Between learning from mistakes or adapting to changing circumstances and flip flopping is being able to provide sound reasons for your changing positions. Who you are speaking to on a given day or the latest poll does not qualify as a basis for sound reasoning. Kerry's positions on Iraq are very inconsistant and full I would have or I wills without any details to convince us he is spouting more than platitudes.
911 changed Bush's attitudes in a lot of ways and I think it should have. Apparently Democrats see no reason to change from Clinton's weak response policies which allowed Al-queda to grow and Saddam to expel inspectors. I was opposed to Clinton's policies of weakness then and I sure as hell am not voting for a return to them. War is a terrible price to pay but some times it has to be paid.
Regards,
Mark
Current Events » in reply to re: Sounds like observation bias to me
The Difference
The whole thread (23 posts)
- CBS's 'Statement'
- A blast from the past
- CBS news' credibility doesn't make for a hill of beans
- The Democrats Are Attacking Bush's Credibility & Demonstrating They Have None
- Is Kerry's camp even running a campaign, or are they just making it up as they go along?
- re: The Democrats Are Attacking Bush's Credibility & Demonstrating They Have None
- The Democrats Are Attacking Bush's Credibility & Demonstrating They Have None
- He does not say they are authentic, but 'accurate'
- Dan Rather and the secretary.
- For this crap we waited five extra hours?
