Pants on fire (Jack Bog's Blog)

Our fearless leader can't even lie well:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Last week you told us that Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now for this? And how much does it have to do with the election results?

BUSH: Right.

No, you and Hunt and Kyle (ph) came in the Oval Office and you asked -- Hunt asked me the question one week before the campaign, and basically it was: You going to do something about Rumsfeld and the vice president? And my answer was, you know, they're going to stay on.

And the reason why is I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign.

And so the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer.

The truth of the matter is, as well -- I mean, that's one reason I gave the answer. But the other reason why is I hadn't had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet, and I hadn't had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet, at that point.

I have been talking with Don Rumsfeld over a period of time about fresh perspective. He likes to call it fresh eyes. He, himself, understands that Iraq is not working well enough, fast enough.

And he and I are constantly assessing, and I'm assessing, as well, all the time, by myself, about: Do we have the right people in the right place with the right strategy? As you know, we're constantly changing tactics. And that requires constant assessment.

And so he and I both agreed in our meeting yesterday that it was appropriate that I accept his resignation. And so, the decision was made -- actually, I thought we were going to do fine yesterday. Shows what I know. But I thought we were going to be fine in the election.

My point to you is that, win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee.

Oh, and he's a uniter, not a divider again. Sorry, Bill McDonald, you'll never be this funny. Read the whole thing here.

Comments (7)

I can't help but think that a lot of the closer races lost by the GOP might have gone their way had Bush canned Rummy back in mid October and let various GOP candidates pitch this to voters as a new strategy for Iraq. But, no, the man stubbornly clung to Rummy, and let this in turn drag down a whole slate of candidates. I'm not saying the GOP would have held the House and/or Senate w/ Rummy gone, but it would have been one less issue that turned off the voters.

Quite surprising that vaunted master of strategery Karl Rove didn't figure this out.

Posted by Dave J. | November 8, 2006 2:43 PM

Holy cow...I need a nap after reading that.

Posted by Jon | November 8, 2006 2:48 PM

I get dizzy just reading it.

On one hand, press conferences are entertaining. Just reading the transcripts is a hoot. At the same, what is the point? Why ask questions that no one ever answers?

Posted by ellie | November 8, 2006 2:59 PM

W said "I hired Rummy before I fired him."

And they say Kerry can't tell a joke.

The joke, though, is UP!

And the Bush Era is over, which is why Karl Rove is in a rubber suit in a mental hospital in Northern Virginia somewhere.

"Karl, Foley".

"Foley, Karl".

"You two must have so much to talk about!"

Posted by Daphne | November 8, 2006 4:24 PM

There were many outstanding comedy bits during the press conference. How about when he said he was looking forward to working with Nancy Pelosi?

Posted by Bill McDonald | November 8, 2006 4:32 PM

I think it likely cost him two or three Senate seats.

The four military times newspapers (Army Times, Navy Times, etc.) all ran editorials the day before the election calling for Rumsfeld's ouster. When asked about their timing - so close to the election - they answered that they studiously decline to be political. Their stated reason for running it when they did was as a reply to Bush's statement last week about keeping Rumsfeld to thhe end of his administration.

I don't know if that's what really drove their decision, of course, but let's take it at face value for the moment.

Those editorials surely cost the Republicans a large number of voters who were undecided on Monday... very possibly enough to be decisive in MO, MT, or VA.

Bush has got to be tasting some shoe polish on this one.

Posted by Alan DeWitt | November 8, 2006 4:38 PM

Aw...gee.

And it used to be conventional wisdom that the bulk of absentee voters would be military personnel expected to vote conservative and pro-war.

I guess those articles are part of why we never heard the pundits carefully warning about the absentee ballots in those close races, huh?

Posted by godfry | November 8, 2006 11:03 PM

Search this site

About

Clippings

Archives

Links

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, November 8, 2006

Pants on fire

Comments (7)

Sponsors

In Vino Veritas

The Occasional Book

Road Work