved away from the original topic of the thread, here’s a little tidbit I find interesting.
***Hacking Democracy
This cautionary documentary exposes the vulnerability of computers – which count approximately 80% of America’s votes in county, state and federal elections – suggesting that if our votes aren’t safe, then our democracy isn’t safe either. Premieres Thursday, November 2 at 9pm. HBO.***