Well, one of us is having trouble understanding the other-- or maybe both. I can agree with that 100%, but you were vehemently disagreeing with **Apos **earlier, and I pretty much agree with what he posted. It’s very possible that Bush never really thought too much about what “stay the course” meant. It’s just a soundbite anyway.
Hentor: Coulda been then pappy used to say that. I remember “wouldn’t be prudent…” that SNL used to mock all the time. And I remember being royally pissed at him when he wanted the Lithuanians to “stay the course” and not rock the boat in the USSR.
Oh well then take back everything I’ve ever said. The president never really thought about what he was saying; it was just a soundbite. You have totally convinced me to blindly support everything he has ever said or done. He was maybe drunk too, so no problem.
It’s like Groundhog Day but worse. Ever since 2004, Iraq has always been able to handle things next year. This time loop will continue at least until 2008.
Both. Neither. I don’t know-- I’m not thinking about it like that. I’m just trying to explain it. Go back and read my first post. I said it’s not surprising that people might have interpreted it differently from what Bush was thinking-- he never took the time to explain what he meant. He just used the soundbite to brush off the questions.
Of course, you are right: Bush is the puppet, who says what he is told to say, without thinking too much about it. Cheney, Rove, etc., are the puppet-masters, who keep him supplied with soundbites, which don’t really mean very much when you analyse them, but which appear to mean some sort of poilicy position or analysis of events.
And there are millions of Americans who believed in this stuff, and voted for Bush believing in it.
And what’s much worse, there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died, and hundreds of thousands more who will die, because of soundbites like “stay the course”, and “mission accomplished”, and “flipfloppers”.
So, to retuirn to the OP, is anyone accountable? And if so, who?
can’t speak for John but I’m not arguing “about accountability”. I’m suggesting that sound bites saying “stay the course” and the current verbal tactic aren’t the “caughtya” in a lie thing that they’re being touted as.
Yes, Bush is a fuck up. Yes, he’s responsible for getting us involved in an unwinnable situation that has costs beyond the damage to national pride, international standing, the budget as well as the thousands of lives destroyed.
but to leap onto this particular “See, he’s lying again, he DID say stay the course” is as pitiful as the administration that gave us “mission accomplished” then tried to claim it wasn’t what it said.
I"ve always heard the “Stay the course” as the sound bite as opposed to the Dem’s ‘cut and run’ (though we never said that), implying that we should stay there til the job is doen. I see it as a reasonable interpretation of the events, not just the simple phrase.
and there’s really so much fucking more we could be pointing out than this weaseling thing.
I agree it’ll make a ‘fun’ sound bite clip for Jon Stewart. But it isn’t substantial.
Of course it’s substantial; it’s another brick in the wall, so to speak.The substantial part is that is one more bit of evidence that this administration’s basic approach to everything is dishonesty and weaseling. The fact that the phrase has always been used, along with the medal of freedom, to support and validate the policies and strategies of Rummy and Co. It has been used to mean that everything is going fine; the path we’re on is the right one. That phrase has always been about the Yellow Brick Road, and not, as they’re lying now, about the Emerald City. Call it a “gotcha” or whatever, it’s a lie.
I think it is substantial - it illustrates very well how this administration approaches most topics. They believe that they create reality through the things that they say, and they’ve been quite successful at doing so. Words are exceptionally important to them. Think back to the privatization of social security. Despite having used that term many times, when it became clear that the term did not play well, they simply switched terms without changing at all what they wanted to do with social security. They claimed that they never used the term before.
It’s substantial because obviously “stay the course” is something that they’ve said too many times. You don’t have to google for quotes from a speech in Cincinatti to know that. The admininstration’s effort to change reality smacked too many people in the face for it to work this time.
It’s illustrative because, based on their history, we can predict that changing the label from “stay the course” to whatever they come up with will reflect NO change in their strategy.
Finally, I hate the “there’s so many more important things to criticize them for” argument (although I may have uttered as much in the past). There is not a finite amount of criticism, and most issues for which they deserve criticism require a little more time and attention to describe. It’s like saying, “We shouldn’t ever throw a dump pass into the flat to the fullback, because a long bomb will get you so many more yards.” In reality, you take and make use of whatever you get the chance to use.
So you think the alternative is true? Democrats have essentially claimed that “stay the course” means “not changing strategies at all.” Are you claiming that Bush and his people have never changed on the ground strategies?
Pretty much. They’ve tried some variations in tactics, but the overall strategy has been pretty much the same. (That is also a semantic debate you might notice going on with the administration.)
Why? Do you have any evidence that they’ve tried different strategies? Has “stay the course” ever given you the belief that Bush is considering multiple and competing opinions about what is going on and what should be done? Compare and contrast your connotation of stay the course with Bush’s statement that he would not withdraw even if Barney and Laura were the only ones supporting him. Does that sound like someone who is considering multiple strategies?
I don’t see this as a sign of weaseling. I almost wish he was weaseling, because it takes some amount of intelligence, self-respect, and political savvy to weasel.
What Bush did was akin to a kid denying that he took from the cookie jar, even as he stands there with his face smeared with chocolate, crumbs on his shirt, and a sandwich board which reads I HAVE STOLEN FROM THE COOKIE JAR. Weasles don’t do stuff like that because weasles have more sense than that.
So let’s get our terms right. Bush is a chicken head, not a weasel.
I didn’t say anything about accountability. Bush should, of course, be held accountable for the mess that is Iraq. Who would deny that?
Anyway, who the fuck cares what stupid-ass soundbites a politician uses? I look at what Bush did, not how he markets what he did. He got us into a completely unecessary war and then was unable to execute a strategy to win the peace. Whether he says “stay the course” or “damn the topredoes, full speed ahead” or “strategery” is of little consequence. I have no idea whether “stay the course” was something made up on the spur of the moment, or some tripple tested, Rove approved catch phrase and I really don’t care.
I only wish that all of this were true in reality, but you know that these kind of things are important to give a little something to hang one’s hat on for those who just want to believe. I mean, look again at the “imminent threat” debate. Who the hell cared if he ever really used those specific words; it was clear enough in reality that he and his administration wanted to make everyone believe that Iraq posed a threat that needed to be addressed via pre-emptive invasion. But by asserting that they never said “imminent threat,” many many people had enough of a piece of the Titanic to cling to in order to continue supporting him right on through his “accountability moment.” It was all bullshit, of course.
I guarantee you that there will be people who say, “Well, Bush is rethinking his strategy. He’s having prominent briefings with military advisors, and he isn’t just mindlessly staying the course. He said so.” It’s clearly calculated to give supporters something to grab hold of. This time, however, it’s so baldfacedly contradictory with what he’s said before that it just might sink in for some people.
except (and this SHOULD be the issue, not the bullshit about stay the course) that waaaay back when, BUsh and co **refused ** to set a time table for Iraqi control, because that would “Embolden the insurgents”. and what new thing are they doing now? setting a time table for IRaqi control. NOw, either they were abysmally wrong about their assumption, which then means the blood of all those who’ve sacrificed since then lies squarely on their heads, or they’re willing to ‘embolden’ the insurgents now, when not setting a time table could cost them politically.
that’s the real story that is lost in favor of a cute sound bite joke.
How is it lost? Give me an example of any news organization, website, blog, discussion group, water cooler, PTA meeting… where they might have had a discussion about whether setting a time-table now (or whenever they do) flies in the face of previous statements about time-tables, but they can’t or won’t because of the “stay the course” issue?
It will pre-empt that discussion absolutely nowhere.
well gosh, seems that folks are busy parsing ‘stay the course’ and not about ‘how come setting a time table is ok now, but would embolden insurgents last year?’