"Stay the course..."

[Raven_tiger 5]

Linky

President Bush and his aides are annoyed that people keep misinterpreting his Iraq policy as "stay the course." A complete distortion, they say. "That is not a stay-the-course policy," White House press secretary Tony Snow declared yesterday.

Where would anyone have gotten that idea? Well, maybe from Bush.

"We will stay the course. We will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed," he said in Salt Lake City in August.

Story continues below ↓

advertisement

"We will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course," he said in Milwaukee in July.

"I saw people wondering whether the United States would have the nerve to stay the course and help them succeed," he said after returning from Baghdad in June.

But the White House is cutting and running from "stay the course." A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned "stay the course" into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining that "stay the course" does not actually mean stay the course.

Instead, they have been emphasizing in recent weeks how adaptable the president's Iraq policy actually is. Bush remains steadfast about remaining in Iraq, they say, but constantly shifts tactics and methods in response to an adjusting enemy. "What you have is not 'stay the course' but in fact a study in constant motion by the administration," Snow said yesterday.

Political rhetoric, of course, is often in constant motion as well. But with midterm elections two weeks away, the Bush team is searching for a formula to address public opposition to the war, struggling to appear consistent and flexible at the same time. That was underscored by the reaction to a New York Times report that the administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to disarm militias and assume a larger security role. The White House initially called the story "inaccurate." But then White House counselor Dan Bartlett went on CNN yesterday morning to call it "a little bit overwritten" because in fact it was something the administration had been doing for months.

The president has shifted language on Iraq before. At a news conference in August, he returned to his prewar argument that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Hussein "had relations with Zarqawi," Bush said. Weeks later, the Senate intelligence committee concluded that Hussein "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye to Zarqawi" and that the U.S. government knew that before the invasion. At his next news conference, Bush was asked about that. "I never said there was an operational relationship," he said.

Bush used "stay the course" until recent weeks when it became clear that it was becoming a political problem. "The characterization of, you know, 'it's stay the course' is about a quarter right," Bush complained at an Oct. 11 news conference. " 'Stay the course' means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is: Don't do what you're doing if it's not working -- change. 'Stay the course' also means don't leave before the job is done."

By last week, it was no longer a quarter right. "Listen, we've never been stay the course, George," he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. "We have been -- we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics. Constantly."

‘Burying your head in the sand’

Snow said Bush dropped the phrase "because it left the wrong impression about what was going on. And it allowed critics to say, 'Well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,' when, in fact, it's just the opposite."

Republican strategists were glad to see him reject the language, if not the policy. "They're acknowledging that it's not sending the message they want to send," said Steve Hinkson, political director at Luntz Research Cos., a GOP public opinion firm. The phrase suggested "burying your head in the sand," Hinkson said, adding that it was no longer useful signaling determination. "The problem is that as the number of people who agree with remaining resolute dwindles, that sort of language doesn't strike a chord as much as it once did."

If anything, it is striking a Democratic chord, party strategists say. A commercial by Democratic Senate candidate James Webb in Virginia shows a clip of Bush saying "We'll stay the course in Iraq," followed by a clip of Republican Sen. George Allen, saying "I very much agree with the president. . . . And we need to stay the course." A caption on the screen says "Civil War; No End in Sight; We Need a New Course."

An ad for Democratic Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. in Tennessee shows Republican Bob Corker saying "I think we should stay the course," then rewinds and repeats "we should stay the course." Ford then comes onto the screen. "I support our troops, and I voted for the war," he says. "But we shouldn't stay the course as Mr. Corker wants. . . . America should always be strong. But we should be smart and honest, too. We need a new direction."

‘New direction’

Juxtaposed against "stay the course," "new direction" has become the Democrats' poll-tested mantra, even if they don't define precisely what that new direction would be. "There's a reason why every Democratic candidate in the country is talking now about change in direction," said Democratic National Committee pollster Cornell Belcher. "When you ask 'change in direction' versus Bush's direction, you get solid majorities of 60 percent or so for change."

So now even some Republican candidates are changing direction, at least in terms of their language. "We can't continue to keep doing the same things and expect different results," Allen said last week. "We must adapt. We must adjust our tactics." Corker now says on his campaign Web site: "We need to fix our strategy in Iraq so we can get the job done and bring our troops home."

[AURaptor 1,126]

post deleted by mod

You're such a ******* loser.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Loser's don't come up with solutions do they?

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TOF-Oreilly-Clar.mov

The GOP Neocons will be the losers on November 7, 2006. And, Holy Joe will lose too. Good luck finding your party, or a fraction thereof AURaptor. Fear doesn't work on people who think for themselves and losers don't think for themselves. The biggest loser of all is Dubya, he can't think for himself, that's why he has Neocons in his cabinet. Think about it GOPers. It's too bad GOPers just voted the party line in 2000 and 2004.

Had enough?

AL HAIG, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first, I think that this is a conflict that's essentially political. It's not just purely military. It's political and religious and ideological. And it was driven by the so-called neocons that hijacked my party, the Republican Party, before this administration...

BLITZER: Name names, Mr. Secretary. Who are you talking about?

HAIG: Well, I'm talking about...

BLITZER: Because a lot of our viewers hear the word "neocon" and they don't know what you're talking about.

HAIG: Well, they're a group of people who are ex-Democrats. Many of them hovered around the Seattle Conservative Democrats some years ago, who...

I told you guys the neocons were ex-liberals.

BLITZER: Who specifically are you referring to?

HAIG: I'm talking about Wolfowitz. I'm talking about Richard Perle. I'm talking about some newly-made ones. I'm talking about the former editor of the Wall Street Journal.

These people are very, very deeply embedded in Yale and certain intellectual circles. And for years, they've been against NATO...

BLITZER: But did they hijack the strategy, the policy, from the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States?

HAIG: Yes.

BLITZER: The secretary of state, the secretary of defense?

HAIG: Well, no, not the secretary of state, but he sat there and had to be a passenger on a train that he wasn't driving?

BLITZER: Was Rumsfeld a neocon?

Rummy is a Neocon too.

HAIG: I wouldn't say he was. I wouldn't say...

BLITZER: But was he in charge of the military strategy?

HAIG: No, no. The outcome of the strategy was to create democracy with a bayonet.

But it worked so well in Vietnam. Why not the rest of globe? LMAO!

BLITZER: Is Cheney a neocon?

Yes, Cheney is a Neocon. He is a member of PNAC. All of the PNAC members are the Neocons.

HAIG: I think so.

BLITZER: So he's part of that neocon conspiracy, or cabal, or whatever?

HAIG: Those around him were, if he wasn't.

BLITZER: And they could basically influence the president and dictate to the president what to do, in terms of going to war against Saddam Hussein?

HAIG: Well, I'm not here to talk about that. There were a lot of influences on the president, but he's the president, and he's responsible.

BLITZER: So what do you think of this argument?

Because you hear it all the time, Dr. Brzezinski, that there were these group of of neoconservatives in there, like Paul Wolfowitz, who has the deputy secretary of defense; Richard Perle, who wasn't even in the government but he was an outside adviser, who were effectively shaping U.S. strategy.

Do you buy that?

BRZEZINSKI: I buy a great deal of that. I think Al Haig is absolutely right.

We had, at the top a president, who was essentially uninformed about foreign policy, and then top policy-makers like Rumsfeld and, of course, Cheney who are, kind of, traditional, quote, end quote, "realists," hard nosed types.

But the guys who provided the strategy and made the argument that we have to go into Iraq, that we have to link the war on terror with an attack on Iraq, were the guys that Al Haig is talking about.

They provided strategy. They provided the argument that we would be greeted as liberators, that this would be a cake walk. And they have devastated American national interests as a consequence.

BLITZER: Do you agree with that assessment?

HAIG: Well, that was a term that Wolfowitz used twice, "cake walk."

BLITZER: I don't know if he specifically used that term, but others suggested...

HAIG: Yes, he did.

BLITZER: ... that it would be relatively smooth sailing to get rid of Saddam Hussein, which it was relatively smooth sailing. The preparation for the post-Saddam Iraq, of course, lacked considerably, as you know.

HAIG: But you know, finger-pointing isn't the problem today. The problem today is where we go from here. And I think there are some very, very disturbed reactions to what have been some misjudgments, which the president was the first to admit.

And that is that no one has really analyzed carefully what would happen if we suddenly bugged out or cut and ran.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Loser's don't come up with solutions do they?

W's not running for re-election, so he's already won, and his ideas are being implemented.

You're still the ******* loser here.

[Ranger12 46]

BF, we put up with alot of your crap and insane babbling on this board. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the President, but I draw the line with some of the things you said in your post, so I deleted it. Politics aside, the office of the President of the United States should be respected and to make statements like you did sounds close to what the terrorists say about the United States. It was also disrespectful to Raven Tiger's post. I don't think liberals or conservatives could condone the vomit that you just posted. Anymore more junk like that and I will be pushing the admins to give you a break.

[quietfan 233]

BF, we put up with alot of your crap and insane babbling on this board. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the President, but I draw the line with some of the things you said in your post, so I deleted it. Politics aside, the office of the President of the United States should be respected and to make statements like you did sounds close to what the terrorists say about the United States. It was also disrespectful to Raven Tiger's post. I don't think liberals or conservatives could condone the vomit that you just posted. Anymore more junk like that and I will be pushing the admins to give you a break.

Ranger--I think this is one of the best boards on the web, the only one I actually post on rather than merely lurking. And I credit that quality to a really good job by the mods and admiins, so accept my thanks for that.

Because of the excellent record you mods have in the past, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume BF's post was over the top and deserved deleting. However,I do want to encourage you to use extreme care when it comes to editing political posts. Please err on the side of caution when it comes to your personal feelings about what constitutes "disrespecting" the Office of President and such, or disrespecting another poster (Raven Tiger in this case), before deleting posts.

Again, not having seen BF's words (and knowing his ideas are frequently on the fringe of the political spectrum), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But remember, the Constitution gives you, me, BF, and everyone the right to say some very "disrespectful" things about the President and the Office, limited probably only to actual threats on his life. Just because you personally find them offensive, disrespectful, or even treasonous is not sufficient cause to delete them. ...just expressing a voice for caution and restraint when it comes to censoring posts.

[Tiger Al 0]

BF, we put up with alot of your crap and insane babbling on this board. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the President, but I draw the line with some of the things you said in your post, so I deleted it. Politics aside, the office of the President of the United States should be respected and to make statements like you did sounds close to what the terrorists say about the United States. It was also disrespectful to Raven Tiger's post. I don't think liberals or conservatives could condone the vomit that you just posted. Anymore more junk like that and I will be pushing the admins to give you a break.

Ranger--I think this is one of the best boards on the web, the only one I actually post on rather than merely lurking. And I credit that quality to a really good job by the mods and admiins, so accept my thanks for that.

Because of the excellent record you mods have in the past, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume BF's post was over the top and deserved deleting. However,I do want to encourage you to use extreme care when it comes to editing political posts. Please err on the side of caution when it comes to your personal feelings about what constitutes "disrespecting" the Office of President and such, or disrespecting another poster (Raven Tiger in this case), before deleting posts.

Again, not having seen BF's words (and knowing his ideas are frequently on the fringe of the political spectrum), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But remember, the Constitution gives you, me, BF, and everyone the right to say some very "disrespectful" things about the President and the Office, limited probably only to actual threats on his life. Just because you personally find them offensive, disrespectful, or even treasonous is not sufficient cause to delete them. ...just expressing a voice for caution and restraint when it comes to censoring posts.

One small point of contention with your post, quiet. I don't think our rights originate with the Constitution, but rather, we are born with them and the Constitution serves as a protector of those rights. Every human the world over is born with the same rights but, our country chooses, by way of its 'compact' with its citizens, to recognize, affirm and protect those rights. Maybe that's what you meant, though.

AFA deleting posts, etc., while I didn't see BF's post either, each mod is given a lot of discretion as to what he/she thinks is a keeper and what isn't. I'd venture to say that I'm the least likely moderator to delete, on a wholesale level, an entire post simply because I believe we're all big girls and boys and can tell when something exceeds our individual comfort level and move on to another post/thread. That's just me, though. To my knowledge, entire posts aren't deleted very often here.

[quietfan 233]

One small point of contention with your post, quiet. I don't think our rights originate with the Constitution, but rather, we are born with them and the Constitution serves as a protector of those rights. Every human the world over is born with the same rights but, our country chooses, by way of its 'compact' with its citizens, to recognize, affirm and protect those rights. Maybe that's what you meant, though.

Yes Al, I absolutely, 100%, feel the way you and Thomas Jefferson feel about being born with certain inalienable rights. If forced to defend myself in court, however, I'd have a much better chance leaning on the Constitution than leaning on the Declaration of Independence or some philosophically theory of innate rights and social contract. That's all I meant by "the Constitution gives us rights"--US courts only have to recognize those rights listed in the Constitution (and perhaps some traditions from common law, but that gets back to abstract interpretation again.)

And again let me say all the mods, including Ranger, do an excellent job in my opinion. I just get a little nervous when I see any implication that post deletion or editing is somehow linked to any single person's concept of "respect for the President".

[Ranger12 46]

BF, we put up with alot of your crap and insane babbling on this board. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the President, but I draw the line with some of the things you said in your post, so I deleted it. Politics aside, the office of the President of the United States should be respected and to make statements like you did sounds close to what the terrorists say about the United States. It was also disrespectful to Raven Tiger's post. I don't think liberals or conservatives could condone the vomit that you just posted. Anymore more junk like that and I will be pushing the admins to give you a break.

Ranger--I think this is one of the best boards on the web, the only one I actually post on rather than merely lurking. And I credit that quality to a really good job by the mods and admiins, so accept my thanks for that.

Because of the excellent record you mods have in the past, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume BF's post was over the top and deserved deleting. However,I do want to encourage you to use extreme care when it comes to editing political posts. Please err on the side of caution when it comes to your personal feelings about what constitutes "disrespecting" the Office of President and such, or disrespecting another poster (Raven Tiger in this case), before deleting posts.

Again, not having seen BF's words (and knowing his ideas are frequently on the fringe of the political spectrum), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But remember, the Constitution gives you, me, BF, and everyone the right to say some very "disrespectful" things about the President and the Office, limited probably only to actual threats on his life. Just because you personally find them offensive, disrespectful, or even treasonous is not sufficient cause to delete them. ...just expressing a voice for caution and restraint when it comes to censoring posts.

My deleting of his post had nothing to do with politics. It was about showing decency on the board. I don't care what forum the post takes place in. If I let politics decide how I moderated, then there would be a heck of alot of other posts that I would delete. Trust me when I say BF's terminology was uncalled for towards anybody, not just the President. He could have made the same accusation towards any member of this board, heck even TigerAl or TexasTiger, and I still would have moderated it. I also think that using the word "censoring" is a bit over the top if you want to get down to the technical meaning of the word.