with an extended quote about denying Taliban fighters a refuge to regroup with an
from yesterday that Hamid Karzai was thinking about letting some Taliban officials serve in government posts. According to Atrios, this is a 'flip-flop.' Is it?
Normally, I don't check out his site--but I do hit it from time to time. Is he serious in calling this a 'flip-flop'? I presume he is saying that Bush has somehow changed his position on an issue. Isn't that what a 'flip-flop' is? For instance, opposing the death penalty one day and then supporting it the next might be a good example of a 'flip-flop'. Or is that just called 'nuanced'. Maybe I'm just mistaken on what the term 'flip-flop' means? Having a clearly defined stance on an issue, and then turning around and changing that stance, that's a flip-flop.
In any event, how does the fact that Hamid Karzai wants to vent a certain number of Taliban officials make George W. Bush a 'flip-flopper'? The quote that he uses to make his case only refers to stopping terrorist fighters from regrouping, not about letting former Taliban officials serve in some capacity in some future administration. This makes absolutely no sense. Honestly, can anybody make heads or tails of it?
1
Well, Bush says in that quote that the Taliban are gone and Al-Qaida has lost its home base for terrorism. Now it appears that the Taliban are still around and in position to regain some power, while much of the country remains out of control and members of Al-Qaida roam free in the mountains.
So you're right, it's not a flip-flop at all. The President was either wrong or lying.
Posted by: Brian at August 04, 2004 11:38 PM (KKHfE)
2
When I see the Left trying to expose alleged "Flip-flops" by the POTUS, it almost invariably involves some change in foreign policy, Intelligence policy, or Justice policy that is different now than it was ante-9/11. Anyone who has the exact same opinion on those topics now that they did then is either an islamicist, an idiot, or has been living in a cave for the last 5 years.
Posted by: Brian B at August 04, 2004 11:40 PM (OnnW3)
3
Ummmm.... rusty.... both links are to the State Department release, where's the NPR report?
Posted by: Brian B at August 04, 2004 11:44 PM (OnnW3)
Posted by: RS at August 05, 2004 02:26 PM (JQjhA)
Posted by: RS at August 05, 2004 02:27 PM (JQjhA)
6
I meant Brian B. Please read the quote again from the original post. Also, on 'lying', I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Posted by: RS at August 05, 2004 02:29 PM (JQjhA)
7
Sorry, that should have been "different from", not "Different than."
As for this instance:
Bush said then, Karzai says now? And how is this *BUSH* flip-flopping? If the US steps in and tells Karzai, "No, you can't allow ex-Taliban in the government", how long will it be before the Left screams, "PUPPET GOVERNMENT!!!!!" Bush's stnad on terrorism hasn't changed. But we helped the Afghans displace a totalitarian regime, and if the new government is to have any legitimacy, we have to respect their sovereignty in this respect. Does that mean we let it become Taliban-run again? No. I think Karzai's smart enough to realize that if he lets Afghanistan slip back into that black hole, the next time we come over there, he'll be on our shit list right along with them.
As for lie vs. mistake, it's almost certainly a mistake, but not as egregious as the other Brian would like to think. How many of these former Taliban have RETURNED to Afghanistan from elsewhere SINCE the President made that speech?
Posted by: Brian B at August 05, 2004 05:40 PM (OnnW3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
