Flip-Flopping or Pragmatism?

Re “Bush Says It, Means It -- Reverses It,” Opinion, May 16: In documenting a few of President Bush’s many policy reversals, Jonathan Last left out a few other legendary flip-flops. I hope voters in November also remember these whoppers:

Bush supported the war in Vietnam but didn’t have the courage to fight for his country (unlike Sen. John F. Kerry, who voluntarily served two tours of combat and received a Silver Star and other medals).

During his campaign in 2000, Bush promised to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions, then caved in to the pollution lobby and took such controls off the table.

Bush initially opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security proposed by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), then supported it once its creation by Congress was inevitable.

Bush opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission but backed down when the families of the victims demanded to know why and how his administration failed to protect us on that day. He initially refused to testify before the commission, then begrudgingly agreed to speak with its members only if he could do so behind closed doors and with Vice President Dick Cheney by his side.

Bush looked us in the eye and told us that we had to attack Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction and ties to the plotters of 9/11, then quietly admitted that neither claim was true. Unlike any alleged flip-flops by Kerry, Bush’s reversals continue to cost people their lives.

Wesley Carter

Newbury Park

*

I must say that I was disappointed by the simplicity and lack of insight in Last’s Opinion piece. He seems to confuse contradiction with political pragmatism, bringing out a long list of supposed reversals of opinion and policy.

On the No Child Left Behind bill, Bush delivered on a big campaign promise; Republicans gave up ground on vouchers and Democrats won increases in spending. Bush got accountability testing. The education reform bill eventually passed both houses with wide, bipartisan support, and Bush was able to rightfully claim that he had delivered on a top priority.

On tax cuts, Bush adopted a different, partisan strategy and largely succeeded at gaining his policy goals; of course, in the Senate he was forced to compromise on several key issues.

On the issue of Persian Gulf War II, Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and the majority of Congress and the nation believed him. Now the administration claims that that was not the purpose of Gulf War II and that the world is better off without Hussein, with or without WMD. Bush may have flip-flopped on the rationale for war, but the goal was there all along.

Changing the means to achieve an end is not usually criticized as wishy-washy; it’s called pragmatic.

Call Bush an ideologue or contradictory; I call it political business as usual.

Ryan Gaglio

Huntington Beach

*

The list in Last’s Opinion piece left out the reversal that affects us the most. In 2000, when gas prices peaked, Bush promised to work with our Arab friends to produce more oil and bring prices down. As president, he has done nothing of the sort. In fact, his policies have resulted in record gas prices.

Eric Smith

Diamond Bar