Bush (flip) versus Bush (flop)

By Lee Russ

Saturday, December 17, 2005 at 12:34 PM

Not to beat the flip flop theme to death--serious injury will do fine--but have you been keeping up with the string of Bush versus Bush statements?  You know, the ones where Bush was against something before he was for it?

Recent examples follow.

Bush: I oppose the 9/11 commission.
Versus
Bush: I support the 9/11 Commission.

Bush: We do not torture and I oppose the McCain anti-tortue bill.
Versus
Bush: I support the McCain anti-torture bill, it's a fine piece of legislation.

Bush: I do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations.
Versus
Bush: I think Tom DeLay, currently under criminal investigation, is innocent.

I like a man who knows what his positions are and sticks to one whenever it seems convenient.

And did you catch his explanation for his Tom DeLay is innocent comment?  All of them?

Explanation 1: It's okay to comment on the DeLay case, because it's further along than the Plame investigation.

Followed by widespread ridicule because that's pretty obviously not true.

Followed by explanation 2: The president was simply exercising his executive prerogative to comment on what he wants to comment on.

Followed by widespread ridicule because, frankly, what the Hell does that mean?

Followed by explanation 3: I never said that I had an opinion that Tom DeLay was innocent.  I only meant that we're all entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Followed by widespread cries of give me a break!  That isn't what you said, that isn't what you meant, and it probably won't even be your explanation by next Monday.

I have no problem with Bush believing in the presumption of innocence.  I have a lot of problems with him believing in the presumption of public gullibility and public amnesia.