>Well, they did oppose it at first, but finally did go along with it and worked to make it happen including selecting the director. That's the point, he never denied that he was against it, but once he was convinced it would be a good thing, they got on board. Kerry doesn't operate that way, he says he didn't say things that he said, or just outright lies. Here's another example from your url above:
>
>The New York Post noted that Kerry was mistaken when he said "they had to close the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there," blaming Bush for not supplying money to fix tunnels and bridges. Actually, New York subways continued to run during the convention. "We did not stop any trains," said Transit Authority spokesman Paul Fleuranges. "I will not guess or opine what he (Kerry) was talking about."
>
>Go figure?

From Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132189,00.html

A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Usama bin Laden "dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

So is this an example of changing his mind, or a flip-flop? I think I see the standard here: when Kerry does it, it's a flip-flop. When Bush does it, he changed his mind.

Speaking of lies:

http://factcheck.org/article271.html

The President misquoted Kerry's position on how quickly troops might be withdrawn from Iraq. Bush claimed Kerry once said "I'll have them out of there in six months," which is false.

Let me guess... he was just misquoted.

And Bush overstated matters when he said "My administration worked with the congress to create the department of homeland security." In fact, Bush opposed creation of the separate department for nearly nine months before turning around and supporting it.

A flip-flop and a lie in the same sentence.

Bush said he has increased spending on curbing nuclear proliferation by "about 35 percent" since he took office. But The Washington Post reported Oct. 1 that Bush proposed a 13 percent cut in his first budget as President -- about $116 million. Much of the increases since then have been added by Congress, the Post reported.

So when he says he did something, when re really didn't, how again do you characterize that?