A Brief Review of the Dishonesty and Exceptional Dishonesty of Our Leaders and their Enablers

Number of moderate Republicans who met with the president this week to give him a "blunt warning" about the need to change course in Iraq: 11

Number of those moderate Republicans who voted Thursday in favor of a bill that would require the president to show progress in the war before getting more funding for it: 0.

Link.

He's for it unless and until he's against it -- but if he's been for it and nothing has really changed, how can he be against it? Why it's politics, not principle!

George W. Bush, Jan. 10, 2007: In a speech to the nation, the president declares: "A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced."

George W. Bush, Jan. 13, 2007: "America will hold the Iraqi government to benchmarks it has announced ... These are strong commitments. And the Iraqi government knows that it must meet them, or lose the support of the Iraqi and the American people.

Stephen Hadley, Jan. 23, 2007: Asked whether the president will set forth in his State of the Union address the consequences to be suffered if Iraqis don't meet the benchmarks set for them, the national security advisor says: "This has been a topic of conversation for the last two weeks, about linking and consequences for benchmarks. I think the Iraqi political system, the democracy you have on the ground there, as well as the democracy here, demonstrates that there will be consequences if these benchmarks are not met."

Condoleezza Rice, April 29, 2007: Asked whether the president will accept "any kind of conditions" on continued funding for the war in Iraq, the secretary of state says: "Why tie our own hands in using the means that we have to help get the right outcomes in Iraq? And that's the problem with having so-called consequences for missing the benchmarks."

Dick Cheney, May 10, 2007: Asked about the possibility of attaching consequences to benchmarks, the vice president says: "I'm always a little puzzled when we talk about consequences. I mean, these people, you've got to remember the consequences that the Iraqis have been faced with. I mean, in terms of casualties, they've suffered far more than we have ... So when we talk to them about consequences in some kind of bureaucratic sense or threatening them with a cutoff of funds, for example, if they don't do A, B and C, it strikes me as, you know, that's Washington talk but it may not have all that much relevance on the ground out there."

George W. Bush, May 10, 2007: Asked if he's willing to accept any consequences for benchmarks in the war-funding bill, the president says he's in favor of ... benchmarks: "One message I have heard from people from both parties is that the idea of benchmarks makes sense. And I agree. It makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward."

Tony Snow, May 10, 2007: Asked whether the president believes that there ought to be consequences for failing to meet any benchmarks that might be set, the White House press secretary says: "I'm not even going to bite on that."

Link.

Consistent in hypocritcial inconsistency -- or what you could call, if demonstrated by a Dem instead Our Beloved Resolute Leader:

That meeting in which moderate Republicans told the president this week that he's risking the future of the Republican Party by sticking to his guns on Iraq?

Here's how White House spokeswoman Dana Perino spun it in an interview with CNN's Paula Zahn last night: "They expressed displeasure to the president. They expressed frustration, because of a lack of progress. The president understands that. He's right there with them on that. And I think that, if you look at our party, we are ones that like a frank exchange of views. We have a big tent. And discussions like this are OK. They're good to have. And that's why the president was very happy to have them at the White House."

Yep, he was frickin' overjoyed all right -- and happier still to have word of the meeting leaked to the press. From today's Washington Post: "White House political adviser Karl Rove, furious that Republican moderates had divulged a confrontational meeting they had on Tuesday with Bush on the war, started yesterday with an angry conversation with the meeting's organizer, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), according to several GOP lawmakers. Dan Meyer, the White House's chief lobbyist, called the other participants to express the administration's unhappiness."

Link.

Link for photo.