The Definition of Flip-flop

[Tigerman]

[quote=“cableguy”]cableguy wrote

The truth is that Bush has flip-flopped so many times on reasons why we invaded Iraq that I am sure even now he, even with his limited intellect, has some questions in his mind as to the true reasons. (I don’t care how many Republicans try to spin the story, Bush led the American public and the world to believe that Hussein had WMDs but when none were found, the story of why we invaded Iraq changed).

Tigerman wrote

[quote]Well, this isn’t spin… its the actual record:

Bush in his State of the Union Address in January 2003 wrote:
The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted.

So, how do you conclude that Bush has flip-flopped?[/quote]

Tigerman,

Bush has changed the reason why we invaded Iraq in the first place after he discovered Hussein had no WMDs. (After all, that is the reason we invaded Iraq, isn’t it?). Doesn’t the above quote by Bush, which you gave, show that was the reason? So, if that was the original reason but over time other reasons were given, it is clear to me Bush has flip-flopped. Surely, you can see that, right?[/quote]

What are you talking about? Where did he change the reason. I just cited his statements regarding the reasons for invading Iraq. The reasons were stated all in two speeches. I don’t understand how you can claim that Bush has flip-flopped on this.

[twocs]

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“cableguy”]cableguy wrote

The truth is that Bush has flip-flopped so many times on reasons why we invaded Iraq that I am sure even now he, even with his limited intellect, has some questions in his mind as to the true reasons. (I don’t care how many Republicans try to spin the story, Bush led the American public and the world to believe that Hussein had WMDs but when none were found, the story of why we invaded Iraq changed).

Tigerman wrote

[quote]Well, this isn’t spin… its the actual record:

Bush in his State of the Union Address in January 2003 wrote:
The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted.

So, how do you conclude that Bush has flip-flopped?[/quote]

Tigerman,

Bush has changed the reason why we invaded Iraq in the first place after he discovered Hussein had no WMDs. (After all, that is the reason we invaded Iraq, isn’t it?). Doesn’t the above quote by Bush, which you gave, show that was the reason? So, if that was the original reason but over time other reasons were given, it is clear to me Bush has flip-flopped. Surely, you can see that, right?[/quote]

What are you talking about? Where did he change the reason. I just cited his statements regarding the reasons for invading Iraq. The reasons were stated all in two speeches. I don’t understand how you can claim that Bush has flip-flopped on this.[/quote]

From the CBS lists:

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: “I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, ‘This is the way it’s got to be.’”

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must “stay the course.”

This is a change in policy. First he stood against invading nations in order to improve them as nations. Then he went to Iraq, and he justifies Cheney’s war by saying that it built Iraq as a nation.

[Tigerman]

[quote=“twocs”]
From the CBS lists:

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: “I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, ‘This is the way it’s got to be.’”

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must “stay the course.”

This is a change in policy. First he stood against invading nations in order to improve them as nations. Then he went to Iraq, and he justifies Cheney’s war by saying that it built Iraq as a nation.[/quote]

Yes, its a change in policy brought about by a change in circumstances. The 911 attacks did change things.

Its one thing to change policy when circumstances change drastically, and another thing to change policy when the political winds change direction.

I really wouldn’t characterize Bush’s change in this instance as “flip flopping”.

I can advocate pacifist policies when we are at peace. But when under attack, it is prudent, IMO, to drop the pacifist policy and adopt a more warlike one.

Its only flip flopping, IMO, when one does an about-face on policy for no reason other than popularity shifts re the particular policy.

[twocs]

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“twocs”]
From the CBS lists:

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: “I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, ‘This is the way it’s got to be.’”

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must “stay the course.”

This is a change in policy. First he stood against invading nations in order to improve them as nations. Then he went to Iraq, and he justifies Cheney’s war by saying that it built Iraq as a nation.[/quote]

Yes, its a change in policy brought about by a change in circumstances. The 911 attacks did change things.

Its one thing to change policy when circumstances change drastically, and another thing to change policy when the political winds change direction.

I really wouldn’t characterize Bush’s change in this instance as “flip flopping”.

I can advocate pacifist policies when we are at peace. But when under attack, it is prudent, IMO, to drop the pacifist policy and adopt a more warlike one.

Its only flip flopping, IMO, when one does an about-face on policy for no reason other than popularity shifts re the particular policy.[/quote]

Tell it them to change the dictionary, because you believe a justified flip flop shouldn’t be called a flip flop. Using this kind of argument, we could go through all the things they say are Kerry flip flops and say they aren’t really flip flops because the political circumstances changed significantly.

http://dictionary.com:
n. Informal. A reversal, as of a stand or position: a foreign policy flip-flop.

Perhaps we should amend the dictionary?

[Danimal]

Indeed, when confronted with Bush

[Tigerman]

[quote=“twocs”]Tell it them to change the dictionary, because you believe a justified flip flop shouldn’t be called a flip flop. Using this kind of argument, we could go through all the things they say are Kerry flip flops and say they aren’t really flip flops because the political circumstances changed significantly.

http://dictionary.com:
n. Informal. A reversal, as of a stand or position: a foreign policy flip-flop.

Perhaps we should amend the dictionary?[/quote]

If the situation is changed so drastically, such as by an event as significant as the 911 attacks, then a change in policy is not a flip flop.

Let’s see, prior to the 911 attacks, Bush didn’t want to deal much with foreign affairs. The 911 attacks were an instance of foreign affairs being rammed down our throats. It is the circumstance that dictated the necessary policy change. Different circumstances call for different policies.

Had the 911 attacks never occurred and yet Bush went off to Iraq, such change of policy could rightly be characterized as a flip flop.

Another example:

Let’s say I run for office on a promise not to wage war, and while I never emphasized that I meant that I would not wage aggressive, instigative war, I expected and it was a reasonable expectation that the people understood that my promise not to wage war referred to aggressive war.

If after being elected, we are attacked and I respond by waging war… this really would not be a change of policy… it would be a change of circumstances which required a different policy.

Surely you folks can understand this???

[Rascal]

[quote]If the situation is changed so drastically, such as by an event as significant as the 911 attacks, then a change in policy is not a flip flop.

Let’s see, prior to the 911 attacks, Bush didn’t want to deal much with foreign affairs. The 911 attacks were an instance of foreign affairs being rammed down our throats. It is the circumstance that dictated the necessary policy change. Different circumstances call for different policies.

Had the 911 attacks never occurred and yet Bush went off to Iraq, such change of policy could rightly be characterized as a flip flop.[/quote]
The dictonary definition provided above does not require a change in situation and for someone who has himself cited dictionary definitions as final and definite proof (often not applied in context though) you are clearly contradicting yourself when you reject the one above. :s

[Comrade_Stalin]

[quote=“Tigerman”]
If after being elected, we are attacked and I respond by waging war… this really would not be a change of policy… it would be a change of circumstances which required a different policy.[/quote]

Wasn’t there a Democrat President…yeah! Franklin Roosevelt! Didn’t he declare war on Japan and Germany after Pearl Harbor? And didn’t Woodrow Wilson (another Democrat) run on a “Peace” platform (1916) and then declared war on Germany?

I think some people don’t understand the difference between “flexible” and “waffle”…

“I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” - FDR, 30 Oct 1940

“Your President says this country is not going to war.” - FDR, 2 Nov 1940

[twocs]

It seems like we should exempt Bush because of extenuating circumstances. I don’t think so. The term was coined by the Republican National Committee as an election-time political tool. If Kerry flip flops or if Bush does, they are doing so because of what they see are sound reasons. Kerry is not some insane guy who just switches his stand at random, and neither is Bush.

Bush’s main problem is not that he is a “flip-flopper,” but that he is not a good president and has made some major blunders, including going to war with Iraq.

[Comrade_Stalin]

[quote=“twocs”]
Bush’s main problem is not that he is a “flip-flopper,” but that he is not a good president and has made some major blunders, including going to war with Iraq.[/quote]

I completely agree. I for one will very happy when Saddam Hussein (political prisoner of the fascist AmeriKKKans) is released and restored to the Presidency of Iraq. I recently bought stock in a document shredder manufacturer and feel that with Saddam once again ruling his people with a stern but benevolent hand, business will be GOOD. I plan to use my profits to build a nice quiet dacha on the Volga.

[Tigerman]

[quote]If the situation is changed so drastically, such as by an event as significant as the 911 attacks, then a change in policy is not a flip flop.

Let’s see, prior to the 911 attacks, Bush didn’t want to deal much with foreign affairs. The 911 attacks were an instance of foreign affairs being rammed down our throats. It is the circumstance that dictated the necessary policy change. Different circumstances call for different policies.[/quote]

@Rascal

The dictonary definition provided above does not require a change in situation…

The dictionary definition is as follows:

[quote]
dictionary.com:
n. Informal. A reversal, as of a stand or position…[/quote]

@Rascal

and for someone who has himself cited dictionary definitions as final and definite proof (often not applied in context though) you are clearly contradicting yourself when you reject the one above. :s

No, I am not clearly contradicting myself. Put on your thinking cap, Rascal.

This really isn’t difficult to understand. Policies do not exist in a vacuum. No policy is intended to cover all variant situations and circumstances. Rather, policies are necessarily tied to and aimed at dealing with particular situations or sets of circumstances.

A policy is a plan adotped by a government to deal with a certain situation. If the certain situation remains constant, but the policy changes, then we can rightly say that there has been a policy “flip flop”.

Contrastingly, if the situation has changed, and as a result a new and different policy is adopted, there has been no flip flop… rather, a new policy has been adopted to deal with a new situation.

The dictionary definition does not address a change in situation because it is understood that a policy is something applied to a particular situation or problem or circumstances.

[twocs]

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote]If the situation is changed so drastically, such as by an event as significant as the 911 attacks, then a change in policy is not a flip flop.

Let’s see, prior to the 911 attacks, Bush didn’t want to deal much with foreign affairs. The 911 attacks were an instance of foreign affairs being rammed down our throats. It is the circumstance that dictated the necessary policy change. Different circumstances call for different policies.[/quote]

@Rascal

The dictonary definition provided above does not require a change in situation…

The dictionary definition is as follows:

[quote]
dictionary.com:
n. Informal. A reversal, as of a stand or position…[/quote]

@Rascal

and for someone who has himself cited dictionary definitions as final and definite proof (often not applied in context though) you are clearly contradicting yourself when you reject the one above. :s

No, I am not clearly contradicting myself. Put on your thinking cap, Rascal.

This really isn’t difficult to understand. Policies do not exist in a vacuum. No policy is intended to cover all variant situations and circumstances. Rather, policies are necessarily tied to and aimed at dealing with particular situations or sets of circumstances.

A policy is a plan adotped by a government to deal with a certain situation. If the certain situation remains constant, but the policy changes, then we can rightly say that there has been a policy “flip flop”.

Contrastingly, if the situation has changed, and as a result a new and different policy is adopted, there has been no flip flop… rather, a new policy has been adopted to deal with a new situation.

The dictionary definition does not address a change in situation because it is understood that a policy is something applied to a particular situation or problem or circumstances.[/quote]

Sane people including politicians change their stands based on politics. If someone had been working for what they thought was good government for 30 years and had never changed position even when the beliefs of their constituents had shifted, would they truly be representing the people. Republicans have been phrasing their propaganda in a way which allows the greatest latitude for interpretation. I do not believe that no Republicans have ever flip-flopped, however. Do you?

Bush said he would continue the assault weapons ban when he campaigned in 2000. Then when questioned on this policy issue, said that the reason he didn’t push for a continuance of the assault weapons ban was because there were Democrats and Republicans in both the Senate and in the House who were in favor of lifting the ban.

He did not try to do what he said he would. He said he would do something. It was a campaign promise. During the debates, he said that he did nothing because of politics. I say, even by your definition, that means Bush is a flip flopper. I’ve flip flopped on occasion. You can say again and again that Bush did not flip flop, or flip flop about 9/11, but the real question is whether Bush is fit to lead the country. It will take more than explaining why Bush did something I want to complain about to convince me that Bush did a good job.

[Rascal]

No, I am not clearly contradicting myself. …

Yes you are - it has been your argument all along that a definition must be accepted as it is, so spare us any explanations (by adding conditions that are not part of that definition).

Or are you now flip-flopping on that?

[Tigerman]

@Rascal

[quote]No, I am not clearly contradicting myself. …

Yes you are - it has been your argument all along that a definition must be accepted as it is, so spare us any explanations (by adding conditions that are not part of that definition).

Or are you now flip-flopping on that?[/quote]

No and no.

What is a policy, Rascal?

[mofangongren]

@Comrade Stalin

Wasn’t there a Democrat President…yeah! Franklin Roosevelt! Didn’t he declare war on Japan and Germany after Pearl Harbor?

Interesting that after Pearl Harbor, the Germans immediately declared war on the United States before we had even thought to declare war on Germany. Pretty crafty, that Roosevelt to plan it so that the Axis would declare war on us first!

Well, I suppose if it were up to the Republican Party, the correct response to Pearl Harbor would have been to invade Mexico and stick a large portion of our available combat troops in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps we could have also struck sweetheart deals with lots of companies tied in with top Republicans – no-bid deals to rebuild Mexico.

[twocs]

@Tigerman

[quote=“Rascal”][quote]No, I am not clearly contradicting myself. …

Yes you are - it has been your argument all along that a definition must be accepted as it is, so spare us any explanations (by adding conditions that are not part of that definition).

Or are you now flip-flopping on that?[/quote]

No and no.

What is a policy, Rascal?[/quote]

[quote=“Tigerman”]
A policy is a plan adopted by a government to deal with a certain situation.[/quote]
I don’t believe that this is a good definition of policy. For one thing, is Kerry a government?

What Tigerman has said is that when Bush changed his policies, it was not flip flopping. When Kerry changed his policies, it was flip flopping.

There have been numerous accusations of Bush flip flops. Bush’s policies have changed, Tigerman admits that much. Bush supporters say they can talk about why Bush changed his policies. Why does that make it not a flip flop? I don’t get it.

Kerry votes yes or no on bills because of the main substance of the bills and because of amendments/riders that may have nothing to do with the bill. Bush needs to veto whole bills or use line item veto. Bush can declare war. Is “flip flop” to Tigerman a term that cannot apply to a President, because his power to be a force to change policy is limited? I believe Bush has flip flopped, and I’m not the only one.

[Tigerman]

@twocs

What Tigerman has said is that when Bush changed his policies, it was not flip flopping. When Kerry changed his policies, it was flip flopping.

That is not what I have said.

I have claerly stated that when circumstances change and different policies are used in different circumstances, this does not amount to a flip flop.

Look, this is very simple. Bush stated in 2000 that he was opposed to nation building and military adventurism. He made such statements while the US was in a state of peace and before the terrorists attacked us on US soil (in the US). As such, it is entirely reasonable to interpret Bush’s policy re nation building and military adventurism to refer to peacetime policy.

It would be ridiculous to assume that a candidate who campaigned on such a policy during peace time would not adopt a different policy in completely opposite circumstances.

If, however, after stating in 2000 that he was opposed to nation building and military adventurism and if the 911 attacks had never occurred, Bush subsequently decided to engage the US in nation building and military adventurism… this would definitely be a change of policy as the circumstances would be the same when the new policy was adopted as when the original policy was stated.

@twocs

There have been numerous accusations of Bush flip flops. Bush’s policies have changed, Tigerman admits that much. Bush supporters say they can talk about why Bush changed his policies. Why does that make it not a flip flop? I don’t get it.

See my comments above, again.

@twocs

Kerry votes yes or no on bills because of the main substance of the bills…

The problem with Kerry is that he frequently votes differently on matters when the substance of such matters has not changed. Rather, he changes his policy/opinion based on external changes… such as when he first supported the war against Saddam when it was politically expedient to do so… then, when the anti-war Dean was rolling over Kerry, Kerry changed his opinion to that of an anti-war pol… the substance of the matter had not changed… only external factors changed. That is what makes Kerry a flip-flopper.

@twocs

Is “flip flop” to Tigerman a term that cannot apply to a President, because his power to be a force to change policy is limited? I believe Bush has flip flopped, and I’m not the only one.

I’m not saying that Bush has never flip flopped. I don’t believe any politician can get thru public service without ever flip flopping on some things.

However, with respect to the policy we are discussing above, Bush did not, IMO, flip flop. In the example at hand, the circumstances changed drastically and thus different policies naturally were adopted. Had the circumstances remained constant, and identical or substantially similar to the circumstances in 2000, Bush would very likely be opposed still to nation building and military adventurism.

[mofangongren]

@Tigerman

[quote=“twocs”]What Tigerman has said is that when Bush changed his policies, it was not flip flopping. When Kerry changed his policies, it was flip flopping.

That is not what I have said.

I have claerly stated that when circumstances change and different policies are used in different circumstances, this does not amount to a flip flop.[/quote]

Wow. Watching Tigerman flip-flop on the definition of flip-flop is pretty fun. Seems like Republicans just want things both ways all the time and can’t accept responsibility for any of their positions. Republicans want to call Kerry a “flip flopper” for taking nuanced positions and for changing his mind when new information became available.

Also seems that most Republicans want to take advantage of the very nature of the U.S. Senate procedures for voting on bills to say he’s a flip-flopper – can’t help wondering how many current Republicans can honestly say that they changed their vote on a bill, depending on what was in the current draft in front of them. After all, the average bill put to a House or Senate vote is usually full of ridiculous porkbarrelling or sops to various special interests that’s completely unrelated to the main part of the bill.

Perhaps a little introspection isn’t such a bad thing. If the Republicans had been in charge of the United States during World War II, perhaps we would have used the same sorts of static, fixed-in-stone battle plans as the Japanese. Perhaps we would have even invaded Mexico after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[twocs]

The Republicans hammered Gore for being a flip-flopper on the abortion issue, because in the seventies and early eighties he had cast antiabortion votes. Then he changed his position and started voting pro-choice. Bush

Mindy Tucker, a Bush spokeswoman, said about the flip flopping issue, “I think people want to see consistency with their leaders.”

If you can see the consistency, you don’t think it’s a flip flop. I can see that Bush has been inconsistent so I see he is a flip flopper.

Bush’s father, who as a Congressman was such a proponent of family planning he was nicknamed Rubbers, supported abortion rights until he became Reagan’s running mate in 1980. I think that George Bush, Sr. was a flip flopper, and George W. is in step with the family position.