Is this a flip or a flop?

By Anne Gearan



March 11, 2005 | Washington -- The Bush administration will support
European diplomatic efforts to end Iran 's nuclear weapons ambitions by
offering modest economic incentives to the Tehran regime, Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

The administration agreed to drop objections to Iran's eventual
membership in the World Trade Organization and agreed to allow some
sales of civilian aircraft parts to Tehran, she said in a statement
released by the State Department.

Rice said the administration will consider allowing the spare parts
sales on a case-by-case basis. Many of the sales would be from European
Union countries.

"We share the desire of European governments to secure Iran's adherence
to its obligations through peace and diplomatic means," the secretary
said, referring to Iran's commitments under the Nuclear NonProliferation
Treaty.

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?

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?

"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?

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.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
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! --

No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam?

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?

Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics.

Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with
other Countries?



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."

Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite
news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another
attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted
personal attacks Jimcomma?



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.

Great. Bush is doing good....eh?



During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along
with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Nothing has changed. Your point is?

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.


Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as
it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan

Your point is?

JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

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! --


No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam?


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?


Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics.

Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with
other Countries?



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."


Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite
news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another
attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted
personal attacks Jimcomma?

OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world.



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.


Great. Bush is doing good....eh?
I'll give him this one



During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along
with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


Nothing has changed. Your point is?

Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea?


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.



Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as
it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan

Your point is?


The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue
of flip flopping during the campaign.

Jim, wrote:

JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

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! --



No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam?


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?



Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics.

Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal
with other Countries?

Seemed to be that way till now. Could it be he's mellowing???



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."



Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my
favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative?
Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things
without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma?


OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world.




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.



Great. Bush is doing good....eh?

I'll give him this one




During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil,"
along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.



Nothing has changed. Your point is?


Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea?



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.



Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those
years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan

Your point is?


The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue
of flip flopping during the campaign.

I likes the HK answer to this one.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

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! --


No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam?


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?


Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics.

Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with
other Countries?



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."


Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite
news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another
attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the
attempted personal attacks Jimcomma?

OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world.

I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to?





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.


Great. Bush is doing good....eh?
I'll give him this one



During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along
with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


Nothing has changed. Your point is?

Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea?

We already are.




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.



Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years,
as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan

Your point is?


The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue
of flip flopping during the campaign.

No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with
international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core
beliefs.

Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war
on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort
reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in
his dealing with other countries.

Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, the war on
terror, troop funding, ANWAR, NAFTA, welfare reform, the death penalty, the
Patriot Act, affirmative action....and on and on and on.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...

During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along
with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


Nothing has changed. Your point is?

Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea?

We have been and N Korea is the one pulling out of the negotiations. I
thought you would have known that.

=========================
TOKYO (Reuters) - The United States' point man on North Korea on Thursday
warned the reclusive state would face grave consequences if it didn't return
to the six-way talks on ending its nuclear weapons program, Kyodo news
agency reported.
The U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Christopher Hill, told a key Japanese
ruling party official that North Korea would face a serious situation if it
missed out on the chance to come back to the six-party nuclear talks, Kyodo
said.

On Feb. 10, North Korea declared for the first time it had nuclear weapons
and also said it was dropping out of the six-party talks aimed at ending its
nuclear ambitions.
Less than two weeks later, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il said Pyongyang
could return to the talks, which involve the two Koreas, Japan, China, the
United State and Russia, if the conditions were right and Washington showed
sincerity.

Three rounds of six-way talks since August 2003 have been inconclusive. A
fourth round planned for late 2004 never materialized.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7863273

=====================================