A Bush Flip-Flop-A-Day Keeps the Talking Heads Away*

* Busy trashing Kerry as the flip-flopper

Total count to date = 61 
[41 on Iraq and 20 on Other Foreign Policy]

To send flipflops, feedback or comments, please click here. 
[Thanks to the following blogs/sites, where I got some of these links from: Atrios, Buzzflash, Talkingpointsmemo, Billmon, DailyKos, Dwight Meredith (Wampum) and Center for American Progress (CAP)]

1. Iraq [41]

1.1 $87B Bill (and Kerry)

1.2 Saddam and WMDs

1.3, 1.4 Effectiveness of U.N. Sanctions Against Iraq

1.5 Finding WMDs

1.6 Disarming of Saddam

1.7 Second U.N. Resolution

1.8 Saddam/Al Qaeda Link

1.9 Providing Timelines to Dictators

1.10 Looting, Rioting and Insecurity

1.11 The People of Iraq live in freedom, or do they?

1.12 Combat Operations in Iraq

1.13, 1.14 Mission Accomplished, Not, Yes

1.15 Force Strength Required to Secure Iraq

1.16 American Armed Forces' Return to the U.S.

1.17, 1.18 Aid Required for Iraq and Amount from the U.S.

1.19 Darn Good Intelligence

1.20 Independent Commission to Investigate WMD hoax

1.21 Saddam's regime is gone, NOT

1.22 Baathists regaining power in Iraq

1.23 Iraq No Longer Haven for Terrorists or a Place for them to get Arms

1.24 Fighting the Enemy in Iraq rather than in the U.S.

1.25, 1.26 Waiting for UN to Act; Asking UN for Help

1.27 You're Either With the Terrorists or Against the Terrorists

1.28 Letting UN Weapons Inspectors into Iraq

1.29, 1.30 Occupying or Exploiting Iraq

1.31 Government/Democracy in Iraq

1.32 Funding for Iraq Operations

1.33, 1.34 Torture and Rape Rooms in Iraq

1.35 Meetings with Ahmad Chalabi

1.36 Attacking a Part of the US

1.37 France

1.38, 1.39, 1.40, 1.41 Muqtada al-Sadr, Iran, Fallujah I, Fallujah II

2. Other Foreign Policy [20]

2.1, 2.2 North Korea

2.3 China Spy-Plane Incident

2.4 Democracy

2.5, 2.6 Nation Building

2.7 Over-extending the Military

2.8, 2.9 Middle-East Policy and Clinton Administration

2.10 Middle-East Policy and Bush Administration

2.11, 2.12 Humility and Arrogance

2.13, 2.14 Funding Corrupt Officials

2.15 War President, Peace President

2.16 Torture 1

2.17 Torture 2

2.18 Geneva Convention and War Crimes

2.19 Pre-empting Threats to the U.S. 

2.20 American Embassy in Israel

1. IRAQ

1.1 $87B Bill (and Kerry) (via the Daily Howler)

FLOP  
9/2/04 - [Bush]: "...My opponent and I have different approaches. I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, $87 billion in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets and fuel and vehicles and body armor...Then he said he was "proud" of his vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a "complicated" matter. There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat..."
IN SHORT:
Anyone who was against having the $87B passed was against the troops and this is NOT a complicated matter. 

FLIP 
10/26/03 Flashback - [Link]: "...Last October, Blitzer interviewed Colin Powell—nine days after Kerry voted “no” on a form of the bill he didn’t like. But by now, Bush was saying he’d veto the bill if it passed in a form which he disfavored. In particular, Bush said he would veto the bill if its $20 billion in reconstruction money was made in the form of loans, not grants. And Blitzer knew all about the threat. Indeed, he asked Powell about it:

BLITZER (10/26/03): As you know, the Senate wants half of that $20 billion to be in the form of loans, half in grants. The House says all of it should be in the form of outright grants. The president is threatening to veto the entire $87 billion unless all of that $20 billion is a grant. Is that a hard-and-fast position, as the House and Senate conferees resolve this issue?

POWELL: Yes, it is. The president feels very strongly that it should be a grant. We need to get this country up and running quickly. And I was quite taken, at the Madrid conference I attended, where the U.N. representative, Mark Malloch Brown, from the U.N. Development Program, said it should be a grant. We need this infusion of dollars as we structure, over a longer period of time, the influx of grants and loans on a long-term basis.

1.2. Saddam and WMDs

FLOP  
10/5/02 - [Bush]: "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas...And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons."
3/17/03 - [Bush]: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
7/2/03 - [Bush]: "...Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat. Such a threat that my predecessor, using the same intelligence in 1998, ordered a bombing of Iraq. I mean, so—he was a threat..."
IN SHORT:
(a) We know to a certainty that Saddam has WMDs.
(b) We know to a certainty that Saddam was developing WMDs given that Clinton used the "same intelligence 
in 1998" [as we had before the Iraq invasion in 2003] to bomb Iraq
Compassiongate Note: If the intelligence in 2003 was the same as that in 1998, then surely the intelligence was the same in October 2000

1.3, 1.4 Effectiveness of U.N. Sanctions against Iraq

FLIP
2/24/01 - [Powell for Bush]: "...the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
5/15/01 - [Powell for Bush]: "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him [Saddam] from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained...So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful."
7/29/01 - [Rice for Bush]: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt"
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam HAVE been successful in containing him and preventing him from building any significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.

FLOP
10/8/02 - [Bush]: 'After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more...Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions, or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different"
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam have NOT been successful in containing him and preventing him from building any significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.

FLIP AGAIN
10/10/03 - [Link]: "David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, presented a different view in his congressional testimony last week. For example, he said: "Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW [chemical weapons] munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections."... "
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam HAVE been successful in containing him and preventing him from building any significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.

1.5. Finding WMDs [via Center for American Progress, CAP]

FLIP  
5/29/03 - [Bush]: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
IN SHORT:
Yay! We found the weapons of mass destruction.

FLOP  
2/7/04 - [Bush]: "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." 
IN SHORT:
Er, I guess we have NOT found the weapons of mass destruction.

1.6. Disarming of Saddam 

FLOP  
2/5/04 after NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE FOUND IN IRAQ - [Bush]: "...Knowing what I knew then, and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq..."
4/13/04 - [Bush]: "Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein."
IN SHORT:
Even though Saddam had no WMDs, meaning he had already "disarmed" before the Iraq war - going to war against Iraq was the right thing to do.

1.7. Second U.N. Resolution

FLIP  
3/6/03 - [Bush]: "...No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the [U.N.] vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam..."
IN SHORT:
We will ask the U.N. to vote on a second resolution against Saddam regardless of the expected outcome of the vote

FLOP  
3/18/03 - [Link]: "...After insisting for a week that it would force a vote in the Council, the White House has over the last few days waffled about its intentions Today, administration officials did not rule out the possibility that the three leaders would decide on Sunday to abandon the resolution altogether [New York Times, 3/15/03].  
The United States, Britain and Spain at the United Nations _ facing certain defeat in the Security Council _ announced they would withdraw their resolution setting a deadline for full Iraqi disarmament and authorizing war. [Knight-Ridder, 3/18/03]..."
IN SHORT:
We will NOT ask the U.N. to vote on a second resolution against Saddam.

1.8. Saddam/Al Qaeda Link [via CAP]

FLIP  
9/25/02 - [Bush]: "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." 
IN SHORT:
It is impossible to distinguish between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

FLOP  
9/17/03 - [Bush]: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11."
IN SHORT:
We have to distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda because we have no evidence Saddam had any role in 9/11.

1.9. Providing Timelines to Dictators [via CAP]

FLIP 
10/3/02 - [Bush]: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack."
IN SHORT:
We have given a timeline to the dictator Saddam

FLOP  
8/27/04 - [Bush]: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators."
IN SHORT:
I don't think one should give timelines to dictators.

1.10. Looting, rioting and insecurity in Iraq

FLIP 
4/24/03 - [Bush]: "...I'm also pleased by the fact that that level of — those riots, or whatever you want to call them, released some steam, and now life is returning to normal. Things have settled down inside the country..."
4/03 [Rumsfeld]: "...It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things."
IN SHORT:
Iraqi looting and rioting is acceptable because it reflects the fact that people are free and are releasing "steam" and are "free" to commit crimes and do bad things

FLOP
6/5/03 - [Link]: "...The troops are trying to thwart a wave of crime that Bush blamed on Saddam, who he said emptied jail cells of "common criminals" just before the war and left his people hungry and desperate. The criminals "haven't changed their habits or their ways," Bush said. "They like to rob, loot. ... "We'll find them. Day by day the United States and our coalition partners are making the streets safer for the Iraqi citizens."..." 
IN SHORT:
Iraqi looting and rioting is NOT acceptable because it reflects the fact that these people are criminals 

1.11. The people of Iraq live in freedom, or do they?

FLIP
6/23/03 - [Bush]: "Fifty million people in those two countries [Afghanistan and Iraq] once lived under tyranny, and now they live in freedom"
IN SHORT:
The people of Iraq live in freedom.

FLOP
7/1/03 - [Bush]: "These groups believe they have found an opportunity to harm America, to shake our resolve in the war on terror and to cause us to leave Iraq before freedom is fully established. They are wrong and they will not succeed."
IN SHORT:
The people of Iraq don't live in freedom yet, because freedom has not yet been fully established there.

1.12. Combat Operations in Iraq

FLIP  
5/1/03 - [Link]: "..."President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." -- Headline on the White House Web site over May 1 speech by Bush..."
IN SHORT:
Combat operations in Iraq have ended

FLOP  
8/25/03 - [Bush]: "...we still have combat operations going on..."
8/28/03 - [Link]: "...Now the White House is once again attempting to revise history, albeit in a more subtle way -- by changing the title of a major address the President gave about the end of combat operations in Iraq. In the May 1 speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln off the coast of San Diego, the President said, "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." The transcript on the whitehouse.gov website and other references to it (here, here, and here, for instance) are now titled "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." As several blogs such as the site Likely Story have noted along with Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, when originally published, the speech and references to it were titled "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." The absence of the word "major" is a crucial difference given ongoing combat in Iraq since the President's speech.
A Washington Post story from last week confirms that the speech was originally titled as such, as does numerous copies of the speech on other sites that have not been changed, including Newspaper in Education, GlobalSecurity.org, and even the State Department. In addition, the "event backgrounder" on the White House website still has the old title.
There's no way to directly verify now when the page was altered, but the original title cited in the Post story indicates that it was on or after August 18, as does this screenshot of the White House website. It seems clear the White House no longer wanted to give the impression that Bush had said all combat operations were over on May 1."
IN SHORT:
Combat operations in Iraq have NOT ended and are continuing

1.13, 1.14. Mission Accomplished, Not Accomplished, Accomplished

FLIP
6/5/03 - [Bush]: "...I am happy to see you, and so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished..."
IN SHORT:
Mission Accomplished

FLOP  
10/28/03 - [Bush]: "...The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way..."
[Compassiongate NOTE: The above statement itself was false. See here].
IN SHORT: 
Mission NOT Accomplished

FLIP AGAIN
4/30/04 - [Bush]: "A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier, saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein. And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq." 
IN SHORT:
Mission accomplished

BONUS:
9/27/04 - [Link via Americablog/Atrios]: "President Bush said he had no regrets about donning a flight suit to give his "Mission Accomplished" speech on Iraq in May 2003 and would do it all over again if he had the chance, according to excerpts from an television interview released on Sunday.
When asked by Fox News if he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely."
When Bush gave his May 1 speech fewer than 150 Americans had died in the war. Since then more than 900 have died."

1.15. Force Strength Required to Secure Iraq [via Billmon]

FLIP 
7/2/03 [Bush]: "...There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation..."
7/2/03 [Bush]: "..."Anybody who wants to help, we'll welcome the help," Bush said. "But we've got plenty tough force there right now to make sure the situation is secure."..."
IN SHORT:
Bring it on! We've got the forces needed to secure Iraq.

FLOP  
9/7/03 - [Bush]: "...Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq..."
IN SHORT:
We don't enough forces to secure Iraq and an additional multinational division is needed in Iraq.

1.16. American Armed Forces' return to the U.S. [via Needlenose/Atrios]

FLIP
7/9/03 - [Link]: "Rumsfeld said the division's 3rd Brigade has already reached Kuwait and will be heading home this month. The 2nd Brigade, which had been in the region for 10 months, will be home in August and the 1st Brigade will return in September."
IN SHORT:
The 2nd Brigade will be home in August 2003 and the 1st Brigade will return in September.

FLOP
7/14/03 - [Link]: "The Army said Monday that thousands of 3rd Infantry Division soldiers have had their deployment in Iraq extended, dashing hopes that the troops would be home by September. 
. . . Maj. Gen. Buford C. Blount III, the division's commander, said last week he hoped the division's 1st and 2nd Brigade Combat Teams of roughly 9,000 soldiers could return home to Fort Stewart within the next six weeks. 
But homecomings for those soldiers, as well as the division's 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, have now been postponed indefinitely, Fort Stewart spokesman Richard Olson said Monday. 
"Now, that timeframe has basically gone away, and there is no timeframe," Olson said."
IN SHORT:
The 1st and 2nd Brigade will NOT be coming home indefinitely.

1.17, 1.18. Aid Required for Iraq and How Much Would Come from the U.S.

FLIP 
Various Bush administration officials speaking for Bush [prior to the war]:
[Daniels for Bush]: "...Iraq will not require sustained aid..."
[Rumsfeld for Bush]: "...I don’t know that there is much reconstruction to do..."
[Wolfowitz for Bush]: "...we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon..."
[Rumsfeld for Bush]: "...I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense..."
[Rumsfeld for Bush]: "...I don't believe it's our job to reconstruct that country after 30 years of centralized, Stalinist-like economic controls in that country..."
[Natsios for Bush]: "...The American part of this [Iraq war] will be $1.7 billion...we have no plans for any further-on funding for this."
IN SHORT:
(a) Iraq will not require sustained aid 
(b) There is not much for the U.S. to do by way of paying for or doing reconstruction in Iraq

FLOP  
3/18/04 - [Link]: "...On April 23, 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, laid out in a televised interview the costs to U.S. taxpayers of rebuilding Iraq. "The American part of this will be $1.7 billion," he said. "We have no plans for any further-on funding for this." That turned out to be off by orders of magnitude. The administration, which asked Congress for another $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction five months after Natsios made his assertion, has said it expects overall Iraqi reconstruction costs to be as much as $75 billion this year alone. The transcript of that interview has been pulled from the USAID Web site, the agency said, "to reflect current statements and testimony on Iraq reconstruction." The earlier $1.7 billion figure was "the best estimate available at the time, based on very limited 
information about the conditions inside of Iraq."  Natsios was far from the only one to offer low-ball figures. Similarly, a report by the White House Office of Management and Budget in late March 2003, said: "Iraq will not require sustained aid." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, in February 2003, dismissed reports that Pentagon budget 
specialists had put the cost of reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion during the first year -- in retrospect, relatively accurate forecasts. In testimony to Congress on March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz said Iraq "can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." In fact, the administration has already sought more than $150 billion for the Iraq effort..."
IN SHORT:
(a) Iraq and the Iraq operation will require sustained aid to the tune of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars
(b) Most of those funds will have to be paid by the U.S. 

1.19. Darn good intelligence

FLIP 
7/14/03 - [Bush]: "I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence and the speeches I have given are backed by good intelligence"
IN SHORT:
The pre-war intelligence on Iraq was darn good and my speeches were backed by good intelligence

FLOP 
2/6/04 - [Bush]: "...Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction..."
[Link]: "...Under strong political pressure, President Bush on Friday established a bipartisan commission to investigate failures in intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and gave it until well after the November election to submit its conclusions..."
9/12/04 - [Powell for Bush]: "...Secretary of State Colin Powell said the intelligence that led the U.S. to conclude Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction before the war ``did not stand the test of time.'' 
``Some of the sources were weak, some of the sources didn't hold up. They failed,'' Powell said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``And some parts of the intelligence community knew that some of these sources probably shouldn't have been listened to.''..."
IN SHORT:
The pre-war intelligence on Iraq was NOT darn good

1.20. Independent Investigation into "Intelligence" leading WMD hoax [via CAP]

FLIP  
Prior to Feb 2004 - [Link]: "...The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency..."
IN SHORT:
Not in favor of a non-Congressional panel (WMD commission) for investigating the "intelligence failures" on Iraq

FLOP  
2/6/04 - [Bush]: "...Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction..."
[Link]: "...Under strong political pressure, President Bush on Friday established a bipartisan commission to investigate failures in intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and gave it until well after the November election to submit its conclusions..."
IN SHORT:
In favor of a non-Congressional panel (WMD commission) for investigating the "intelligence failures" on Iraq

1.21 Saddam's regime is gone, NOT

FLIP
5/1/03 - [Bush] :"...Because of you [U.S. military] the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free..." "...the [Iraqi] regime is no more..."
3/23/03 - [Rumsfeld for Bush]: "...The outcome is clear. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. It’s over."..."
IN SHORT:
Saddam's regime is gone.

FLOP
5/14/03 - [Link]: "The U.S. military commander in Iraq declared tonight that remnants of Saddam Hussein's defeated government, who he said are challenging the U.S. occupation, pose a greater threat to rebuilding the country than the persistent street violence that has plagued Baghdad"
5/22/03 - [Wolfowitz for Bush]: "...said unrealistic expectations had arisen from "a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the security problem in Iraq, and, in particular, a failure to appreciate that a regime which has tens of thousands of thugs and war criminals on its payroll does not disappear overnight"..."
6/27/03 - [Wolfowitz for Bush]: "Almost because the regime failed so quickly, the major remnants of the regime were around"
IN SHORT:
Saddam's regime is NOT gone.

1.22 Baathists regaining power in Iraq

FLIP 
2/23/03 - [Richard Perle for Bush] "...Reports claiming that a US military governor would keep most of Saddam's 
Baath Party officials in place and run the country on existing administrative structures were inaccurate and absurd, Perle said. 'The idea that the US would simply issue orders to the same mob that served under Saddam is ridiculous. This is not simply about switching one mafia family for another. American policy after Saddam's removal will be to assist the Iraqis to move as quickly as physically and practically possible into positions of power.'
7/23/03 - [Bush]: "...Yesterday, in the city of Mosul, the careers of two of the regime's chief henchmen came to an end. Saddam Hussein's sons were responsible for torture, maiming and murder of countless Iraqis. Now more than ever all Iraqis can know that the former regime is gone and will not be coming back..."
IN SHORT:
We will never retain Saddam's Baath party officials in positions of power. The Baath regime of Saddam is gone forever.

FLOP 
8/24/03 - [Link]: "
U.S. Recruiting Hussein's Spies

U.S.-led occupation authorities have begun a covert campaign to recruit and train agents with the once-dreaded Iraqi intelligence service to help identify resistance to American forces here after months of increasingly sophisticated attacks and bombings, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

The extraordinary move to recruit agents of former president Saddam Hussein's security services underscores a growing recognition among U.S. officials that American military forces -- already stretched thin -- cannot alone prevent attacks like the devastating truck bombing of the U.N. headquarters this past week, they said..."

4/30/04 - [Link]: "Baath Party Members to Return to Jobs...Last week, the top U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, announced that the new Iraqi army would begin recruiting former high-level officers from Saddam Hussein's disbanded military. He also agreed to allow thousands of teachers and professors who were Baathists to return to work in schools and universities..."
5/5/04 - [Link]: "U.S. courts ex-Baath party members...Thousands of Iraqis who swore allegiance to Saddam Hussein's political party may be getting jobs under the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad as the Bush administration - struggling to put down resistance - undertakes a major shift in policy..."
5/1/04 - [Link]: 
"Meet the New Boss III

The new Marine-approved Iraqi force began taking up positions on Saturday on a few quiet street corners in this embattled city amid reports that some residents were celebrating its arrival as a victory over the Americans.

But the record of the man chosen to lead the force — a commander in Saddam Hussein's feared Republican Guard — appeared to be raising questions in the American command, which has appeared somewhat confused over the sudden turnabout here in which old enemies have become new allies.

Although some officials in the Pentagon told reporters on Friday that Maj. Gen. Jasim Muhammad Saleh had not been a member of the Republican Guard, intelligence and other Marine officers here reconfirmed their own Friday comments that General Saleh had been a ranking officer in the guard, one of the special units close to Saddam Hussein, before being chosen to command the Iraqi Army's 38th Infantry Division. (emphasis added)..."

IN SHORT:
We will retain Saddam's Baath party officials in positions of power. The Baath regime of Saddam is NOT gone forever.

1.23 Iraq no longer a haven for terrorists or a place for them to get arms [via Billmon]

FLIP
5/1/03 - [Bush]:"...Because of you [U.S. military] the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free..." "...the [Iraqi] regime is no more..."
6/5/03 - [Bush]: "We've made sure Iraq is not going to be used as an arsenal for terrorist groups" 
8/19/03 - [Bush]: "I like to remind people that a free Iraq will no longer serve as a haven for terrorists or as a place for terrorists to get money or arms."
IN SHORT:
Iraq will no longer serve as a haven for terrorists or as a place for terrorists to get money or arms

FLOP
Later on 8/19/03 - [Bush]: "Today in Baghdad terrorists turned their violence against the United Nations."
Later on 8/22/03 - [Bush]: "Iraq is turning out to be a continuing battle in the war on terrorism." 
10/26/03 - [link]: "The discovery of thousands of arms caches — not only at military bases, but also in schools, mosques, hospitals and homes — indicates to U.S. commanders that there remain thousands more undiscovered caches accessible to guerrillas. 
Coalition commanders have various estimates for how much is stored in those caches. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez cited an estimate of 650,000 tons, an enormous figure equal to about a third of the U.S. military's vast ammunition stockpile. Brig. Gen. Robert Davis, the officer in charge of a program to collect and destroy Iraqi weapons stocks, said the figure could be closer to 1 million tons...
"We don't have any notion at this point where all of these sites are," Sanchez told reporters in Baghdad last week. "We're still finding ammunition in backyards. Every day we're finding it."
Central Command, the military headquarters responsible for U.S. operations in Iraq, has been under pressure from Capitol Hill to explain why it has not secured all of the conventional weapons caches found since major combat was declared over May 1.
"There are so many different places where the forces on the ground have discovered weapons caches, and to dedicate soldiers to guard them before they are confiscated or destroyed is simply impossible," said a Central Command spokesman, Sgt. Danny Martin...
The combination of readily available small arms and explosives with tactics that require relatively little use of ammunition indicates that Iraqi forces will be able to sustain their ambush-style attacks indefinitely, these two intelligence officials said."
IN SHORT:
Iraq is STILL serving as a haven for terrorists or as a place for terrorists to get money or arms. Not only that there are large small arms stockpiles that we have insufficient resources to root out and destroy.

1.24 Fighting the enemy in Iraq rather than in the U.S. [via Billmon]

FLIP
9/7/03 - [Bush]: "We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."
IN SHORT:
We are fighting the enemy in Iraq rather than in our cities - that is why we have sent our forces over there to display our strength. 

FLOP
9/7/03 - [Rumsfeld for Bush]: 
"Q: My question is why not send in more troops?
Rumsfeld: Simply flooding the zone with two or three times the number of foreign forces that are here, it would increase the number of targets for the handfuls of criminals and the handfuls of terrorists, for the handfuls of Ba'athist remnants."
Earlier note from Dan Drezner, 8/21/03: 
"In terms of the broader neocon vision of transforming the Middle East, Iraq needs to be an oasis of stability, not a grand opening for Terrorists 'R Us...
There's also this little nugget of information contained within today's Los Angeles Times story regarding the U.S. decision to seek another U.N. Security Council resolution in Iraq:

One possible compromise between the United States and other Security Council members would establish a separate contingent of UN forces that would report to a UN command structure and provide security for humanitarian missions and some reconstruction efforts. This might satisfy countries that want to help but don't want their soldiers under U.S. command.

Washington also hopes the resolution will call on Iraq's neighbors, particularly Iran and Syria, to block the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, according to diplomats in Washington. The influx of foreign forces has become a leading U.S. security concern. (emphasis added)

If the flypaper hypothesis is correct, then why would the administration be so concerned about border protection?..."
IN SHORT:
We are fighting the enemy in Iraq rather than in our cities - but that is why we NEED to limit our forces over there so as to not get more of them killed. 

1.25, 1.26. Waiting for the U.N. to Act or Asking for U.N. Help in Iraq

FLIP 
9/14/02 - [Bush]: "...Democrats waiting for the U.N. to act?...Seems like, to me, that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making decisions based on what's best for the United States...If I were running for office...I'm not  sure how I would explain to the American people. You know, 'Vote for me, and oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.'"..."

8/15/03 - [Link]: "...The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials say. Administration officials said that in spite of the difficult security situation in Iraq, there was a consensus in the administration that it would be better to work with these countries than to involve the United Nations or countries that opposed the war and are now eager to exercise influence in a postwar Iraq..."
IN SHORT:
(a) Decisions relating to national security of the U.S. should not be based on waiting for the U.N. to act
(b) We don't need the help of the United Nations for securing or governing Iraq

FLOP 
4/16/04 - [Bush]: "...We welcome the proposals presented by the U.N. special envoy, Brahimi. He's identified a way forward to establishing an interim government that is broadly acceptable to the Iraqi people. Our coalition partners will continue to work with the U.N. to prepare for nationwide elections that will choose a new government in January of 2005. We thank the U.N. and Secretary General Annan for helping Iraqis secure a future of freedom. We're grateful that Mr. Brahimi will soon return to Iraq to continue his important work...
[Responding to a question on who power will be transferred to in Iraq on July 1st] 
That's going to be decided by Mr. Brahimi. That's the recommendation of Brahimi. He's in the process. You are watching a process unfold, and you won't have to ask that question on July the 1st..."
[Link]: "..."That's going to be decided by Mr. Brahimi," President Bush said Friday when asked what the [Iraqi] transition government will look like on July 1..."
IN SHORT: 
(a) Decisions relating to national security of the U.S. (remember, Iraq is part of the "war on terror") COULD be based on waiting for the U.N. to act
(b) We do need the help of the United Nations for securing and governing Iraq

1.27. You're either with the terrorists or against the terrorists

FLIP  
4/4/02 - [Bush]: "...Since September the 11th, I've delivered this message: everyone must choose; you're either with 
the civilized world, or you're with the terrorists..."
IN SHORT:
You're either with the civilized world, or you're with the terrorists

FLOP 
8/24/03 - [Link]: "
U.S. Recruiting Hussein's Spies

U.S.-led occupation authorities have begun a covert campaign to recruit and train agents with the once-dreaded Iraqi intelligence service to help identify resistance to American forces here after months of increasingly sophisticated attacks and bombings, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

The extraordinary move to recruit agents of former president Saddam Hussein's security services underscores a growing recognition among U.S. officials that American military forces -- already stretched thin -- cannot alone prevent attacks like the devastating truck bombing of the U.N. headquarters this past week, they said..."

4/30/04 - [Link]: "Baath Party Members to Return to Jobs...Last week, the top U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, announced that the new Iraqi army would begin recruiting former high-level officers from Saddam Hussein's disbanded military. He also agreed to allow thousands of teachers and professors who were Baathists to return to work in schools and universities..."
5/1/04 - [Link]: 
"Meet the New Boss III

The new Marine-approved Iraqi force began taking up positions on Saturday on a few quiet street corners in this embattled city amid reports that some residents were celebrating its arrival as a victory over the Americans.

But the record of the man chosen to lead the force — a commander in Saddam Hussein's feared Republican Guard — appeared to be raising questions in the American command, which has appeared somewhat confused over the sudden turnabout here in which old enemies have become new allies.

Although some officials in the Pentagon told reporters on Friday that Maj. Gen. Jasim Muhammad Saleh had not been a member of the Republican Guard, intelligence and other Marine officers here reconfirmed their own Friday comments that General Saleh had been a ranking officer in the guard, one of the special units close to Saddam Hussein, before being chosen to command the Iraqi Army's 38th Infantry Division. (emphasis added)..."

9/12/04 - [Link]: 
"Amid Cheers, Terrorists Have Landed in the U.S. 
To curry favor with Cuban Americans, Bush turns a blind eye.
By Julia E. Sweig and Peter Kornbluh
...
A little-noticed but chilling scene at Opa-locka Airport outside Miami last month demonstrates that the Bush administration's commitment to fighting international terrorism can be overtaken by presidential politics — even if that means admitting known terrorists onto U.S. soil.

That's what happened when outgoing Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso inexplicably pardoned four Cuban exiles convicted of "endangering public safety" for their role in an assassination plot against Fidel Castro during a 2000 international summit in Panama.

After their release, three of the four immediately flew via private jet to Miami, where they were greeted with a cheering fiesta organized by the hard-line anti-Castro community. Federal officials briefly interviewed the pardoned men — all holders of U.S. passports — and then let them go their way.

The fourth man, Luis Posada Carriles, was the most notorious member of this anti-Castro cell. He is an escapee from a prison in Venezuela, where he was incarcerated for blowing up an Air Cubana passenger plane in 1976, killing 73. He also admitted plotting six hotel bombings in Havana that killed one tourist and injured 11 others in 1997. Posada has gone into hiding in Honduras while seeking a Central American country that will harbor him, prompting Honduran President Ricardo Maduro to demand an explanation from the Bush administration on how a renowned terrorist could enter his country using a false U.S. passport.

The terrorist backgrounds of Posada's three comrades-in-arms are as well documented as their leader's. Guillermo Novo once fired a bazooka at the U.N. building; in February 1979, he was convicted and sentenced to 40 years for conspiracy in the 1976 assassination of former Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier and his American colleague, Ronni Moffitt, in Washington. (His conviction was subsequently vacated on a legal technicality.) Gaspar Jimenez was convicted and imprisoned in Mexico in 1977 for murdering a Cuban consulate official; he was released by authorities in 1983. Pedro Remon received a 10-year sentence in 1986 for conspiring to kill Cuba's ambassador to the United Nations in 1980. These are violent men. Panamanian prosecutors said they had planned to detonate 33 pounds of explosives while Castro was speaking at a university in Panama. Had they not been intercepted by the authorities, the blast not only would have killed the Cuban president but quite possibly hundreds of others gathered to hear him speak during the inter-American summit.

For a small but powerful minority in the Cuban American community, the Posada gang are freedom fighters. But Sept. 11 taught the rest of us about the danger of political fanatics who seek to rationalize their violence. To uphold his oft-stated principle that no nation can be neutral in the war on terrorism, shouldn't President Bush have condemned Moscoso's decision to release these terrorists? To protect the sanctity of U.S. borders and the security of Americans, shouldn't the administration have taken all available steps to keep known terrorists out of the United States?

But Florida is crucial to Bush's reelection strategy. Currying favor with anti-Castro constituents in Miami appears to trump the president's anti-terrorism principles. So far, not a single White House, State Department or Homeland Security official has expressed outrage at Panama's decision to put terrorists back on the world's streets. The FBI appears to have no plans to lead a search for Posada so he can be returned to Venezuela, where he is a wanted fugitive. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which has rounded up and expelled hundreds of foreigners on the mere suspicion of a terrorist link, has indicated no intention to detain and deport Novo, Jimenez and Remon.

In June, the White House seemed to have maxed out on pandering to hard-line Cuban exiles when it virtually eliminated family visits and remittances to Cuba as part of a new initiative to undermine Castro's rule. But that policy has upset anti-Castro moderates in both parties because it criminalizes efforts to build family ties across the Straits of Florida, something a family-values president should support. In response, Bush's decision to accept the repatriation of the Cuban exile terrorists seems calculated to shore up support in the Cuban American community.

"I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world," Bush recently said in an interview.

But the decision to allow members of the Posada gang into this country, and the televised spectacle of Miamians applauding their return, sends a different and dangerous message: In a swing state, some terrorists are not only acceptable but welcome."

IN SHORT:
You can be with the civilized world and with terrorists.

1.28. Letting U.N. Weapons Inspectors into Iraq

FLIP  
4/24/03 - [Link]: "...The United States will not permit United Nations weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, saying the US military has taken over the role of searching for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. In simultaneous briefings in New York and Washington, both the White House and the US ambassador to the UN said they saw no role in postwar Iraq for the UN weapons inspection teams. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters in Washington to "make no mistake about it. The United States and the coalition have taken on the responsibility for dismantling Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction]". Asked if the White House saw any role at all for the UN's weapons teams and, in particular, for chief inspector Hans Blix, Mr Fleischer said: "Well, the President is looking forward, not backward."..."
IN SHORT:
The U.S. is not going to let U.N. inspectors come back inside Iraq

FLOP  
5/21/03 - [Link]: "...At a Pentagon briefing yesterday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the U.S. military does not object to the return of UN inspectors to Iraq. Rumsfeld said that General Tommy Franks, in charge of U.S. forces in Iraq, has "no problem" with inspectors returning. "I have checked with General Franks, the combatant commander, and his attitude is that he has no problem with their going in. And that's been communicated within our government," Rumsfeld said...."
IN SHORT:
The U.S. will let U.N. inspectors come back inside Iraq

1.29, 1.30. Occupying or Exploiting Iraq

FLIP
5/1/03 - [Bush]: "...Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home..."
IN SHORT:
The U.S. will not occupy and exploit Iraq. We will return home after the battle.

FLOP 
4/13/04 - [Bush]: "[The Iraqis are] not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."
12/30/03 - [Link]: "The Pentagon has frozen new funds approved for Iraqi reconstruction amid growing allegations of corruption and cronyism associated with the rebuilding process...The Pentagon's decision to delay Iraqi reconstruction is another setback for a process already hobbled by political insecurity and, increasingly, concerns over corruption and misconduct. The success of the US-led bid to remake Iraq politically depends largely on efforts to reverse the country's chronic unemployment by repairing it economically. But lawmakers in Washington and businesspeople in Iraq say the bidding process lacks transparency and favors a growing class of monopolists and oligarchs that could overwhelm the country's infant regulatory framework.
"Everyone is focusing on the capture of Saddam Hussein," said Laith Kubba, a former Iraqi dissident who divides his time between Washington, London, and Iraq. "But with Saddam gone the most important thing is the country's political and economic transformation, and that is being held hostage by vested interests."
Bids for 26 contracts were to be submitted by Jan. 5. But that date has been postponed indefinitely.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced Dec. 18 that it would investigate a controversial contract for an Iraqi cellphone grid, the second such probe into Iraq-related reconstruction..."
11/7/03 - [Link]: "...Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonisation as well. That means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction", and cancelling all privatisation contracts that are flowing from these reforms. How can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer's reforms were illegal to 
begin with. They clearly violate the international convention governing the behaviour of occupying forces, the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US army's own code of war. 
The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The coalition provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq's constitution outlaws the privatisation of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally. On September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed  these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream"..."
4/20/04 [Link]: "...according to a closely held Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) memo written in early March, the reality isn't so rosy. Iraq's chances of seeing democracy succeed, according to the memo's author—a U.S. government official detailed to the CPA, who wrote this summation of observations he'd made in the field for a senior CPA director—have been severely imperiled by a year's worth of serious errors on the part of the Pentagon and the CPA, the U.S.-led multinational agency administering Iraq. Far from facilitating democracy and security, the memo's author fears, U.S. efforts have created an environment rife with corruption and sectarianism likely to result in civil war...
it is particularly pointed on the subject of cronyism and corruption within the Governing Council, the provisional Iraqi  government subordinate to the CPA whose responsibilities include re-staffing Iraq's government departments. "In retrospect," the memo asserts, "both for political and organizational reasons, the decision to allow the Governing Council to pick 25 ministers did the greatest damage. Not only did we endorse nepotism, with men choosing their sons and brothers-in-law; but we also failed to use our prerogative to shape a system that would work . . . our failure to promote accountability has hurt us."...the memo asserts that the U.S. "share[s] culpability in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis" for engendering Iraq's currently cronyistic state; since "we appointed the Governing Council members . . . their corruption is our corruption."...
"...[Gardiner:] Frankly, if we had just given the Iraqis some baling wire and a little bit of space to keep things running, it would have been better. But instead we've let big US companies go in with plans for major overhauls."..."
IN SHORT:
The U.S. did occupy and exploit Iraq and we are not returning home from battle anytime soon. 

1.31. Government/Democracy in Iraq

FLIP 
2/26/03 - [Bush]: "The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another."
4/26/03 - [Bush]: "One thing is certain: We will not impose a government on Iraq," Bush said. "We will help that nation build a government of, by and for the Iraqi people."
4/28/03 [Bush]: "..."As freedom takes hold in Iraq, the Iraqi people will choose their own leaders and their own government," Bush told a crowd that repeatedly interrupted him with chants of "USA! USA!"..."
IN SHORT:
We have no intention of determining Iraq's new Government, and we will not impose a Government on Iraq. Iraqis will choose their own Government.

FLOP
5/17/03 - [Link]: "...In an abrupt reversal, the United States and Britain have indefinitely put off their plan to allow Iraqi opposition forces to form a national assembly and an interim government by the end of the month. Instead, top American and British diplomats leading reconstruction efforts here told exile leaders in a meeting tonight that allied officials would remain in charge of Iraq for an indefinite period, said Iraqis who attended the meeting..."
6/1/03 - [Link]: "...The U.S. occupation authority has decided to handpick between 25 and 30 Iraqis to serve on an interim political council to advise U.S. officials on day-to-day governance issues rather than convene a large assembly where Iraqi delegates would debate the form and membership of their transitional administration, a senior U.S. official said today..."
6/2/03 - [Link]: "...Mr. Bremer for the first time laid out an explicit proposal to appoint a "political council" of 25 to 30 Iraqis to assist the allies in administering the country. He said he would appoint the Iraqis to advisory jobs in government ministries, according to an official who briefed reporters after the meeting...a senior American official here made clear that whatever role the Iraqis played during the period of occupation, "the ultimate authority" would remain with the allies until they were ready to turn over power to an elected Iraqi government..."
6/27/03 - [Link]: "...U.S. military commanders have ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders..."
5/13/04 - [Link]: "...Haider al-Abadi runs Iraq's Ministry of Communications, but he no longer calls the shots there. Instead, the authority to license Iraq's television stations, sanction newspapers and regulate cellphone companies was recently transferred to a commission whose members were selected by Washington. The commissioners' five-year terms stretch far beyond the planned 18-month tenure of the interim Iraqi government that will assume sovereignty on June 30.
The transfer surprised Mr. Abadi, a British-trained engineer who spent nearly two decades in exile before returning to Iraq last year. He found out the commission had been formally signed into law only when a reporter asked him for comment about it. "No one from the U.S. even found time to call and tell me themselves," he says.
As Washington prepares to hand over power, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and other officials are quietly building institutions that will give the U.S. powerful levers for influencing nearly every important decision the interim government will make.
In a series of edicts issued earlier this spring, Mr. Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority created new commissions that effectively take away virtually all of the powers once held by several ministries. The CPA also established an important new security-adviser position, which will be in charge of training and organizing Iraq's new army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and allow for continued U.S. oversight. Meanwhile, the CPA reiterated that coalition advisers will remain in virtually all remaining ministries after the handover.
In many cases, these U.S. and Iraqi proxies will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens. The new Iraqi government will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S. officials and others familiar with the plan."
IN SHORT:
We did/will impose a Government on Iraq. Iraqis did/will NOT choose their own Government.

1.32. Funding for Iraq operations

FLIP 
4/21/04 - [Link]: "...Since Congress approved an $87 billion defense request last year, the administration has 
steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq will be sufficiently funded until early next year. President Bush's budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no money for Iraqi operations, and his budget director, Joshua B. Bolten, said no request would come until January at the earliest..." 
IN SHORT:
No more money is needed for Iraq in 2004

FLOP  
5/7/04 - [Link]: "...US President George W. Bush on Wednesday asked Congress for an additional US$25 billion 
to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, breaking a pledge not to seek more money before the November election. The White House had long insisted it would not need extra money until next year..."
IN SHORT:
More money is needed for Iraq in 2004

1.33, 1.34. Torture and rape rooms in Iraq [via William Saletan]

FLIP 
10/8/03 - [Bush]: "Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers"
1/12/04 - [Bush]: "One thing is for certain: There won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms."
2/4/04 - [Bush]: "...Iraqi men and women are no longer carried to torture chambers and rape rooms …" 
IN SHORT:
(a) One thing is certain. There are no more rape rooms or torture rooms in Iraq.

FLIP
3/23/03
[Bush]: "...we expect them [American prisoners in Iraq] to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely ... If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals"
[Rumsfeld]: "...[said that] "the Geneva Convention indicates that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass or humiliate prisoners of war, and if they do happen to be American or coalition ground forces that have been captured, the Geneva Convention indicates how they should be treated."...His statement came after interviews with five captured U.S. soldiers had been broadcast on Iraqi television..."
IN SHORT:
(b) Prisoners of war will be treated humanely, not photographed, embarrassed or humiliated. Doing any of these things constitutes war crimes. We will follow the Geneva Convention and we expect our opponents will as well.

FLOP
8/26/03 - [Link]: "...More than 400 Iraqi women have been kidnapped and raped amid the lawlessness gripping the country 
since the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq said Sunday. “This violence is still a daily occurrence, especially on the streets of Baghdad, without attracting the least attention of the (US) soldiers.”..."
5/6/04 - [Link]: "...According to a classified Pentagon investigation obtained by CNN, U.S. Army soldiers have committed 
"egregious acts" and "grave breaches of international law" at the Abu Ghraib prison, once used to torture Iraqis during the 
regime of Saddam Hussein. (Widespread reactions to news of abuse) The allegations include threatening males with 
rape; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broomstick; attaching wires to prisoners' extremities, including the penis; and forcing detainees into compromising positions while naked..."
A LOT MORE here - and everyone knows, of course, how Iraqis being tortured by U.S. interrogators were photographed, embarrassed and humiliated extensively.
IN SHORT:
(a) One thing is certain. There are still torture and rape rooms in Iraq. 
(b) Prisoners of war in Iraq were NOT treated humanely and they were photographed, embarrassed and humiliated, among other things. 

1.35. Meetings with Ahmad Chalabi

FLOP  
6/1/04 - [Bush]: "My meetings with him [Chalabi] were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him"
IN SHORT:
I had very brief meetings with him.

FLIP  
[Link via Dan Froomkin]: 
"Walter Pincus and Dana Priest write in The Washington Post: "National security adviser Condoleezza Rice yesterday promised Congress a full investigation into allegations that an Iraqi politician supported by the Pentagon told Iran the United States had broken the code it used for secret communications, and U.S. officials said the revelation destroyed an important source of intelligence. . . .
"The allegations against Chalabi have hit as controversy grows over his role in helping to supply the United States with intelligence about Iraq before the war, and over his efforts to position himself politically in Iraq after the invasion."
Press secretary Scott McClellan studiously avoided any comment on Chalabi yesterday in his gaggle, which you can read here.
Just how close were Bush and Chalabi anyway?
Tuesday in the Rose Garden (here's the text), Bush distanced himself from Chalabi: "My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him."
But one of Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum's readers noticed that in this transcript from Bush's February interview with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press, he had noted that "right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi. . . . "
And here's another Chalabi mention, from the text of Bush's remarks to reporters in Air Force One on his way back from the Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad:
"Q Mr. President, we were told you got to see Mr. Chalabi today?
"THE PRESIDENT: I did see Chalabi. . . . I shook a lot of hands, saw a lot of kids, took a lot of pictures, served a lot of food and we moved on to see four members of the Governing Council -- the names are here. Talibani is the head of it right now, so he was the main spokesman. But Chalabi was there, as was Dr. Khuzaii, who had come to the Oval Office, I don't know if you all were in the pool that day, but she was there -- she was there with him, and one other fellow, and I had a good talk with them."..."
More on Bush-Chalabi meetings here, including the fact that Chalabi sat behind Laura Bush at Bush's State of the Union!
IN SHORT:
I had more than brief meetings with him and he was close enough to me that I let him sit behind my wife at the State of the Union. 

1.36. Attacking a Part of the U.S. [via Liberal Oasis]

FLIP  
2000 - [Bush]: "I will not attack a part of this country, because I want to lead the whole of it."
IN SHORT:
I will not attack any specific part of the country.

FLOP
March 2003 - [Bush]: "Obviously some people in Northern California do not see there's a true risk to the United States posed by Saddam Hussein."
July 2004 - [Bush]: "Senator Kerry is rated as the most liberal member of the Senate, and he chose a fellow lawyer who is the fourth most liberal member of the Senate. Back in Massachusetts, that's what they call balancing the ticket."
July 2004 - [Bush]: "My opponent said that a bunch of entertainers from Hollywood conveyed the heart and soul of America. I believe the heart and soul of America is found in places like Duluth, Minnesota."
IN SHORT:
I will attack any specific part of the country I want in order to win political points with my base.

1.37. France

FLIP  
4/25/03 - [Link]: "United States President George W Bush says French President Jacques Chirac won't be dropping by soon to his Texas ranch even if bilateral tensions over Iraq eventually melt away. Invitations to his beloved "Prairie Chapel" property are extended only to a handful of world leaders. 
Bush and Chirac fell out over Paris's stated determination to bury a new United Nations security council resolution authorising military action against Iraq, which inflamed anti-French sentiment in the United States.
Bush said: "There are some strains in the relationship, obviously, because it appeared to some in our administration and our country that the French position was anti-American.
"Hopefully, the past tensions will subside and the French won't be using their position within Europe to create alliances against the United States, or Britain or Spain or any of the new countries that are the new democracies in Europe," he added...
Leading US lawmakers have renamed "French fries" as "Freedom fries" and Bush's Air Force One aircraft now serves "Freedom Toast" instead of "French toast."..."
IN SHORT:
No ranch invitations to French President Chirac. France's behavior has been considered by some in my administration as anti-American. I will no longer have French Fries or Toast - only Freedom Fries or Toast.

FLOP  
6/3/04 - [Link]: "Kudos to Elaine Sciolino of The New York Times, reporting from Paris, who today systematically compares what the president is saying and doing now with what he said and did last year, when France and Germany withheld support for military action in Iraq. "His remarks [in an Oval Office interview with the weekly magazine Paris Match]," writes Sciolino, "seem calculated to rewrite the tortured history of almost two years that has been marked by the most serious divide between the United States and Europe in decades." 
Sciolino begins by telling us that in an effort to repair the rift with France over Iraq, Bush is describing himself and France President Jacques Chirac as "friends" who agreed to disagree about the war. "I've never been angry at the French," Bush told Paris Match, apparently with a straight face. "France has been a longtime ally." Bush even assured the magazine that Chirac was welcome to his ranch outside Crawford, Texas.
That, Sciolino notes, is a far cry from "his anger that built up last year, leading Mr. Bush to say that Mr. Chirac would not be a guest at the ranch soon" -- not to mention the punitive measures that both the White House and the Pentagon sought to employ against France. Sciolino notes that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called France and Germany part of "an old Europe" that did not matter any more, and further that French companies were explicitly excluded from reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Now that "Bush needs the help of Europeans, both in rebuilding Iraq and in remaking his image ... as a president who has not alienated some of America's most important allies," she writes, he's practically shopping for berets and reaching for the steak frites..."
IN SHORT:
Hey, yo! Chirac-Me buddy-buddy!

1.38, 1.39, 1.40, 1.41 Muqtada al-Sadr, Iran, Fallujah I, Fallujah II

Here, I will simply quote Martin Sieff's piece in UPI (via CAP) - since I simply DO NOT have the time to separately document every one of the countless Bush flip-flops on Iraq! :-)

Coming up to the first anniversary of President Bush declaring "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, U.S. policy there has degenerated into a series of confusing flip-flops.

First, Coalition Provisional Authority chief administrator L. Paul Bremer was adamant that U.S. troops were going to arrest firebrand Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada Sadr. Now, they are not.

Second, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were adamant that the United States was not going to the United Nations to seek more support in Iraq at the expense of delegating any authority there. But in his nationally televised press conference last week, the president took pains to praise the mission of U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and emphasize his determination to back it to the hilt.

Indeed, on Monday Bush named Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte as his first ambassador to an at least titular independent Iraq after the scheduled handover of sovereignty on June 30. This move has also been widely taken as a sign that eschewing previous Pentagon-run policies, Bush is finally prepared to let the world body have more of a say in helping restore that country.

Third, in his 2002 State of the Union speech, Bush boldly condemned Iran along with Iraq as a fellow member of the so-called "Axis of Evil." Yet now, Bush is eagerly courting Iran as a key facilitator in negotiations with the Shiite rebels in Iraq. Washington has eagerly sought Iran's good offices to get hostages released in Iraq and to reach a compromise consensus in dealing with the militias in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

Fourth, after the murder and mutilation of four U.S. civilian employees in Fallujah in central Iraq a few weeks ago, U.S. officials in the country were adamant that overwhelming force would be applied to go into Fallujah and impose law and order, U.S. style. But now, U.S. forces are holding back from Fallujah and U.S. Marine forces have been given the go-ahead to return to their old "softly-softly" policy that senior officials angrily repudiated after the killings.

Fifth, U.S. military commanders gave a grim ultimatum to rebel forces in Fallujah to surrender all their weapons or be crushed. But now that ultimatum has already been watered down. Only heavy weapons are to be surrendered. The rebels will be allowed to retain their light weapons, including automatic rifles. That is a crucial concession to any militia or guerrilla force as possession of such weapons gives them the power to continue to enforce or even extend their political control over their subject population.

Sixth, the Pentagon and the CPA surrounded the Shiite holy city of Najaf with 2,500 troops. But then they reined those troops in and for the moment are doing nothing with them...

2. OTHER FOREIGN POLICY

2.1, 2.2 North Korea [via MWO and Wampum]

FLIP 
12/7/01 - [Bush]: "...said Wednesday that if North Korea responds "affirmatively" to improved relations, Washington 
would expand "efforts to help the North Korean people, ease sanctions and take other political steps..."
IN SHORT:
Willing to engage with/talk to North Korea and ease sanctions to help the North Korean people

FLOP 
April 2003 - [Bush] : "...President Bush said North Korea was "back to the old blackmail game", and that the US would not be intimidated. "This will give us an opportunity to say to the North Koreans and the world we're not going to be threatened," he said. 
August 2003 - [Bush admin]: "...After six nations completed talks in Beijing over the Korean nuclear crisis, the Bush administration harshly criticized North Korea and made clear that it doesn't intend to bargain for peace. Joanne Prokopowicz, a spokeswoman for the State Department, spoke Friday from prepared remarks, saying North Korea's statement to negotiators in Beijing was "an explicit acknowledgment" that North Korea "has nuclear weapons, but the U.S. will not respond to threats or give in to blackmail."
IN SHORT:
NOT willing to engage with/talk to North Korea or ease sanctions

FLIP AGAIN
September 2003 - [Bush admin]: "...The Bush administration has dropped its insistence that North Korea meet U.S. nuclear disarmament demands before it can be offered economic assistance and other benefits. A senior State Department official outlined the more conciliatory U.S. position on Thursday in reviewing the outcome of six-nation talks in Beijing last week on the impasse over North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. North Korea "would not have to do everything" before getting something in return, said the official, who briefed reporters on the condition that he not be identified. Previously, the administration insisted that North Korea would have to dismantle its nuclear programs in a verifiable, irreversible way before the United States would be willing to offer concessions..."
October 2003 - [Bush]: "...President Bush said Sunday that he is willing to commit to a written guarantee not to attack North Korea in exchange for steps by the country toward abandoning its nuclear weapons programs. Bush's aides said he wants to have a proposal ready for North Korea to consider by year's end, when administration officials hope to restart the six-nation nuclear talks with North Korea that began haltingly in August. The new approach constitutes a change for a White House that had resisted offering any concessions to North Korea before it fully ends its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The North had agreed to freeze its programs in 1994 in a deal with the Clinton administration. But a crisis erupted last year when it was learned that North Korea had violated that agreement. The CIA estimates the country already possesses one or two nuclear weapons. Some analysts believe it has added to its stockpile in recent months. ..."
IN SHORT:
Willing to engage with/talk to North Korea and offer some concessions. [In the meantime of course, North Korea has advanced further in nuclear weapons production].

2.3 China Spy-Plane Incident [via Wampum]

FLIP 
4/10/01 - [Fleischer for Bush]: "...The United States has nothing to apologize for..."
IN SHORT:
The U.S. will not apologize over the China spy-plane incident

FLOP 
4/12/01 - [Link]: "...All 24 crew members of the US spy plane at the centre of the standoff with China headed home early this morning after Washington said it was "very sorry" for the incident - twice...
The end of the 11-day crisis came after China accepted the terms set out in the fourth draft of a letter from the US ambassador to Beijing, Joseph Prueher, which expressed American sorrow for the death of a Chinese airman and for entering Chinese airspace to land the plane on April 1.
The letter's painstakingly constructed diplomatic language continued to cause translation problems yesterday, even after both sides had agreed it.
Mr Prueher's letter said the US was "very sorry" for the loss of the Chinese pilot Wang Wei, and for entering Chinese air space without verbal clearance..."
5/6/01 - [Link]: "...It is Bush's good fortune that the liberal equivalent of this conservative coterie does not exist. Take the recent emergency landing of a U.S. surveillance plane in China. Imagine how conservatives would have reacted had Clinton insisted that detained military personnel were not actually hostages, and then cut a deal to get the people (but not the plane) home by offering two "very sorrys" to the Chinese, while also saying that he had not apologized. What is being hailed as Bush's shrewd diplomacy would have been savaged as "Slick Willie" contortions..."
Also see this article.
IN SHORT:
The U.S. WILL and did apologize over the China spy-plane incident

2.4 Democracy

FLIP
11/6/03 [Bush]: "...Champions of democracy...understand that democracy is not perfect, it is not the path to utopia, but it's the only path to national success and dignity...."
IN SHORT:
Democracy is not perfect but it is the ONLY path to national success and dignity

FLOPPITY FLOP
3/17/04 [Link]: "...For example, a mere four months after the President's highly-touted speech announcing his plans to push for democratic reforms in the Mideast, the Bush administration "set aside its plan to issue a sweeping call for economic, political and cultural reform in the Middle East." The decision came after the plan was denounced by Saudi Arabia (despite that country's reprehensible human rights record and ties to terror). Meanwhile, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is being invited to visit the White House to tout his supposed "goal to see the spread of freedom" despite his abysmal democratic record...."
4/12/04 [Link]: "While publicly professing a commitment to expanding democracy throughout the world, the Bush Administration finds its interests most in line with those of totalitarian China. The cozy relationship between China and the US comes despite assertions by Bush during the 2000 Presidential campaign that the U.S. should take a harder line with China, saying the Chinese a "strategic competitor" not a "strategic partner." The key reason for the flip-flop: "China has broadly supported Bush's war on terrorism and did not actively oppose the invasion of Iraq." The Bush Administration has also placated China by opposing fundamental democratic exercises in Taiwan – including the holding of a referendum. "
8/16/04 [Link]: "...Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appears to have survived an August 15 referendum that might have recalled him from power. This is certain to disappoint the Bush administration, whose earlier embrace of a failed military coup and open disregard for political neutrality in the hemisphere emboldened the populist president and enabled him to deflect attention from his own slow assault on democratic institutions. In the end, the Bush administration may have contributed to a referendum victory for Chavez. 
Venezuela provides but one example of the Bush administration's missteps on democracy. The administration has touted its commitment to promoting democracy in the Middle East and around the globe, arguing correctly that democracy is an essential component of a peaceful and prosperous world. Yet in our own hemisphere, the administration's policies have not only eroded America's authority as a defender of democracy, but have also turned back democratic gains throughout the region...
In 2002, U.S. Ambassador Manuel Rocha warned the Bolivian people that the United States would discontinue aid if they elected Evo Morales, the leader of the coca growers, as the country's president. Some analysts believe that Morales' popularity grew in protest to the Bush administration's intervention.
In 2004, Salvadorans elected center-right presidential candidate Tony Saca over Schafik Handal, the candidate of the former guerilla party, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN). During the campaign, U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega and Special Envoy Otto Reich, warned about the possible trade, economic and migratory consequences of an FMLN victory.
Furthermore, just before the election, Republican Congressman Thomas Tancredo promised to introduce legislation that would complicate the ability of Salvadoran-Americans to send remittances to their families in El Salvador should the FMLN win the election...
In April 2002, Chavez was temporarily unseated by a handful of military officers and some segments of the opposition.  Rather than demanding the return of the elected leader to office, the Bush administration accepted the new government and – for good measure – blamed Chavez for the coup. A State Department statement read: "Yesterday's events in Venezuela resulted in a transition government until new elections can be held. Though details are still unclear, undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez administration provoked yesterday's crisis in Venezuela." 
Furthermore, the Bush administration issued its statement without consulting with the OAS, violating the standard practice the countries of the region had established over the previous decade...
Shortly thereafter, when popular protests against the coup spread across the city and the military returned Chavez to power, the administration found itself in an embarrassing bind: the man whose departure they had just welcomed was back in the saddle...
As armed insurgents began to take over the country [Haiti] in February 2004, the OAS and CARICOM sought to broker a peace deal. But instead of rallying behind these multilateral efforts, the United States – with a wink and a nod to the insurgents – appeared on Aristide's doorstep to escort him from the country.
Aristide was no saint or even, arguably, a democrat. But instead of standing behind the efforts of the OAS and CARICOM to foster a compromise that would have upheld the constitution, the United States acted unilaterally – and in an unprincipled fashion – to achieve its favored result...
the Bush administration turned its back on one of its key allies in the war on drugs – Bolivia.  In 2003, President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada requested emergency assistance to deal with popular unrest stemming in part from the U.S.-backed drug eradication program. The Bush administration declined his request.  Several months later, a backlash led by the head of the coca growers union pushed the president from power. As Nancy Birdsall of the Center for Global Development said, "This is a case where the United States, for a paltry amount of money, could have helped secure a country in Latin America." The failure of the United States to come through with assistance also undermined U.S. anti-narcotics efforts"
IN SHORT:
Democracy shemocracy. Democracy ain't perfect and it is NOT the ONLY path to national success and dignity.

2.5, 2.6 Nation Building

FLIP
10/3/00 
[Bush]: "...I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either..."
[Bush]: "...Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."..."
[Bush]: "...I don't want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don't want to be the world's policeman..."
IN SHORT:
(a) American troops should not be used for nation-building. American troops should only be used for fighting wars.
(b) American troops should not be the world's policemen.

FLOPPITY FLOP
Compassiongate: Er, see, Afghanistan and Iraq.
EXAMPLE, via CAP -  [Bush]: "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people."
IN SHORT:
(a) American troops should be used for nation-building in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
(b) American troops should be the world's policemen (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, etc.) 

2.7 Overextending the military

FLIP
10/3/00 - [Bush]: "...The other day, I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwarzkopf, who stood by my side and agreed with me. They said we could, even though we're the strongest military, that if we don't do something quickly, we don't have a clearer vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that..."
IN SHORT: 
We are going to have a serious problem if we overextend our troops with nation-building missions and we should not be doing this.

FLOP
March 2003 [Link]: "...Bush gained office in part by pledging to relieve soldiers like Wells from the onerous burdens the Clinton administration had imposed by, among other things, reconsidering the U.S. presence in the Balkans. Yet military life hasn't gotten easier since Bush took office; indeed, it's gotten measurably harder. For Wells, the war on terrorism has meant "more frequent deployments, less time at home"--not just more missions, but more time training for them and the constant pressure of being on a permanent war footing. "Since the war on terrorism has expanded so quickly and so vastly, you never know when, or where, you're going to go," he says. Wells spent five months in Afghanistan after September 11 and did yet another stint in Louisiana this past fall. "I missed all four of our birthdays, the anniversaries, major holidays. 2002--gone. No birthday parties, no Christmas, nothing." Orders to deploy to the Middle East could come any day. 
More military spending, it turns out, hasn't made life any easier. The extra $70 billion a year the Bush administration has pumped into the Pentagon has bought more smart bombs and slightly fatter paychecks. But it hasn't bought a much bigger military force. There are only about 27,000 more active-duty troops today than in 2000--and even with those additions, the military is more overstretched now than it was when Bush took office. During the first three months of this year, the United States had more than twice as many troops on overseas missions at any given time as it did in 2000. It's getting harder to recruit new soldiers, and, on the whole, harder to keep the ones we have. The Army is so short of some specialties that it has imposed stop-loss on about 50,000 troops--that is, refused to let them retire or resign--while in January, the Marine Corps imposed a 12-month stop-loss order on the entire service. Large swathes of the U.S. military thus no longer meet the definition of a volunteer force. Nor, increasingly, do the reserves. Since September 11, thousands have been serving for long stretches, far from home, to meet the country's growing homeland-security requirements and to fill in the gaps left by active-duty soldiers deployed elsewhere in the world. Their employers are grumbling, and their families are griping.
The average man in uniform, in other words, is more frustrated and overburdened today than he was two years ago--affecting not just the soldiers themselves, but their ability to protect the rest of us. "The great majority of Army combat units are not ready for combat without significant additional training," wrote Lt. Col. Tim Reese, a respected commander who led a U.S. tank battalion in Kosovo, in Armor magazine last summer. Our capability and security has already begun to suffer. Because Army troops weren't able to deploy quickly enough, the first ground forces in landlocked Afghanistan last year were Marines, specialists in amphibious assault. During the U.S.-led battle at Tora Bora and Operation Anaconda, the brass was both unwilling and unable to deploy enough troops to encircle the enemy, allowing hundreds of Taliban and al Qaeda fighters to escape to neighboring Pakistan, including, possibly, Osama bin Laden.
Things are about to get much worse. During the last two months, President Bush has ordered some 87,000 of America's overstretched soldiers to the Persian Gulf, where they joined a force of roughly equal magnitude already preparing for war in Iraq. As many as 250,000 U.S. troops will take part in an eventual invasion of Iraq, on top of those already peacekeeping, battling terrorism, and guarding American interests around the world. Fighting a war, of course, is the military's primary purpose. But when the shooting stops, about 75,000 of those soldiers will need to stay behind--twice as many as are currently stationed in South Korea to deter an invasion from the North, and more than 12 times the dwindling number serving in Bosnia and Kosovo.
That can only mean decreased readiness, shrinking re-enlistments, lower morale, and, quite possibly, more mistakes like the one at Tora Bora..."
August 2004 [Link]: "...From ill-fitting uniforms to non-working equipment, young men and women from across the country, many of whom joined the military with dreams of college and a steady future, have been shortchanged by a government that pressed for war without full regard of the costs. After being sent to do battle in Iraq, some have had to battle their own government for promised pay and benefits. They have been lied to regarding the length of stay, and they've been forced to buy their own tickets home when offered two-week leave. Frightened parents have purchased basic protective gear for their sons and daughters that the military did not provide. And fears of another wave of mysterious illnesses for which no protection is known have already been ignited..."
IN SHORT: 
We are having serious problems overextending and under-supporting our troops (especially in nation-building missions) but we SHOULD be doing this.

2.8, 2.9 Middle-East Policy and Clinton Administration [via Timothy Noah]

FLIP
10/11/00 - 
[Bush]: "...I appreciate the way the [Clinton] administration has worked hard to calm the tensions [in the Middle-East between Israel and the Palestinians]. Like the vice president, I call on Chairman Arafat to have his people pull back to make the peace..."
[Bush]: "...And therefore, the term honest broker makes sense. This current administration's worked hard to keep the parties at the table..."
IN SHORT:
Clinton administration has worked hard in the Middle-East (as an honest broker) to calm the tensions and this is appreciated

FLIP AGAIN
4/6/02 - [Bush]: "...Somebody told me there's a story floating around that somehow I am blaming the Clinton administration for what's going on in the Middle East right now. … I appreciate what President Clinton tried to do. He tried to bring peace to the Middle East..."
IN SHORT:
Israeli-Palestinian summits set up by Pres. Clinton are to be appreciated and not to be blamed for the violence

2.10 Middle-East Policy and Bush Administration

FLIP 
[EXAMPLE] 
4/5/02 - [Bush]: "..Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area..."
IN SHORT:
U.S. policy on the Israel-Palestine situation should be more hands-OFF and calling summits doesn't make sense.

FLOP
4/5/02 - [Link]: "...From the very start the Bush administration made it clear that it had no intention of becoming engaged in the task of trying to broker peace in the Middle East. The White House made explicit its contempt for Bill Clinton's efforts to achieve a lasting settlement - even going so far as to blame his peace-making efforts for creating higher levels of violence. 
In the two years since, there have been sporadic efforts to influence events, but little could disguise the fact that the president's heart was not in it. As recently as last weekend, George W Bush refrained from serious public engagement with the issue, merely saying that he could understand the new Israeli offensive on the West Bank.
Yesterday all that changed. The escalation of violence on the ground, coupled with a rising tide of domestic indignation over the administration's passivity, finally stung the president into action. He announced last night that he was dispatching the secretary of state, Colin Powell, on his third visit to the region. And he combined renewed criticism of Yasser Arafat with an unequivocal message to Ariel Sharon to cease building new settlements and to begin an immediate withdrawal from the areas of the West Bank the Israeli army has so brutally invaded over the past week. Some commentators described this as the biggest u-turn of his presidency..."
5/23/03 via CAP - [Bush]: "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East."
IN SHORT:
U.S. policy on the Israel-Palestine situation should be more hands-on and could involve summits.

2.11, 2.12 Humility and Arrogance

FLIP
10/11/00
[Bush]: "...It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom..."
[Bush]: "...I’m not sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be. I want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you..."
12/19/99 - [Bush]: "...Ours should not be the paternalistic leadership of an arrogant big brother, but the inviting and welcoming leadership of a great and noble nation..."
Jan 2001 inaugural address [ [Bush]: "Today, we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's promise through civility, courage, compassion and character. America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness. Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be petty because, in a time of peace, the stakes of our debates appear small...We must live up to the calling we share. Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos. And this commitment, if we keep it, is a way to shared accomplishment."
IN SHORT:
(a) In our foreign policy civility and humility is important and there should be no arrogance or pettiness. The U.S should not be walking into a country and telling them to do things the way the U.S. wants to do it. 
(b) We should not be paternalistic like an arrogant big brother, but inviting and welcoming

FLOP
NOTE: Bush and his Cabinet alienated countries all over the globe with their arrogance and vindictiveness compassionate conservatism - the list not only includes Rumsfeld's Old Europe, but other traditional allies like Canada, Turkey, Mexico, etc.
[Example 1]: "...President Bush said Tuesday that there was no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism..." Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."..."
[Example 2]: "...Consider the Bush team's behavior over the past few weeks toward countries that opposed the war in Iraq. Almost as soon as the fighting stopped, the French government started trying to mend fences. Paris abandoned its long-standing opposition to NATO control over the peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. In a surprise concession, and a break with Russia, it agreed to suspend (though not remove) U.N. sanctions on post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Jacques Chirac warned Syria not to harbor Iraqi officials and telephoned George W. Bush, breaking a months-long silence between the two men. Jean-David Levitte, France's ambassador to the United States, said his government wanted to "turn this bitter page and think positively about what we have to do together. "The Bush administration responded with a high-level meeting to decide how to punish Paris for opposing the war. According to reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post, the Bushies are considering downgrading France's status at international meetings and bypassing the North Atlantic Council, NATO's governing body, because France is a member. Bush officials noted that when the president attends the G-8 summit in Evian, France, this June, he will stay across the border in Switzerland. No pettiness here. 
And it's not only France. President Bush, who famously refused to place a congratulatory phone call to Gerhard Schroeder after he was reelected on an antiwar platform, has not spoken to the German leader yet this year. The White House recently canceled a Bush trip to Ottawa, leading one Canadian academic to tell the Times that relations between the two countries were at "the lowest moment since the early 1960s." 
The United States has pointedly refused to set a date for signing a long-planned free-trade deal with Chile, which refused to use its rotating Security Council seat to back a second resolution authorizing war. (There are also reports, denied by Bush officials, that the United States has slowed talks on a trade deal with Thailand as punishment for its lukewarm stance on the war.) 
White House Envoy to the Americas Otto Reich recently warned Caribbean countries that their antiwar stance might bring U.S. "consequences." And, in a slap at Mexican President Vicente Fox, the former Bush pal who refused to back the  Iraq war, the White House has scrapped this year's Cinco de Mayo celebrations. Pettiness? Perish the thought. This retaliation isn't just vindictive; it's deeply stupid...governments across the world opposed the Iraq war to appease citizenries angered by perceived U.S. bullying. So now that the war is over--and our military victory gives us a chance to improve America's image--the Bush administration has responded with a fresh round of bullying. Sounds like a winning strategy to me."..."
[Example 3]: "U.S. officials are engaged in a worldwide campaign pressing small, vulnerable and often fragile democratic governments to sign bilateral agreements with Washington. As you know, these agreements would exempt 270 million Americans and foreign nationals working under contract to the U.S. government from the authority of the court. While we believe the agreements the United States is proposing violate the ICC treaty by going beyond the letter and spirit of Article 98, I am not writing to argue the unlawfulness of these instruments.
Whatever the administration thinks of the International Criminal Court, its tactics in pursuing these bilateral agreements are unconscionable. Other governments can plainly see that punitive measures are being used primarily against poor and relatively weak states with few options other than to give in to the United States. Signing an agreement will put an ICC state party in breach of its legal obligations and at odds with other important national interests. This raw misuse of U.S. power makes the policy all the more objectionable.
The administration's hostility to the International Criminal Court is particularly ill-conceived given the progress made in establishing the ICC on the strongest possible basis."

See these myriad other examples: Peter Beinart (TNR), CNN, Michael J. Jordan (Christian Science Monitor), Paul Krugman (New York Times), Gloria Galloway (The Globe and Mail), Michael Tomasky (The American Prospect), Paul Glastris (MSN/Slate), Pew Research Center, Robin Wright and Dana Milbank (Washington Post), eRiposte
IN SHORT:
(a) In our foreign policy civility and humility is irrelevant and we can be as arrogant and petty as we want. The U.S should be walking into countries (like Afghanistan and Iraq) and telling them to do things the way the U.S. wants to do it. 
(b) We can be paternalistic like an arrogant big brother, not necessarily inviting and welcoming.

2.13, 2.14 Funding Corrupt Officials

FLIP
10/11/00 - [Bush]: "...We can lend money but we have to do it wisely. We shouldn't be lending money to corrupt officials..."
IN SHORT:
We should not lend money to corrupt officials

FLOP
2/21/04 [Link]: "...The Department of Defense is continuing to pay millions of dollars for information from the former Iraqi opposition group that produced some of the exaggerated and fabricated intelligence President Bush used to argue his case for war. The Pentagon has set aside between $3 million and $4 million this year for the Information Collection Program of the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi [Compassiongate note: the convicted criminal]...Chalabi, who built close ties to officials in Vice President Dick Cheney's office and among top Pentagon officials, is on the Iraqi Governing Council, a body of 25 Iraqis installed by the United States to help administer the country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein last April...."
2/23/04 [Link]: ""As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important." Those were the words last week of Ahmed Chalabi, head of the INC, member of the IGC, and central player in a scandal the scope of which Americans are only now beginning to grasp. The "what was said before" that Chalabi is referring to, of course, are the numerous bogus claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction he peddled into American governmental channels over the last half dozen years and more.
...
Yet, we really don't seem to be angry at all. We funded Chalabi's pre-war intelligence operation in Iraq -- thus placing ourselves in the pathbreaking position of bankrolling a disinformation campaign against ourselves. (Much of his other money came from Iran. But we can get into that later.) And amazingly, we're still funding it.
According to this KnightRidder article from late last week the Pentagon has set aside between $3 and $4 million to fund Chalabi's Information Collection Program through 2004. So we want to keep buying Chalabi's prized intel for at least the next ten months?
We're far past the point where there's any question that basically all the intel we got from Chalabi was bogus. We're not far from the point of concluding that it was knowingly bogus or at least passed on with a willful indifference to its validity. And we're still going to pay his 'intelligence' operation $4 million more this year?
Isn't the $400 million worth of contracts to companies tied to his family enough to keep him happy?..."
IN SHORT:
We should lend money to corrupt, lying officials

FLIP AGAIN
5/18/04 - [Link]: "...The Pentagon has stopped funding Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile it once hoped might help lead Iraq but whose intelligence reports and motives were doubted elsewhere in Washington, U.S. officials said Tuesday..."
IN SHORT:
We should not lend money to corrupt, lying officials

2.15 War President, Peace President

FLIP
2/8/04 - [Bush]: "I'm a war president"
IN SHORT:
I'm a War President.

FLOP
7/20/04 - [Bush]: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president"
IN SHORT:
I wanna be a Peace President.

2.16 Torture 1 [via Tim Dunlop]

FLIP
6/26/03
[Bush]: "The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example."
[Bush]: "Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors. August 1, 2002"
IN SHORT:
Human rights abusers hide tortured prisoners. We promise we won't.

FLOP
8/1/02
"U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel
Memorandum for Alberto R Gonzales (.pdf)
Counsel to the President
RE: Standards of Conduct for interrogation Under U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A
August 1, 2002

In Part V, we discuss whether Section 2340A may be unconstitutional if to interrogations undertaken of enemy combatants pursuant to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers. We find that in the circumstances of the current war against al Qaeda and its allies, prosecution under Section 2340A may be barred because enforcement of the statute would represent an unconstitutional infringement of the President's authority to conduct war....We conclude that, under the current circumstances, necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods that might violate Section 2340A..."

9/9/04 - [Link]: "...The United States may have kept up to 100 “ghost detainees” in Iraq off the books and concealed from Red Cross observers, a far higher number than previously reported, an Army general told Congress on Thursday, as congressional hearings got under way on alleged prison abuse incidents in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Estimates were rough because the CIA has withheld documents on concealed prisoners, Army generals who investigated U.S. abuses of Iraqi prisoners told lawmakers..."
Reality - [Link]: "U.S. treatment of terror suspects and potential witnesses has been particularly obscure. The Bush administration typically prevents prisoners from contacting attorneys or asserting rights to fair treatment. Indeed, U.S. authorities have refused to identify the large majority of detainees or release any information about them, arguing that such data could help terrorists. 
In the first 15 months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, nearly 3,000 suspected al Qaeda members and supporters were detained worldwide, according to U.S. officials.
National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday that prisoners abroad are being treated humanely, but reports have surfaced in the news media about cruel treatment of detainees in American-run detention centers, where the rules of due process are not always applied. In interviews with The Post last year, members of the U.S. government's national security apparatus defended the use of violence as just and necessary. "
IN SHORT:
Human rights abusers hide tortured prisoners. We do too.

2.17 Torture 2 [via Tim Dunlop]

FLIP
6/26/03
[Bush]: "Today, on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States declares its strong solidarity with torture victims across the world. Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. We are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit. Beating, burning, rape, and electric shock are some of the grisly tools such regimes use to terrorize their own citizens. These despicable crimes cannot be tolerated by a world committed to justice."
IN SHORT:
Governments are forbidden from torturing and deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control.

FLOP
8/1/02
"U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel
Memorandum for Alberto R Gonzales (.pdf)
Counsel to the President
RE: Standards of Conduct for interrogation Under U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A
August 1, 2002

You have asked for our Office's views regarding the standards of conduct under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or punishment as implemented by Sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of The United States Code. As we understand it, this question has arisen in the context of the conduct of interrogations outside of the United States. We conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture within the meaning of Section 2340A and the Convention. We further find that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A's proscription against torture. We conclude by examining the possible defenses that would negate any claim that certain interrogation methods violate the statute..."

8/1/02
"U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel
Memorandum for Alberto R Gonzales (.pdf)
Counsel to the President
RE: Standards of Conduct for interrogation Under U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A
August 1, 2002

We conclude that for an act to constitute torture....it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death...We conclude that the statute, taken as a whole, makes plain that it prohibits only extreme acts..."

IN SHORT:
Governments may torture people by subjecting them to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity that violates the law.

2.18 Geneva Convention and War Crimes [via Atrios]

FLIP
3/23/03
[Rumsfeld for Bush]: "...[said that] "the Geneva Convention indicates that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass or humiliate prisoners of war, and if they do happen to be American or coalition ground forces that have been captured, the Geneva Convention indicates how they should be treated."...His statement came after interviews with five captured U.S. soldiers had been broadcast on Iraqi television..."
IN SHORT:
We will follow the Geneva Convention and we expect our opponents will as well.

FLOP
7/27/03 - [Link]:
"On the Taking of Hostages
Calpundit says:

At first we're led to believe that we're gaining ground in Iraq due to a simple shift in tactics, but a few days later we learn that what this really means is that we're kidnapping families and holding them hostage in order to increase the "quality and quantity of intelligence." This may seem like a good idea in the world of 24, but in the real world it's a war crime. It should end right now, and I hope everyone who linked to the first article links to the second as well and denounces these tactics as unworthy of us. The world should know that we're better than this.

...Here´s Convention 4, articles 34 and 147.

Art. 34. The taking of hostages is prohibited
Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

897. ART. 97. UNLAWFUL DETENTION
Any person subject to this chapter who, except as provided by law, arrests, or confines any person shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

2.19 Pre-empting Threats to the U.S.

FLIP
3/17/03 - [Bush]: "...We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities...The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth. 
Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide..."
IN SHORT:
We cannot let real threats from those who possess weapons of mass destruction grow and wait for them to attack. We have to act pre-emptively.

FLOP
1/26/03 - [Link]: "The National Security Strategy of the United States promulgated last September provides a formal rationale for the Bush administration's rhetoric and actions against Iraq. Indeed, the United States seems prepared "to forestall or prevent... hostile acts" and "act preemptively" to remove Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq because of the "emerging threat" that country might pose to international peace and security. But within two months of announcing the new U.S. national security strategy, the North Koreans decided to put it to the test. And it looks like the Bush Doctrine has failed.
Here's what we know:

• According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there is no evidence that Iraq "lied in its declaration on the nuclear issue." But North Korea -- another country named as part of the "axis of evil" by President Bush -- has admitted to an ongoing secret nuclear weapons program and is in violation of its 1994 agreement with the United States to freeze its nuclear weapons development.
• There is no evidence that Iraq possesses any nuclear weapons and likely does not have the capability to produce any. On the other hand, North Korea is believed to possess at least one or two weapons and is currently extracting weapons grade plutonium from a previously shut-down reactor that could be used to build several more weapons within a matter of months.
• Iraq -- per U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 -- has allowed weapons inspectors back into the country, granted them unfettered access, and is largely cooperating with the inspection teams. Meanwhile, North Korea has removed U.N. monitoring equipment from a nuclear reactor in Yongbyon and has expelled U.N. weapons inspectors.

Yet while the wheels of impending war continue to churn vis-à-vis Iraq, President Bush has said that "we will have dialogue" with North Korea and has emphasized that the United States has "no aggressive intentions" toward the DPRK.
...
And short of military action to prevent a country from acquiring nuclear weapons, the Bush Doctrine offers no real options for dealing with a country once it has nuclear weapons. Indeed, the United States's current approach to North Korea is a willingness to "talk" but not "negotiate." That is a distinction without a difference, and is an admission that there is little the United States can do to force the North Koreans to abandon their current course.
The Bush Doctrine may be a way to neatly justify eventual U.S. military action against Iraq. But, ultimately, it is shortsighted and woefully inadequate for dealing with North Korea and future proliferation."
IN SHORT:
We SHOULD let real threats from those who possess weapons of mass destruction grow and wait for them to attack. We DO NOT HAVE to act pre-emptively.

2.20 American embassy in Israel [via Timothy Noah]

FLIP
2000 - [Bush]: "'Something will happen when I'm president,' Bush told a Jewish lobbying group a year ago. 'As soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital.' The Bush campaign in October slammed Vice President Al Gore for backsliding on the move."
IN SHORT:
As soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital.

FLOP
6/12/01 - [Bush]: "Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the 'Act'), I hereby determine that it is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States to suspend for a period of six months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act." --June 11 presidential memorandum delaying the congressionally mandated relocation of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem."
3/24/02 - [Link via Failure Is Impossible]: "...[Bush's] campaign slammed President Bill Clinton and Gore for being too slow to honor their own promises to move the embassy. But last June, Bush delayed the move, approved by Congress in 1995, by six months. In December, he delayed it by another six months..."
IN SHORT:
Sorry I know I said I would but I won't.