JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different
animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to
what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion.

Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not
work with Iraq. They may work with Iran.

So what is your point Jim?



Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in
negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way?



No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can
provide a link.

Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the
negotiations? You see this as a bad thing?


Convienent memory! -- I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a
bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop?

From your favorite news source
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html

"The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with
Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran
abandon its program."


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm

Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in
strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to
avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior.

During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along
with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And Tehran has been an
antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the
seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a
crisis that lasted 444 days.