How could Clinton let this happen?

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:04 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bus ... rewed=true

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:43 am

“Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, ‘what is good for them and what is not.’”
–George W. Bush, Washington D.C., Oct. 6, 2005

“I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense.”
–George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:59 am

Who needs to be able to communicate when the system itself can appoint you leader and merely gesture something that vaguely resembles an elective process to pacify the populace?
Basically the voters have been reduced to window dressing at the basement level of the government monolith and G.W. Bush was determined to be the minimum expense required to manage the basement.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:01 pm

Here's the quote in question:

STEPHANOPOULOS: James Baker says that he’s looking for something between “cut and run” and “stay the course.”

BUSH: Well, hey, 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 to tactics. Constantly.

The site also gives a string of quotes of Bush saying \"stay the course\", and screams out \"CONTRADICTION OMFGLOLBBQ!\"

They place far too much stock in the words and far too little in the message -- there's a difference between \"stay the course\", meaning, do things exactly the same (no tactical changes), and \"stay the course\", meaning, keep pushing toward the same goal (don't withdraw the troops). It's utterly dishonest to pretend Bush's continued statements about \"staying the course\" mean \"not adapting\" (even though there's been adaptation at multiple levels) rather than \"not withdrawing\".

That said... this is a sound-byte world filled with dishonest purveyors of sound-byte analysis, and Bush made as big a sound-byte blunder as \"I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it.\"

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:24 pm

You've lost all credibility with me in this thread with that response lothar. You could gain it back if you convince me you're simply that naive.

Let's make this simple. This isn't about whether or not adapting to the situation was ever part of their stated plan. It wasn't part of their stated plan. You know what was? \"Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course.\" So don't try to cast the discussion in that light.

This is about the Republicans peddling a catchphrase for years that they can't make good on. Things in Iraq are going badly. The new Iraqi government is barely hanging in there. Security is at a new low. It ain't good.

Now the catchphrase itself is becoming unpopular. This is no surprise since the catchphrase itself was always the worst sort of rhetoric, devoid of any real meaning. They are trying to distance themselves from their former catchphrase. Simple...they come out and say they never meant what we thought they meant, or we never grasped the meaning of \"stay the course\". Are you f'n kidding me?

Bush is the one equivocating on his own meaning, not some \"cynical liberals\" who want to make him look bad. He looks bad because he IS bad (at least on this point). We didn't alter his former meaning. HE DID.

This is NO blunder. This is an intentional strategy of re-casting their \"stay the course\" catchphrase so that it does not mean what they definitely meant by it in the past. They are hoping we will buy the fact that even though they jammed the phrase down our throats, the entire time it really meant: \"We have a nimble, clever strategy to adapt to changing situations on the ground.\" But that was just too hard to either say or convey to Americans, so f'k it, \"stay the course\" slipped out 200 times?

check this out, it is from August of this year, well before Bush \"blundered\" as you put it:

Mehlman (RNC Chair) distancing himself from 'stay the course':

Snow (Bush Press Secretary) augmenting the president's comments that he's 'never been stay the course'. The whole vid is good because it goes into some of the reasons why the admin is distancing itself, i.e. the royal f'k up that is Iraq, but the Snow statement is at around 2:30 on:

Testi gets it. Will gets it. So, Lothar I'm going to leave it at this: You're naive or you're a hooker for the Bush propaganda team. (not literally, I like you and all, but c'mon, fella)

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:57 am

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:55 am

Yeah, Palz, Bush is distancing himself from a catchphrase. So what? OMG HE IS THE EVIL, HE DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM A CATCHPHRASE! F**K THE CHIMPY MCHITLERBURTON!

The thing you're overlooking is the purpose of the catchphrase: it was used to counter the rhetoric of \"support the troops, bring them home\" and things like that. The whole point of the catchphrase was to demonstrate a commitment not to leave until the job was done. (I'm not claiming the phrase meant \"we have a nimble clever strategy to adapt...\"; I'm claiming the phrase had nothing to do with strategy on that level and everything to do with not abandoning Iraq.)

Over time, the Dems have won the \"rhetoric war\" by recasting the phrase as a stubborn refusal to adapt -- turning it into a commentary on tactics rather than a commentary on commitment. They've changed what the phrase means, so Bush is now distancing himself from it. That seems to me a perfectly reasonable response, though he's blundered in the way he distanced himself. It's not about the Republicans \"peddling a phrase they can't make good on\", it's about the phrase itself no longer meaning what it originally meant. You criticize \"stay the course\" as a phrase devoid of meaning, yet both the original meaning and the modified meaning are plainly obvious.

Is Iraq a mess? Yeah. But I expect the troops to stay until the job is done and the country is stable -- to \"stay the course\" or whatever catchphrase they'll replace it with. And I expect whatever catchphrase the Republicans use next will get twisted, and I expect whatever catchphrase the Democrats use next will get twisted too. (And I hope next time when I point it out you'll stay away from the cheap shots and patronizing comments.)

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:30 pm

The problem here is that \"stay the course\" can either be intrepreted as 'keep doing what you're doing, and not adapting', or it could be interpreted as 'stay here until the job is done'.
Here, Bush used it in terms of the first interpretation. Whether that's what the presenter had intended it to be interpretated as or not, that's the case here.
The real question is whether the US army really are adjusting their tactics...

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:50 pm

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:59 pm

Tiger, I'm sure the troops continue to adjust to how they are being attacked. The US policy hasn't changed because it's still the same. They have no idea what they are doing anymore...it's a complete mess...Pally is right. Their stay the course backfired because everyone know is simply saying \"well wtf is / was / will be the course\"?

Nobody is buying it anymore, well nobody except for Lothar.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:28 pm

I understand the distinction Lothar made and I agree with it.
But just because Bush knows the effort would be steered by the dynamics and unknowns doesn't mean he should have stuck with the simple mantra of \"stay the course\" once the opposition tried to use it like an anchor around his neck. He should have anticipated that line of political attack and been out in front of it!
Early on he mentioned the long struggle that was ahead but he's failed to manage the domestic conversation that it brings. He sucks as a communicator and during war is a damn good time to have a leader who takes the time to lead and has some serious communication skills.

Also, I don't believe he thought very deeply on the big picture. I think he believed the U.S. is an unstoppable force so we would just overcome anything the enemy might throw at us. As if he's waiting in suspense to see how it will all play out himself. He knows we'll win, ultimately, but he hasn't a clue how to guide us there!
He had many chances to outline the acomplishments and define victory, instead he's just waiting for someone to hand it to him.
He sucks as a wartime president. He thinks it's his strong suit but he really sucks at it.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:45 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I understand the distinction Lothar made and I agree with it.
But just because Bush knows the effort would be steered by the dynamics and unknowns doesn't mean he should have stuck with the simple mantra of "stay the course" once the opposition tried to use it like an anchor around his neck. He should have anticipated that line of political attack and been out in front of it!
Early on he mentioned the long struggle that was ahead but he's failed to manage the domestic conversation that it brings. He sucks as a communicator and during war is a damn good time to have a leader who takes the time to lead and has some serious communication skills.

Also, I don't believe he thought very deeply on the big picture. I think he believed the U.S. is an unstoppable force so we would just overcome anything the enemy might throw at us. As if he's waiting in suspense to see how it will all play out himself. He knows we'll win, ultimately, but he hasn't a clue how to guide us there!
He had many chances to outline the acomplishments and define victory, instead he's just waiting for someone to hand it to him.
He sucks as a wartime president. He thinks it's his strong suit but he really sucks at it.

Hear hear!
If he was good at communication, I'd think he'd be a lot like Clinton. Only a bit more aggressive.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:23 pm

TIGERassault wrote:If he was good at communication, I'd think he'd be a lot like Clinton. Only a bit more aggressive.

Clinton was a waste of talent.
Bush and Clinton are both lazy bastards who served their respective frat houses at the expense of the student body.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:22 pm

Will Robinson wrote:He sucks as a communicator

This is what it comes down to... Bush sucks as a communicator. Why is this newsworthy or threadworthy? Palzon?

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:21 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Clinton was a waste of talent.
Bush and Clinton are both lazy bastards who served their respective frat houses at the expense of the student body.

Yeah, but Clinton was able to do it while keeping the public happy. He made it seem like he was always looking out for the best of the people.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:56 pm

TIGERassault wrote:Yeah, but Clinton was able to do it while keeping the public happy. He made it seem like he was always looking out for the best of the people.

First of all, he wasn't able to "do it"...he elected to not "do it" when it came to dealing with the threat of islamo-facsists like bin Laddin.
If he had been willing to do what Bush was willing to do ie; take unilateral military action against multiple nations and suffer the political consequences then, yes, he could have done better at controlling the national discussion than Bush has. But if he wasn't willing to step into it to begin with what good is he?

Second, the characteristic you describe of being able to 'make it seem like he was always looking out for the best of the people'...that's also known as lying and the fact that he's better at it than Bush is no comfort.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:16 pm

Will Robinson wrote:First of all, he wasn't able to "do it"...he elected to not "do it" when it came to dealing with the threat of islamo-facsists like bin Laddin.
If he had been willing to do what Bush was willing to do ie; take unilateral military action against multiple nations and suffer the political consequences then, yes, he could have done better at controlling the national discussion than Bush has. But if he wasn't willing to step into it to begin with what good is he?

AFAIK, Bush was disliked as President before he invaded Iraq and suchlike.

Will Robinson wrote:Second, the characteristic you describe of being able to 'make it seem like he was always looking out for the best of the people'...that's also known as lying and the fact that he's better at it than Bush is no comfort.

It wasn't lying, it was making sure the public don't know what he's up to.

Oh, and don't mistake my attitude here; I didn't think Clinton was as good a president as those before him.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:59 pm

TIGERassault wrote:It wasn't lying, it was making sure the public don't know what he's up to.

It all depends on what the definition of it is right? Tre' Clintonesque!

If all you meant to say is Clinton was better at fooling the nation then I have to agree with you but being better at lying, and at it's core that's exactly what it is, is no virtue.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:26 pm

Whoa! Talk about on topic!

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:49 am

you know...far from seeing Bush as \"evil\" (as some would have you think), I actually feel kinda sorry for the guy. Bush strikes me as clueless about the reality in which the rest of us reside. I'm not just talking about when he makes a statement one might say is a simple slip of the tongue, but about a bigger picture of a guy who seems to live in a cultural bubble. Bush is a bubble-boy. I present to you President Bubble-Boy...

Of course we all know that President Bubble-Boy hears the rumors on the \"Internets\"

But some of you may be unaware that President Bubble-Boy uses \"The Google\" but \"tends\" to not use email (because he doesn't ever use email)

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:36 am

Palzon wrote:you know...far from seeing Bush as "evil" (as some would have you think), I actually feel kinda sorry for the guy. Bush strikes me as clueless about the reality in which the rest of us reside.

Yeah, but in comparison to Paris Hilton...

Actually, there is one thing that I admire about Bush; he doesn't give off the impresion that he's incredibly wealthy, he doesn't make you feel "Oh, I wish I was him..." like most people that have that much money and publicity.

Palzon wrote:Of course we all know that President Bubble-Boy hears the rumors on the "Internets"

BWAHAHAHAHA!

And another laugh towards Will's link.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:37 pm

Most of the people I know who are Bush's age make similarly strange comments about computer-related topics. I was helping a friend diagnose a computer problem a couple days ago, and he was really shaky on the concept of CPU vs RAM vs Hard Drive. Actually, he was shaky on hardware vs software -- \"I think it's your video driver\" \"so do I need to get a bigger hard drive?\" \"uh... no.\"

Anyway:

Bush sucks as a communicator. Why is this newsworthy or threadworthy? Palzon?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:20 pm

I think you are letting him off too easy here.

I have heard a ★■◆●ing billion times that we are going to \"stay the course\" instead of \"cut and run\". This was their phrase, they created it. Now it hurts them and they are backpedaling -- how embarassing.

To the public this makes bush look just as two faced as Kerry's 87 billion remarks.