President Bush and his aides are annoyed that people keep misinterpreting his Iraq policy as "stay the course." A complete distortion, they say. "That is not a stay-the-course policy," White House press secretary Tony Snow declared yesterday.
Where would anyone have gotten that idea? Well, maybe from Bush.
"We will stay the course. We will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed," he said in Salt Lake City in August.
"We will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course," he said in Milwaukee in July.
"I saw people wondering whether the United States would have the nerve to stay the course and help them succeed," he said after returning from Baghdad in June....
"What you have is not 'stay the course' but in fact a study in constant motion by the administration," Snow said yesterday....
Bush used "stay the course" until recent weeks when it became clear that it was becoming a political problem. "The characterization of, you know, 'it's stay the course' is about a quarter right," Bush complained at an Oct. 11 news conference. " 'Stay the course' means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is: Don't do what you're doing if it's not working -- change. 'Stay the course' also means don't leave before the job is done."
By last week, it was no longer a quarter right. "Listen, we've never been stay the course, George," he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. "We have been -- we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics. Constantly."
Snow said Bush dropped the phrase "because it left the wrong impression about what was going on. And it allowed critics to say, 'Well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,' when, in fact, it's just the opposite."
October 24, 2006
Stay the course!
Don't you have to stay the course about staying the course? The WaPo has what should become a classic in the annals of political rhetoric:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Is staying the course, staying the course? Well, it guess it all depends on the meaning of the word is, is.
It would be best to immediately withdraw from Iraq and let Iran assert its considerable influence in all of Southern Iraq with its considerable oil reserves. Once the Iranian mullahs don't feel threatened by Americans in Iraq and can augment their coffers with Iraqi oil revenue and attain nuclear weapons, they will not have a need to expand their influence and control. They will give up the notion of an Islamic caliphate in that region of the world. Once the Shias feel safe under the wing of their Iranian big brother, they will not feel a need for revenge against the Sunnis either for the many years of oppression under saddam hussein. All will be well. The Democrats can easily negotiate this because as we all know, islam is truly a religion of peace. There would be little violence over there if it wasn't for Bush and the Republicans. Our national focus needs to be on stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage. Give peace a chance, vote the Democratic ticket from top to bottom.
I notice the Establish Democracy in Iraq mantra is getting less and less lip time as well.
I've often wondered if Press Secretarys are embarrassed by the things their bosses make them say. But I guess they're paid enough for any embarrassment.
Must we stay the course or have we never been 'stay the course'?
Being a Bush supporter is hard work.
"Don't you think the Administration should have considered that before they decided to invade?"
It would have been nice (along with assuming there would be an insurgency and planning for it rather than being caught by surprise that those aren't flowers they're throwing after all).
He can run but he can't hide. Mission Accomplished. Bring 'em on. Stay the Course.
Four more years!!
With apologies to Will M. Hough, and Frank R. Adams ....
"I wonder who's flip-flopping now?
Wonder who's teaching him how?
Wonder who's looking into our eyes
Breathing sighs, telling lies?
I wonder who's flip-flopping now?"
Of course in gazing at the crystal ball and knowing the Democrat/Liberal inability to fight as we do, the trade-off for Iran essentially getting the South is for the Kurds to have autonomy and statehood in the north. Surely you don't think the Kurds would sit by passively and allow Iran to control the South without some gurantees, do you? Kurdish assertion will totally alienate the NATO ally Turkey and will seriously bump the price of crude going north much to the disgust and dismay of the EU and their weak economies, and this still leaves a nuclear Iran. What to do!? Oh dear! Think of the contamination if Iran's nuclear sites were taken out - all those grotesque children with oozing skin! If we can't ourselves bleed and die in Iraq, we certainly can't expect civilians to do so in Iran, even for the price depriving islamofacists from having nukes, now can we my lovely pacifists and peace mongers? No, no and you must convince yourselves that a quick withdrawal from Iraq will also convince all the newly arisen terrorists in Iraq to remain there. They must be content, by your logic and utter lack of tactical insight, to quit going after Americans, anywhere, once the evil ones are out of Iraq - right? You have wanted to kill fish in the barrel, and Bush has been an easy target, but have had to climb into the barrel yourselves and haven't yet realized it. Good luck with your domestic agendas given such dire, external unfinished business. Talks with NK anyone? Maybe the madman can be bought off for a year or two,eh? Sabre rattling with Iran once they begin to assist the Egyptian Brotherhood to destablize the Mubarak regime? Hmm? Oh oh! there goes the Suez canal rates of passage, we wouldn't want angry muslim fundamentalists with artillery sitting on the banks of the canal, now would we? Iran could be reaonsable if we just had something to really offer them besides our deaths, right fellas? You've truly fucked with a Texas oil man and you actually think he is going to leave you a clean slate when he leaves? Go ahead and pout and keep pointing the finger of blame, it's all you've got.
I am sure the phrase "Stay the Course" has been tested by a focus group. At first it went over well, so it was set out as a simple talking point. Focus group testing probably changed as people became aware of how badly things were going. So, now, no more "staying the course". A new focus group
A strong prosperous democratic Iraq is the key to reforming the Middle East.
That, I agree, is the goal. I see little that the administration has done in the past 4 years to achieve that goal. Result: Disarray. One might hope that there is something going on that is not publicized that will steer things away from the abyss. I'm not hopeful for that possibility, however. Given the upcoming election, I think anything positive would have been publicized by some of the Republican politicians running scared for their very (political) lives. Absence of progress is not proof of no progress, however.
And you say "nothing" ??
Actually, I said little. It's not clear to me how your list of things makes Iraq strong and properous. Democratic, perhaps.
Fen, you're prepping to lay the blame on second-guessing from the Left? How about the abysmal post-invasion planning from the administration?
Stay the course is rhetoric the president used to give assurance to people in the middle-east. It doesn't mean that our tactics don't change, just that we will not abandon them.
Common fucking sense.
I think this could bite the democrats in the ass. A simple add stating this would sink any democrat "Stay the course" add.
"Stay the course is rhetoric the president used"
Except now he's trying to say it's not rhetoric he used: "We've Never Been Stay The Course"
Diagram _that_, English fans
Ghost, I thought only pointy-headed liberals blamed the people for being stupid.
Personally, I think most people are capable of understanding what "Stay the course" actually means. Yes, it is not a description of tactics. Never was and never will be.
What would I have done differently? I would have listened to military planners.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php
Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, [Brigadier General Mark Scheid] says, Donald Rumsfeld told his team to start planning for war in Iraq, but not to bother planning for a long stay:
"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."
Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.
Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.
"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.
"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."
...."In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can't do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging."
Post a Comment