In September 2001, he said capturing bin Laden was "our No. 1 priority." By March 2002, he was claiming, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." In October 2001, he was dead set against the need for a Department of Homeland Security. Seven months later, he thought it was a great idea. In May 2002, he opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission. Four months later, he supported it. During the 2000 campaign, he said that gay marriage was a states' rights issue: "The states can do what they want to do." During the 2004 campaign, he called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Dizzy yet? No? OK: He supported CO2 caps, then opposed them. He opposed trade tariffs, then he didn't. Then he did again. He was against nation building, then he was OK with it. We'd found WMD, then we hadn't. Saddam was linked to Osama, then he wasn't. Then he was ... sorta. Chalabi was in, then he was out. Way out. We didn't need more troops, then we did. We didn't need more money, then we did. Preemption was a great idea -- on to Syria, Iran and North Korea! Then it wasn't -- hello, diplomacy! Baathists were the bad guys, then Baathists were our buds. We didn't need the U.N., then we did. And all this from a man who, once upon a time, made "credibility" a key to his appeal. (Well, in his defense, he's never lied about oral sex.) Except this is Bush! Thanks to salon.com for this one.
Indeed it is zim...(good memory) allow me to provide a linky-poo: http://www.salon.com/opinion/huffington/2004/07/15/flip_flop/index.html
funny how the brain works. i thought they were jay's words until i got to 'Dizzy yet?' thanks for posting the link
Yes, it was, I was not sure if I could link to it directly. I did say salon.com, not trying to take credit.
I equate him to Emperor Hirohito (Sp?) of Japan who decided to take over the Pacific rim and included Hawaii in his plans, holding the USA in little regard as, after all it was his DIVINE RIGHT to own the Pacific. I leave it to my esteemed volunteer research assistant IJ Reilly to provide more historical depth.
GWB: "There's an old saying in Tennessee... well, it's an old saying in Texas, I believe also in Tennessee. Fool me once..." GWB: "... shame on you" GWB: "Fool me..." {pause} GWB: "Fuduhfuh..... won't get fooled again." Sage words.. sage words. Good times.
Sounds foolish. Also sounds Befuddled... Fuddish.... "Dwatt that Wascawwy Demokwatt!!" " Come outta that hole Bin Wadden befo'e I bwast you out!"
Take a history class man. Hirohito did not spear head the war, it was the military leaders of the country.
Those same leaders who transmuted themselves and their clans into the postwar industrial corporations.
Seems I missed my "calling." Sorry. But you have got it right here, I believe. One of the strongest points made in F9-11 was an illustration of the connections between corporations and the war-making machine led by the President. Wasn't it that commie-pinko Dwight Eisenhower who first warned us about this? The military-industrial complex hasn't gone away, it's only become more entrenched, and evidently, the country more enured to it.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 1953
if bush can be compared to a historic leader that it would one of 'our' late royal emperors of the habsburger dynasty: trying to hold together a complete mess,good intentions and christian morals all over the place, but handicaped by complete incompetence and problems with understanding a changing world sadly bush is missing out the funny helmets and uniforms
If we're going to compare to the Eurasian royal lines I'd say more like Czar Nicholas of Russia. If we're talking strategy however I'd compare him more to the pre-WW2 french leadership. Nothing quite like a huge, impenetrable armoured border that only goes partway round.
some time ago, i'd put forth the idea that the world is about to undergo another change in how power is held. the power of the family (e.g. the hapsburgs) gave way to the power of the state (i.e. countries). this is the current power, but i think it's going to give way to the super-state (witness the EU). bush, however, i think wants to go back to the power of the family. in this particular case, it goes beyond the bush name and includes others. but this extended family (we can look at the carlyle group to get an idea of its membership) would still want to hold power close to itself.
with the only difference that the one of the mottos of the habsburger were "Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria, nube!" (="Let others wage war, you happy Austria, marry!") the family thing is intresting but nothing more than a theory