madmex2000 Report This Comment Date: March 04, 2007 02:02PM
He was against it before he was for it.
The same president who mocked the idea of talking with Iran and Syria as
recently as two weeks ago is now sending emissaries to a regional conference to
talk with Iran and Syria.
For President Bush, last week's decision was the latest of several reversals on
issues on which he once refused to budge. Since Democrats captured Congress,
Bush has fired Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, authorized direct talks
with North Korea, sent more troops to Iraq, agreed to discuss the contours of a
Palestinian state in Middle East peace negotiations, and even proposed a tax
increase for millions of Americans -- all ideas he rejected earlier.
In Bush's case, he sometimes acknowledges a shift and attributes it to evolving
conditions, such as his decision to increase the number of troops in Iraq after
years of insisting he had sent enough to do the job. In other instances, though,
the White House denies any change of position at all, offering nuanced arguments
for why the latest move is consistent with past statements.
Bush's new health-care plan, for example, would raise taxes on 30 million
Americans. The White House says this is not a real tax increase, because the
proceeds would finance tax cuts for 100 million other Americans and the overall
plan would be revenue-neutral.
Denial ,Denial ,Denial,......the Republican way.
Someone has a case of the Mondays.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: March 05, 2007 08:57PM
If indeed this is true and we are talking to Iran and Syria then it could very
well be the fault of people like you. If it looks as though military
intervention is removed from the table because of shallow minded people in
congress then the only alternative would be talks, even though talks are doomed
to failure. I would see it as flip flopping but as attempting to do something
even though our hands may be tied behind our backs. At least it would be
something. You condemn him for thinking about invasion and now you condemn him
for trying diplomacy. The man just has no chance in your eyes, he's damned if
he does and damned if he doesn't.
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: March 05, 2007 09:12PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
madmex2000 Report This Comment Date: March 05, 2007 09:42PM
Bush didnt mind condeming people as un-american if they didnt supporty his
policy. So cutting him no slack in my eyes is ok.Apparently Jgoins we had 8 yrs
of republican leadership and all you have to show for it is,the most corrupt
congress ever elected.How do you explain that. Suck it up and say" i did
that". Meanwhile what did your Republicans actually acomplish.
You never except responsabilty for anything. We cant even get Iraq right.
Democrates are responsable to the fact we didn't stop the facist right wing
sooner.
The Oil industrey made out like fat cats.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: March 06, 2007 12:18PM
Every congress in history has been corrupt repubs and dems alike, so why should
this be any different. In the 55 years of my existence the oil companies have
always made out like bandits. Everything you are saying I have heard 10, 20 and
30 years ago about everything, politics and gas prices included. There is very
little difference between now and the 70's where the rhetoric is concerned.