# Bush's waffles **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2004, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526 "2004-03-10T18:54:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/21 "2004-03-11T08:50:11Z")
I’ve changed my mind many times over the years on many issues as I get new information and develop more insight. I think it is a positive that Kerry is able to change his mind when necessary. Anyone who can’t or doesn’t do so is a close-minded person who will be unable to learn from experience. As they say - those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. We already know that Bush doesn’t read much more than comic books, so once he sets his mind on something, where would he get any new information to change it? I think the attempt to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper is doomed to failure for the Bush team. Most people are just not going to see a person who changes his mind when new and better information becomes available as a negative. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/22 "2004-03-11T09:55:06Z")
Here’s something funny: 😃 > **[BushYoga.com is for sale | HugeDomains](https://www.hugedomains.com/domain_profile.cfm?d=bushyoga&e=com)** > > Easy, affordable options for you to obtain the domain you want. Safe and secure shopping. Watch the movie clip! ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/23 "2004-03-11T15:43:53Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > So, you can’t argue the facts in the OP (Bush’s track record), and are now resorting to the desperate refuge of attacking the source, eh? Bravo, dear **Brutus!** You have learned the Republican lessons of cowardice and misdirection very well! > > Now all you need is to find a gullible audience to practice your arts on – because, alas, you won’t find it here… If anyone accepts your OP as ‘fact’, then I have all the audience I need. Regardless, when you put forth actual ‘facts’ to argue, as oppossed to posting some list in some blog (with nary a bit of supporting evidence), you’ll get your refutations. Until then, your partisan little OP, (Here some cranks website. Comment!), will have to go unaddressed by me. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/24 "2004-03-11T17:11:20Z")
I haven’t seen anyone dispute the facts yet. Just one example: Don’t you all remember Bush being against the WMD investigation? Didn’t he recently appoint the members? What need is there of cites? I haven’t seen anyone point to one of those examples and state that it isn’t true. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/25 "2004-03-11T17:39:27Z")
Well, let me break this down for you. **Bobi**. Friend **Brutus** , in his capacity as arbiter, has ruled the OP a blog-related program activity. Hence, all such evidence…the fingerprints, the blood, the revolver in the library next to the riddled corpse of Col. Mustard… is entirely inadmissable. Therefore, GeeDubya is innocent of all charges, and retains his status as paragon of civic integrity. You just have to know how they think. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/26 "2004-03-11T17:51:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, let me break this down for you. **Bobi**. Friend **Brutus** , in his capacity as arbiter, has ruled the OP a blog-related program activity. Hence, all such evidence…the fingerprints, the blood, the revolver in the library next to the riddled corpse of Col. Mustard… is entirely inadmissable. Therefore, GeeDubya is innocent of all charges, and retains his status as paragon of civic integrity. > > You just have to know how they think. That’s not the way it works around here, and you know it. RJUNG has put a list of bullets about Bush and challenged folks to debunk them. Nope. He first needs to back them up with actual evidence. The person making the claim in GD has the responsibility to verify that claim. But, as I said earlier, unless someone want to do an exhaustive search of all position changes between the two candidates, all this boils down to is a pissing contest. And we all know where those types of the thread belong. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/27 "2004-03-11T18:41:18Z")
Well, now, hold up there, big horse! GeeDubya has decided to make “Kerry wobbles, but he won’t fall down” a campaign theme. We are given to understand that Mr. Kerry waffles on issues, that his public positions are not consistent. This is offered by way of proving Mr. Kerry unfit for the office GeeDubya currently infests. The lists of positions taken and reversed is not breaking news, this is not a breathless scandal from Drudge. Being as well informed as you are, you no doubt recognize most, if not all, of them. The flip-flop as regards steel tarriffs, for instance, was widely discussed. (Some scurillous persons even suggested that it was an entirely political manuever, meant to shore up support in steel producing states. No, really.) Of them all, only the one about cutting benefits for the military can fairly be said to be arguable, even slanted. (Check [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org), the Annenberg Foundations project in political whistle-blowing…) So the points in the OP are more in the way of common knowledge. The issue, after all, is not whether or not GeeDubya waffles, of course he does, we’ve all seen him do it. The point is his blithe hypocrisy in insisting that Sen Kerry is unfit to serve by reason of “waffling”. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/28 "2004-03-11T18:56:52Z")
What`s the point of this thread? If you`re saying that Bush`s waffling is wrong then you can`t defend Kerry`s. If you`re saying that Kerry`s attackers were being hypocritical (because Bush has done some waffling himself), then now you`re being hypocritical. Then you go on to say that the Republicans are being innacurate and hypocritical by attacking Kerry. What is it you`re doing here? I forget. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/29 "2004-03-11T19:08:15Z")
Hold on, I think I see a difference here. Kerry is running on his current stances. Stances that are strategically positioned to gain him the most distance from Bush. Even though some of them are not the same as they were just months ago. Hypocritical. Bush is pointing this out. Bush is running on what he actually did. His record is open and everyone knows what he said and what he actually did. Bush may have waffled, but in the end he chose what he thought was the best option for whatever reason. He can`t go back and change what is already done. Kerry has the option of second guessing anything Bush has done for political advantage, because he (Kerry) hasn`t actually done anything yet. Bush may have waffled, but the difference is that he also actually did something, - something he can run on. Right now, Kerry is just all talk. Since he`s running on his word, and his words change, what are we to believe? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/30 "2004-03-11T19:10:11Z")
Have you tried that Ginko Balboa stuff? Works wonders, I’ve heard. Or perhaps some remedial post revue? I’ve often found that when things are written down in plain view, its pretty easy to refresh one’s memory. Sorry, can’t continue…just saw Tom DeLay on CNN, ranking on John Kerry for being too partisan and uncivil. Giggling fits make fingers unstable… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/31 "2004-03-11T19:17:03Z")
“Bush may have waffled, but the difference is that he also actually did something, - something he can run on.” What a perfectly splendid idea! Let’s make the entire campaign about Bush’s record of “things he can run on”. Let’s focus entirely on his firm leadership, and the avalanche of good that has flowed onto a grateful nation! Yessiree, Bob! That’s the ticket! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/32 "2004-03-11T19:17:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > GeeDubya has decided to make “Kerry wobbles, but he won’t fall down” a campaign theme. We are given to understand that Mr. Kerry waffles on issues, that his public positions are not consistent. This is offered by way of proving Mr. Kerry unfit for the office GeeDubya currently infests. True, in the overall political discussion. Not true in terms of the argument offered by this particular OP-- a list of Bush “waffles” that “Bush supporters” are supposed to dubunk. I say let the OP bunk them before anyone has to debunk them. Even the ones that are “common knowledge” need some context to understand if it’s a waffle (change of mind for purely political reasons) vs a response to changing circumstances. If you want to debunk the Kerry charges made by the OP, start a thread for that. You’re reading stuff into the OP, like one of those liberal, activist judges that reads stuff into the consitution. 🙂 > [@](#): > > the points in the OP are more in the way of common knowledge. The issue, after all, is not whether or not GeeDubya waffles, of course he does, we’ve all seen him do it. The point is his blithe hypocrisy in insisting that Sen Kerry is unfit to serve by reason of “waffling”. Bush says Kerry’s unfit for office because he (Kerry) waffles? Got a cite for that? I just see him pointing out that a voter might not be sure which side of the fence Kerry is on for a given issue. And of course, Kerry is free to do the same thing as see if it sticks. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/33 "2004-03-11T19:19:59Z")
“If you want to debunk the Kerry charges made by **the OP** ” Sloppy editing. It should have been: “If you want to debunk the Kerry charges made by **Bush** ” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/34 "2004-03-11T19:25:41Z")
It was established in the famous precedent of Cheatum Howe VS M. Green that ordinary members are not empowered to determine the legality or propriety of a thread _stark staring decisis (op. Cecil)_. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Broken\_Column](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@The\_Broken\_Column](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Broken_Column)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/35 "2004-03-11T19:33:06Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he’s for it. Be more specific > [@rjung](#): > > Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he’s for it. This is not true, before Bush **invented the Homeland Security Department** there was no such discussion of such a bureau, it did not exist. > [@rjung](#): > > Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he’s for it. This isn’t really the case but whatever floats your boat, how about Roosevelt on a Pearl Harbor investigation? Talk about a bunch of politics… > [@rjung](#): > > Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he’s for it. To what are you specifically referring? Obviously he was for a WMD investigation, he just didn’t see the inspectors as being successful and so used force to implement it. > [@rjung](#): > > Bush is against nation building; then he’s for it. You can’t put this into “nation building” context which specifically refers to a time in the 70s and 80s when America was actively involved in establishing dictatorships for economic security and more or less making arms-dealers rich. > [@rjung](#): > > Bush is against deficits; then he’s for them. Bush is still against deficits, but how are you going to spend on all the necessary defense budgets now? Tax us 70%? Or Deficit? I choose deficit. > [@rjung](#): > > Bush is for free trade; then he’s for tariffs on steel; then he’s against them again. This is also not the whole story, we need massive tariffs if we are going to save our industrial base. Bush recognizes that, Kerry does not. > [@rjung](#): > > Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a “road map” and a Palestinian State. You’ll have to back this one up, never did Bush try to move away from Clinton’s legacy of US attemtps at bringing peace to Israel. > [@rjung](#): > > Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution. Uhh … **HELLO MORON** … Amendments are ratified by the States, it is far from taking away “State’s Rights”. If it were, you’d be looking for a federal law that over-rules all State laws. God damn…shit…I hate anti-Bush morons. > [@rjung](#): > > Bush first says he’ll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn’t. What can’t you research the validity of your own resources? Crap on this shit thread. **$150 Million in Federal Grant Funds Awarded to First Responders** [http://www.input.com/article\_printver.cfm?article\_id=848](http://www.input.com/article_printver.cfm?article_id=848) A simple search of, “First Responders Federal Grants” will result in a list of all the monies given to the “First Responders” in the United States. > [@rjung](#): > > Bush first says that ‘help is on the way’ to the military … then he cuts benefits No he didn’t, why does everyone say this? Military Benefits have not been cut. > [@rjung](#): > > Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. Yeah you really need to check this quote… Oh shit…look at this, I found the quote! And it’s not what you think you putz! > **[Briefing Room | The White House](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/)** > [@Bush Press Conference March 13](#): > > Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all. Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is – really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. > > Terror is bigger than one person. And he’s just – he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is – as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide – if, in fact, he’s hiding at all. > > So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. > > And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There’s going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I’m just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We’re tough, we’re strong, they’re well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means. > > Q But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? > > THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I – I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. I hate to be a stickler, but there is no evidence of the quote besides this one and this is the raw meat and potatoes, this is the ONLY THING THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT WAS RECORDED ON **MARCH 13, 2002** THE SUPPOSED DAY WHEN HE SAID THE QUOTE EVERYONE IS CURRENTLY CRITICIZING! \*\*Ugh, with all this said, this is pathetic. You anti-Bush trumps don’t know politics, you don’t know how to verify sources, and you don’t know what the hell Bush has done for our Nation. Furthermore, you idiots and buffoons, certainly don’t know the Difference of Kerry voting against something and then supporting it to try and become president…versus this garbage you presented on Bush. This is the most sickening and worthless pile of garbage thread ever. Your Waffle is crap.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![The\_Broken\_Column](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@The\_Broken\_Column](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Broken_Column)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/36 "2004-03-11T19:44:03Z")
Oh, also, about quotes. I’d like everyone to think of the game “Opperator” in which one thing was said, passed through whispers through dozens of people, and the result was nothing like the original. What I posted above, is the original. It then seemed to morph in the anti-Bush websites and message boards as: **"I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority." President Bush March 13, 2002** It would say something like, “Ossama is our largest concern…” Then 6 months later Bush says…" blah blah blah " Now it has morphed again, in this thread here into: **Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care."** I’m seriously, very pissed off and I have every right to be. I was reading the TIMES magazine the other day where it said, “Bush is giving money to faith-based organizations which prosyletize blurring the seperation of Church and State.” Ugh… That’s hard to believe considering some of my professors were on one of the research teams that did the study. And the study concluded: “Federal Grants to Faith-based organizations is not only an efficient way to accomplish the job, but a cheaper way as the infrastructure already exists as well as the work force. This study shows that the organizations are in good measure with Federal regulations to prevent prosyletization and involving their religion in the work they are doing.” (Paraphrased). Basically, the TIMES magazine flat out lied. You all lie. You idiots can find one piece of dirt on Bush if you needed to back it up with your balls. In fact…that’s a good idea. **I bet that none of you can find one bad thing about Bush or the Policies he’s enacted, that you can legitimately back up.** Well…the race is on…I’m waiting to be impressed. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/37 "2004-03-11T19:48:05Z")
A perfectly stunning performance. No doubt, **Broke** , you will be remembered. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Broken\_Column](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@The\_Broken\_Column](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Broken_Column)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/38 "2004-03-11T19:52:20Z")
Are you just posting to patronize? Or are you sincere and recognize how well I’ve shown the OP to be full of shit…or at least, his source to be full of shit. What wasn’t vague, I disproved. And I even found the original source of the Quote that apparently doesn’t exist except in message boards and radical anti-Bush flame sites. You are right, I should be remembered for this. It’s not every day a liberal message boards is presented with such a good researcher for the Conservative side. The “Classical Liberal” side. If you have no legitimate reasoning in posting however, I suggest next time you post regarding some hard evidence of Bush’s wrong-doings. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/39 "2004-03-11T20:01:15Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not every day a liberal message boards is presented with such a good researcher for the Conservative side. That line was worth having my drink spray through my nose. I’ll give you credit for at least attempting to refute the accusations line by line. You might consider toning down the “moron” language, however. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526/40 "2004-03-11T20:29:08Z")
Say good night before the lights go out, **TBC**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-waffles/233526.md?page=3)