Posted on 11/10/2006 4:17:21 AM PST by floridareader1
Did the president of the United States make a rare admission on national television that he had told an untruth?
Or had he merely engaged in a dodge of the sort that is common in politics?
Journalists by nature shy from pinning the "liar" label on any political leader, but President Bush's acknowledgments that he had not been forthcoming about his plans to dump Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have kicked up a fuss at the White House and sparked a debate about the limits of presidential evasion.
Six days before the election, Bush told three wire-service reporters in an interview that Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney were doing "fantastic" jobs.
"You see them staying with you until the end?" asked Terence Hunt of the Associated Press.
"I do," Bush replied.
"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.
On Wednesday, the day after the election, Bush at a news conference said that "that kind of question, a wise question by a seasoned reporter, is the kind of thing that causes one to either inject major military decisions at the end of a campaign, or not. And I have made the decision that I wasn't going to be talking about hypothetical troop levels or changes in command structure coming down the stretch."
The president added that he had not made a definitive decision because he had not held his "last" conversation with Rumsfeld and had not yet spoken to Robert Gates, his nominee to take over the Pentagon.
Was that on par with President Bill Clinton's hair-splitting defense in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation that "it all depends on what the definition of is is"?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I didn't say that. Supporting your staff and not blaming underlings for a difficult war is a sign of strength. I'm not saying it would be fair, but if Bush dumps Rumsfeld before the election, the media screams "Ha! They're falling apart and trying to find a scape-goat!".
I respect your opinion but don't understand how you've arrived at your conclusion.
I thought it was pretty selfless of Rumsfeld to jump on the grenade for the President. If Rumsfeld had chosen, he could have stayed on. The President - being a man of his word - would have stuck by SECDEF. SECDEF - being a man - chose not to let the dims and media use as a weapon to attack the President.
This is a Washington Post piece.
Sorry if I am not being politically correct. I was a strong supporter of Bush , but his profligacy in spending, entitlements, and his handling of Rumsfeld raise questions.
"So you're expecting Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld, to stay on the rest of your time here?" asked Steve Holland of Reuters.
It obviously depends on the definition of "here". If W mean "here" as in "here at this interview", the answer was entirely correct. Worked for Bill.
I've already quoted Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris. I think Hugh Hewitt said the same thing.
Those are opinions, not evidence. Please provide something other than personal opinions to support your position that the Republicans would have retained the Senate.
Get over it. The democrats are the target. We've got two years to clean their clocks.
Wow! Coulda fooled me!!!!
This way he gets his amnesty for illegals.
Well...of course YOU just don't understand the complexity of it all. The nuance. The depth. The intellectualism or the wisdom behind todays new media. You DO understand, don't you? That's why YOU are not qualified to be a professional, talented, well educated, omnipotent (pompous ass) journalist.
Nobody is under any obligation to tell the press anything. Neither Bush nor any other president announces his staff changes by casually dropping them in a a press interview, and it was a stupid and unfair question to which they could not have possibly have expected a realistic answer. The question was asked simply to keep the "dump Rumsfeld" mantra in the public mind.
Yeah. It's all a vast right wing conspiracy.
No war for amnesty!
Rumsfeld was target No. 1 for the moonbats, right after Bush himself.
Their intent was going to be to drag him up to the Hill constantly and embarass both him and the President.
So, Bush took that card off the table. Smart move
In two weeks, Rummy will be playing golf and you won't find him on DU except in an archive search
Life goes on.
Sometimes honesty is the best policy. And since he meets with Rumsfeld on a regular basis, he could have given him a heads up. He had already interview Gates for the DefSec position, so he obviously was dissatisfied with Rumsfeld's performance.
I just wish he would have announced it prior to the election. A lot of good people like Rep. Ann Northrup were left twisting in the wind.
I think we all agree that it is different if a Democrat tells an untruth and if a Republican tells an untruth.
Did it ever occur to anyone that anytime there are cabinet changes there are also international implications? Afterall, we are at war and Rummy is the Secretary of Defense. We have had high drama with NK, Iran, etc. and maybe, just maybe there is more than just politics involved. Frankly, who cares.
mplsconservative
Since Apr 23, 2003
Looks like a WashPost article...
Since Bush fired Rumsfeld on Wednesday, he must have been dissatisfied with Rumy's job performance. That dissatisfaction did not occur overnight - it must have been brewing for some time.
So why would Bush fire him the day AFTER the election, when firing him a month before the election would have helped Pub chances at the polls?
Could Bush be sucking up to the Rats so he can build his legacy - open borders with Mexico & a money filled AMNESTY program for illegals?
Bush knew there was no good legacy to be had in Iraq. Social Sec. reform - not a chance. But "solving" the illegals problem - that might be doable, with the Rats help. He knew a Pub controlled congress during his last 2 years would never pass an amnesty bill, but a Rat controlled congress might. And to attain that, he did not have to do anything, until the day after the election.
You mean democrats and neocons(Ex-democrats)... are the turncoats.. and prospective turncoats.. A solid republican would never do that..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.