I’ll just let Dick speak for himself in a speech he gave in Seattle in 1992:
And as recently as four years ago, many of us ought to remember during the Bush/Gore debates, Bush’s strong stand against nationbuilding.
How those Zorries fitting now, guys?
Gimme a fucking break–this was all before 9/11, which had a notable impact on the foreign policy philosphy of many in this administration. Crap like this sounds just as bad coming from the left as it does the right.
Does that count as a “9/11 changed everything?” Do I take a drink now?
Right, and I’ve noticed that the Republicans have concentrated their efforts on Kerry’s Flip-Flopping from 9/11 to present. Hell, they’ve gone back further than 1991 on his “flip-flopping”, completely ignoring the fact that some people change their mind over the course of many years.
I don’t think we ought to be giving them a pass on that.
Sam
Except, of course, that 9/11 didn’t change anything for most of these guys in the administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. had been pushing for the overthrow of Hussein since the mid 90s - even lamenting that it would probably take a Pearl Harbor type event in order to get it past the American public.
Well, they certainly got their Pearl Harbor, didn’t they?
Well, if our response to Pearl Harbor had been an all-out assault on Burma, yes, the analogy works…
Yes.
He’s talking about the infamous Pearl Harbor event quote from one of them there neoconistic pre-9-11 policy papers. They said it’d take another PH before they coudl go ahead with their muddleheaded foreign policy disasters.
No analogies needed.
No, it counts as a “9/11 changed foreign policy.” I’m not arguing that it changed it for the better, just that it changed it and using a 9 year old speach to characterize the administration as inconsistent is silly.
Arguments that “flip-flopping” is often a constructive force are undermined when it’s used has a perjorative, like in the OP (and especially when the evidence of flip-flopping provided is very tentative). Saying, “The Republicans flip-flop too!” only legitimizes the phrase.
Heh. There’s some beautiful logic: 9/11 didn’t change anything for them, but it served as the event that allowed them to invade Iraq. :dubious:
9/11 may not have changed their desires, but it did change the means that they were willing to use to accomplish that goal. I don’t doubt that they believed invading Iraq would help TWAT (personally, I think those beliefs were incredibly misguided…)
The problem with the 9/11 nonsense is that Cheney didn’t just say that in 1992, he scoffed at people who said in 2002 exactly what he said in 1992. But 9/11 wouldn’t have affected the difficultly of invading Iraq any, and it certainly didn’t change the worth of Saddam, sans any WMD or war on terror rationale (which don’t seem to be any more compelling post 9/11 than they were before it: and indeed, Saddam’s WMD programs were MORE of a reality in 1991 than they were afterwards.)
It’s a flip flop alright, and a big one. After the talk about nation building, and “bringing democracy” to Iraq, and causing chaos, now we are going to pack up and leave them with our mess? We did it, we are on the hook to somehow make it right again.
The NeoCons did have a hope that there would be a “Pearl Harbor” in oder to push their agenda. They got it, and they blew it.
It’s just another lie to add to the list. How stupid do they think we are? Never mind, pretty damn stupid. The saddest part is, they are right.
Honestly, Meta my usual response to charges of flip-flopping is similar to yours: “inconsistency,” “hobgoblins,” “little minds” and all that.
But I’d be more inclined to give Cheney a break and agree not to hold him to something he said 12 years ago if he had the stones to admit saying what he said and explain how his position has changed rather than issuing the standard “No comment.”
From the original Seattle P-I story:
Yet, he and Bush continue to assail Kerry with charges of inconsistency. Again from the P-I:
Pointing out that the Republicans change their positions to fit certain situations is legitimate criticism. It’s up to the person who has changed position to justify why he’s saying something different than what he said before, whether it was 12 days or 12 years ago.
The difference I’ve seen is that when Kerry tries to explain a change in position, he’s blasted for trying to “nuance” the response, but that’s exactly what is required in explaining a position.
Bush and Cheney just want you to believe that what they’re saying now is what they’ve always said and they’re showing their “steely reserve.”
Well, excuse me, that’s bullshit.
Of course, I am sure that this whole flip-flop thing was thought up by Karl Rove and Co. in a little room back in the early part of the year. They probably had a sheet of paper with 10 things they could paint Kerry as and they went down the list and decided, “Let’s say he flip-flops.” They could have chose something else and then all the ditto-heads would be saying, “John Kerry is pig-headed…and won’t modify his liberal views to reflect what real people think.”
They probably chose “flip-flops” because it was simpler. Or maybe it came down to flipping a coin.
A pair of flip-flops? How about thirty?
The whole “flip flop” thing has been used by other campaigns. In particular, Michael Dukakis used it against Gephardt in the 1988 primary season. Dukakis ran an ad showing a red-headed gymnast doing backflips and mentioning Gephardt’s flip flops.
I can’t believe Kerry wasn’t ready for this tactic.