AP ignored Bush's prior opposition to Patriot Act short-term extension
SUMMARY: An Associated Press article on the temporary five-week extension of the USA Patriot Act failed to note that the White House had indicated that President Bush supported only a permanent extension of the act and would not sign "any short-term renewal."
A December 23 Associated Press article by Laurie Kellman on Congress' passage of a five-week extension of the USA Patriot Act noted that President Bush had "repeatedly urged Congress not to let" the act expire and "indicated that he would sign the extension." But the article failed to note that the White House, less than a week earlier, had indicated that Bush supported only a permanent extension of the act and had no interest in signing "any short-term renewal."
In a December 16 press briefing, White House press secretary Scott McClellan suggested that Bush would veto a short-term extension of the Patriot Act, stating that Bush was "not interested in signing" such a proposal:
McCLELLAN: The President has made it very clear that he is not interested in signing any short-term renewal. The terrorist threats will not expire at the end of this year. They won't expire in three months. We need to move forward and pass this critical legislation.
In a December 21 press briefing, McClellan stood by these comments. Moreover, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), both supporters of making the Patriot Act permanent, asserted in recent days (here and here) that Bush would not sign any short-term extension.
On December 22, however, the White House announced that Bush would, in fact, sign the five-week extension approved that day by the House and accepted by the Senate in a compromise. (Earlier in the week, the Senate had voted to extend the Patriot Act by six months.) A December 23 Washington Post article by Jonathan Weisman reported that the "House action was a setback for Bush, who had repeatedly said he would not accept a 'short-term extension.' " A Reuters report by Donna Smith noted that Bush "had objected to any temporary extension of current law;" and a December 23 New York Times article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported that "the deal fell far short of President Bush's aim of permanently extending the original law."
But while the AP article acknowledged that Congress' approval of the five-week extension represented "a turnabout for GOP leaders who had long insisted they would accept nothing less than a permanent renewal of the law," it failed to explicitly note Bush's clear "turnabout" on the issue.
That's all I am saying
A prase used when a politician displays a clear contradiction. A phase used when a politician makes a strong declaration at one point, then the makes the opposite declaration when faced with opposition.
"Flip Flop" was continueously applied to politicians Al Gore and John Kerry, by the so-called "liberal media". But yet, despite constant reversals of positions, back downs from threatened actions if he doesn't "get his way", the MEDIA avoids applying the term "flip flop" to Bush.
"Flip Flop" and "LIAR" are terms that can be applied ONLY to Democrats. The public will not support a flip=flopper or liar, so Democrats must be constantly identified with these labels (which require virtually NO factual backup or logical thinking), while the media is under strict orders to NEVER apply these labels to Republicans in general or Bush in particular, no matter HOW MUCH EVIDENCE is available to apply these terms.
It's such an obvious double standard, that it underscores the myth that there is a 'liberal media'. In fact, the media today is marching to only one master, and that is Rightwing money.
Kerry and Gore "flip-flopped" to try to better their positions politically. Bush "flip-flopped" in desperation to save the Patriot Act that the lefties would like to revoke in order to help their friends {the terrorists} operate easier here in the USA.
If you can't see the difference then you're just lying to yourself.
Bush was against "Nation Building" as a candidate in 2000. He's for it now.
He was against the formation of the homeland Security Department, then changed his mind and supported it's formation.
He was against formation of the 9/11 commission. He eventually supported it when he saw that he was losing support by opposing it.
He was against testifying before the 9/11 commission and eventually did, as long as they would let him sit on Cheney's lap.
He was against Condollezza rice tesifying before the commitee, then allowed her to testify.
He was against the senate bill proposed by John McCain reaffirming our nations commitment to respect the Geneva conventions and outlaw torture, then because he was again losing political support, he supported it.
He claims that our contry does not support torture, but it has happened at Abu Gharib, it has happened at GITMO, and it has happened at many secret locations in different countries where people have been sent under our nations use of "Extrodinary Rendidtion". This endangers our troops.
He claims to support our troops as he cuts veterans benefits.
NO ONE HAS FLIP FLOPPED MORE THAN GWB.