Posted on 12/09/2006 3:34:49 PM PST by advance_copy
You're calling Rumsfeld a liar too. I figured you would.
At least you're consistent.
btw, did you see the interview, or are you just blowing smoke through your empty chimney?
Watch the interview, and come back and tell us all that Donald Rumsfeld, whom you claim to support, was lying all through that interview.
Go ahead. Do it.
You are such a jerk.
And you are on record as calling Donald Rumsfeld a liar.
Only one of us supports this great SoD, and it sure ain't you.
Case closed.
Not only in Washington; such happens everywhere. A person (executive, usually) will be told they need to resign, or they will be ingloriously fired. They will hand in the resignation and save face, saying it is "time to move on" while the employer pays lip service to their hard work and describes the desire to "move ahead in a new direction." You don't say that they're lying, but it's not entirely honest, either. It's just smart business.
In this case it doesn't mean Bush really wanted Rumsfeld to go personally, or that they had any kind of split; I feel Bush was responding to the political pressure from both sides, perhaps, and saw no other way. But do I believe Rumsfeld was/is content to leave? Not for a minute. Anyone who believes in what they are doing wants the opportunity to see it through, as long as they possibly can. jmho.
"Nothing of the sort. Rumsfeld was forced to resign, i.e., fired. Rumsfeld was just being a team player to the very end and putting a good face on a bad situation. It is done all the time in Washington."
Since "It is done all the time in Washington.", I am sure you will not mind listing at least 10 people who were fired, in Washington that continued to do their job for over a month.
"You are such a jerk."
Do you call that "debate"?
"Not only in Washington; such happens everywhere. A person (executive, usually) will be told they need to resign, or they will be ingloriously fired. They will hand in the resignation and save face, saying it is "time to move on" while the employer pays lip service to their hard work and describes the desire to "move ahead in a new direction." You don't say that they're lying, but it's not entirely honest, either. It's just smart business.
In this case it doesn't mean Bush really wanted Rumsfeld to go personally, or that they had any kind of split; I feel Bush was responding to the political pressure from both sides, perhaps, and saw no other way. But do I believe Rumsfeld was/is content to leave? Not for a minute. Anyone who believes in what they are doing wants the opportunity to see it through, as long as they possibly can. jmho."
Please see my post # 205 and respond with names of people who were fired and continued to do the same job they were fired for over a month after the firing. Then name some who were in security positions and did not have their security clearance removed.
I agree with your analysis. I don't believe that Rumsfeld wanted to go and would have served at the pleasure of the President for as long as he could.
How low have we sunk to dishonor this man in this way? Our nation has been weakened, not strengthened by this.
Huh? What in the world is your point? This isn't Wal-Mart, they weren't worried he was going to steal from the register or grab a bunch of office supplies on his way out. Two weeks, a month, two months - the result is the same. The decision was purely political. I've no doubt Rumsfeld didn't like it, he wanted to stay on, but what was he to do? Defy the administration?
Or, are you saying Rumsefeld suddenly decided his job was done and he 'retired' of his own free will? At this point in the Iraq conflict, that would be completely illogical. Go look up the definition of "naive" and let me know if the shoe fits.
CLASS!
"Huh? What in the world is your point? This isn't Wal-Mart, they weren't worried he was going to steal from the register or grab a bunch of office supplies on his way out. Two weeks, a month, two months - the result is the same. The decision was purely political. I've no doubt Rumsfeld didn't like it, he wanted to stay on, but what was he to do? Defy the administration?"
I take that to mean you can not name one single person that was fired, yet retained the position for over a month.
If politics was the reason, Rumsfeld would not have been at the President's side when President Bush announced his replacement, much less continued working for a month.
If politics was the reason, Rumsfeld would not have been at the President's side when President Bush announced his replacement, much less continued working for a month.
Okaaaay, let me make this real simple: Is it your position/opinion that Rumsfeld resigned entirely of his own accord, because he is ready to retire, and the decision was the result of no political implications or pressure from the administration?
"I take that to mean you can not name one single person that was fired, yet retained the position for over a month.
If politics was the reason, Rumsfeld would not have been at the President's side when President Bush announced his replacement, much less continued working for a month.
Okaaaay, let me make this real simple: Is it your position/opinion that Rumsfeld resigned entirely of his own accord, because he is ready to retire, and the decision was the result of no political implications or pressure from the administration?"
I asked a question. Please answer the question. Rumsfeld is still the Secretary of Defense, he was at the President's side when the President announce the nominee to replace Rumsfeld. Name the names of when this has happened in the past and the person leaving was fired, or there was a political statement to make.
Whether fired or political for the President, Rumsfeld would have been gone on November 8, 2006, not a day later, he also would not have been at the side of the President when Gates name was announced. If this was a political decision to get rid of Rumsfeld, he sure would not have been at the President's side when the Gates announcement was made.
Also, Rumsfeld says it was his decision alone.
You have no proof to back up your opinion. All the evidence points to Rumsfeld made the decision by himself, unless you can give proof to the contrary, you do not have a leg to stand on. You are involving yourself in rumor mongering because you want to believe something inspite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Either put up some evidence to the contrary or just stop this conversation.
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.