This just in: Rumsfeld out.

[noodle]

Things to think about if you're Dick Cheney:

Brownie, your're doing a Heck of a Job - a few days later - Fired

Rummie, you're doing a Heck of a Job - a few months later - Fired

I can't wait to hear: Cheney you're doing a Heck of a job.........



Dave

he said that, almost exactly, a week or two back

[telkanuru]

I think it is funny how everyone has been calling Bush a liar for 6 years and how happy they are when Bush actually tells one! How justified everyone must feel to finally have proof of their allegations. Bush will go down in history as a liar because he lied about Rumsfeld's resignation while Clinton will be remembered as the honest one. What I can't stand is people who let their personal love/hate for someone override the actual facts.

Um, Bush lied (and lies) about governmental affairs, reasons behind wars, the state of the nation, and other such things to the point of me thinking he can't be dumb enough to expect me to believe that, so he must think it's the truth, which I find even scarier.

Clinton lied about a blow job.

Yeah those things are exactly the same. Duh. Have inq tell you about reducio ad absurdam.

[I_luv_saber]

...so he must think it's the truth, which I find even scarier.

If he thinks it's the truth, then he wasn't purposely lying .

Clinton lied about a blow job.

Ah, okay, so that's all he did.

...Bush lied (and lies) about governmental affairs, reasons behind wars, the state of the nation, and other such things...

Oh, yes, a powerful political figure has never lied about such things. Bush is just enough of an idiot that he got caught.

[Inquartata]

Hey, this multi-quote thing is pretty spiffy.

This is about deliberately saying that Rumsfeld had his confidence and would be there for the duration of his term...

Have you a cite for a quote of Bush saying this? His exact words, I mean, not a general recollection of something to that effect...

Harriet Meirs.

Supreme Court Justice is a Cabinet or top staff position?!

Bush will go down in history as an abject failure, as well as an idiot of staggering proportions. (Rummy, just the former).

Behold, Pigeonmeister, who speaketh for History!

Dude, the self-claimed mantle of Posterity clashes with your magic mindreading beanie.

Um, Bush lied (and lies) about governmental affairs, reasons behind wars, the state of the nation,

We've been through all this before, and neither you nor John Kerry nor Michael Moore can prove any of it.

Clinton lied about a blow job.

Here is where you get to demonstrate your impartiality and unbiased vision.

Clinton's lie is the one which has been proven. That does not preclude the possibility that he did in fact lie about a whole lot of other things, but that those lies were never discovered or proven. The likelihood is that he did so, because this is what politicians do, and what statesmen sometimes MUST do.

So if you are going to assume that Bush has lied about things which have not been proven, you must assume the same of Clinton. If you are going to proceed as though Clinton "only" lied about the one proven lie, you must proceed the same way about Bush.

To assert that Bush lied promiscuously but Clinton only lied once because you believe it to be thus is at best disingenuous...

[RITFencing]

I've said it before and i'll say it again... the resemblence is just TOO strong:

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

[RoninX]

What you couldn't find a pic the the movie or the TV show?

[Philistine]

Have you a cite for a quote of Bush saying this? His exact words, I mean, not a general recollection of something to that effect...

Nov. 1, 2006:

"Both those men [Cheney and Rumsfeld]are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them," Bush said in an interview with The Associated Press and others.
{snip}
Bush credited Rumsfeld with overseeing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while overhauling the military. "I'm pleased with the progress we're making," the president said. He replied in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Rumsfeld and Cheney to stay with him until the end.

Story

Nov. 8, 2006:

REPORTER: Last week you told us Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now, and how much does it have to do with the election results?

BUSH: You and Hunt and Keil came into the Oval Office and asked me to question one week before the campaign. Basically, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? The reason why is I did not want to make a major decision in the final days of the campaign. The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you that answer. The truth of the matter is as well, that is one reason I gave the answer. The other reason why is I had not had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet. I had not had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet at that point. I had been talking with Don Rumsfeld over a period of time about fresh perspectives. He likes to call it fresh eyes.

Link

--Philistine

[Mr Epee]

Clinton lied about a blow job.

yeah, but who hasn't?

Riddle me that, Batman.

[Gamling]

Rumsfield blew it.

[Mr Epee]

Rumsfield blew it.

That's not a picture I needed in my head... ever.

[jeff]

Have you a cite for a quote of Bush saying this? His exact words, I mean, not a general recollection of something to that effect...

Philistine has answered the question for me - thanks! I distinctly remember seeing The Decider explicitly make his statements of support for Rumsfeld's performance and continued tenure in office, and I just viewed his post-election statement which included his explicit comment of why he didn't answer truthfully pre-election.

So yeah, this one's an open and shut lie. A lie that has been proven.

Frankly, in the big scheme of things, a politician falsely asserting support for an associate he's already preparing to dump is so common as to be a venial sin. They do that all the time, and it pales in comparison to the larger falsehoods they propagate. This time it is completely visible - you can just compare his statements before and after the election - so there's no ambiguity about whether or not he lied, and we don't have to have angels dancing on a pin-head as we did when we argued over whether his claim he "knew" there were WMD in Iraq constituted a lie.

He lied because it would have adversely impacted results in the election. He said so. It was purely a partisan political move.

It was stupid, too. He would have done better to fire Rumsfeld pre-election. He could have said "it's time for Rumsfeld to go and to get new leadership because of conditions in Iraq, and I'm going to do that regardless of political consequences". He could have gotten credit for taking a principled move and doing the right thing despite political risk. Now, he's seen to have delayed making things better for the country in order to try to preserve some short term partisan benefit. Shameful.

[umbrella]

I think it is funny how everyone has been calling Bush a liar for 6 years and how happy they are when Bush actually tells one! How justified everyone must feel to finally have proof of their allegations. Bush will go down in history as a liar because he lied about Rumsfeld's resignation while Clinton will be remembered as the honest one. What I can't stand is people who let their personal love/hate for someone override the actual facts.

I had lots of friends from countries that at least use socialist medicine. they find that it works well in their system, being able to help people of little means. However, that does not 'shield' them from political threats from the outside. So if it's used as a shield it doesn't work to any extent.

[Inquartata]

"Both those men [Cheney and Rumsfeld]are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them," Bush said in an interview with The Associated Press and others.

OK...not seeing any "lie" in that wording.

Where again did he say they were going to stay on and that Rumsfeld wouldn't resign?

He replied in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Rumsfeld and Cheney to stay with him until the end.

Again, where is the deliberate, knowing untruth?

To prove "lie" it's going to have to be something on the order of "He's going to stay to the end of my term" or "He isn't going anywhere" or "I'm not going to replace him". That or a direct negative reply to a question like "Are you going to replace Rumsfeld?"

[umbrella]

I thought it looked like time for a retirement for Mr. Rumsfield. He was a good leader, intellegent, seasoned and mature, not flying off the cuff with big decisions. The new man looks okay as well. Since we haven't seen him in the papers or elsewhere as a 'wild card', it looks like as pretty sound selection. The name is interesting inthat it brings to mind, our national loveaffair with Bill Gates.
xxx ooo,
Grandma

[jeff]

OK...not seeing any "lie" in that wording.

Where again did he say they were going to stay on and that Rumsfeld wouldn't resign?

Again, where is the deliberate, knowing untruth?

To prove "lie" it's going to have to be something on the order of "He's going to stay to the end of my term" or "He isn't going anywhere" or "I'm not going to replace him". That or a direct negative reply to a question like "Are you going to replace Rumsfeld?"

From that citation: "He replied in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Rumsfeld and Cheney to stay with him until the end." While he was preparing to sack him at that moment...

[Inquartata]

You can disprove "wanting"?

I want to do Eliza Dushku, but it doesn't mean it's going to happen, that I can make it happen or that I am "lying" about wanting it when it doesn't happen.

And you are going to have to do better than a paraphrase of a hearsay statement, too.

[Bayou Bum]

Um, Bush lied (and lies) about governmental affairs, reasons behind wars, the state of the nation, and other such things to the point of me thinking he can't be dumb enough to expect me to believe that, so he must think it's the truth, which I find even scarier.

Would you please state specific examples. If he has lied as much as you claim, it should be very easy.

[Philistine]

{snip}
To prove "lie" it's going to have to be something on the order of "He's going to stay to the end of my term" or "He isn't going anywhere" or "I'm not going to replace him". That or a direct negative reply to a question like "Are you going to replace Rumsfeld?"

How about:

"So you're expecting Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld, to stay on the rest of your time here?" asked Steve Holland of Reuters.

"Yes, I am," the president said.

Link

--Philistine

[jessicasimpson]

Clinton got impeached for lying

[jeff]

You can disprove "wanting"?

I want to do Eliza Dushku, but it doesn't mean it's going to happen, that I can make it happen or that I am "lying" about wanting it when it doesn't happen.

And you are going to have to do better than a paraphrase of a hearsay statement, too.

Yes, I can disprove "wanting". If I'm preparing to fire someone, I don't want him.

Sorry, I'm not a clipping service, and will let others find more specific quotes. I've seen Bush on TV numerous times saying that Rumsfeld was had his full support and confidence and was going to be kept instead of dismissed. Don't forget the remark he made after the announcement explaining why he wasn't honest before the election.


EDIT: I looked at Philistine's cite, which has:

"So you're expecting Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld, to stay on the rest of your time here?" asked Steve Holland of Reuters.

"Yes, I am," the president said.

Obviously he didn't expect Rumsfeld to stay on when he was about to sack him as soon as the elections were finished.