Yet another Bush lie - SOP for this administration [Archive]

Patrick Henry

11-09-2006, 11:24 AM

How many lies are acceptable for a president?
Bush’s latest lie has got me wondering how often the Bushniks will eagerly open wide and gratefully allow him to take a dump in their mouths.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/08/bush-lied-rumsfeld/

1 November 2006:
President Bush said Wednesday he wants Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain with him until the end of his presidency, extending a job guarantee to two of the most-vilified members of his administration. "Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them," Bush said in an interview with The Associated Press and others.

8 November 2006:
Bush admits that the only way to get reporters to stop bugging him with questions about Rummie was to lie through his teeth.

That’s just the latest in a long string of lying, without counting of course warrantless wiretaps, making up his own “intelligence reports” to start a war in Iraq, etc.

http://www.bushlies.net/index.html

Are any of the republican followers at all ashamed of following this guy?

FormerMarineGuy

11-09-2006, 11:29 AM

Are any of the republican followers at all ashamed of following this guy?

Just because one is a Republican, does not mean they FOLLOW Bush. If I am correct, there were Democrats who could not personally stand Clinton.

It is politics and all politicians are dirty, especially prior to a big election. If he were to state a week prior to the election that Rumsfield was going, all of the Democrats would have said it was politics, just in order to get more votes. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Giles

11-09-2006, 11:35 AM

Sadly, this is SOP for all politicians. There was a brilliant TV series called The Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Games_%28Australian_TV%29) made in Australia shortly before the Sydney Olympics -- a mockumentary supposedly about the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games. In one of the episodes, the minister in charge of the Olympics says that a particular public servant has his full support, and two of the SOCOG employees immediately comment that the public servant is just about to be sacked by the minister.

Count Blucher

11-09-2006, 11:47 AM

Just because one is a Republican, does not mean they FOLLOW Bush. If I am correct, there were Democrats who could not personally stand Clinton.

It is politics and all politicians are dirty, especially prior to a big election. If he were to state a week prior to the election that Rumsfield was going, all of the Democrats would have said it was politics, just in order to get more votes. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

All politicians play politics. Not all politicians are Liars. I seem to remember a vote to impeach based on a lie about consentual sex. What makes this new lie so much more acceptable from a sitting President than that old lie? Or do we need all press conferences from now on to be held Under Oath?

lieu

11-09-2006, 11:50 AM

Do you think he was actually intending to carry off a significant deception or just to defer attention until he got a "yes" from Gates?

Patrick Henry

11-09-2006, 11:51 AM

Just because one is a Republican, does not mean they FOLLOW Bush. If I am correct, there were Democrats who could not personally stand Clinton.

It is politics and all politicians are dirty, especially prior to a big election.Why did I have the small hope that it would take more than ONE post for some childish person to say "What about Clinton?"

Yes, all politicians are dirty, and I'm sure that all posters to an internet message board are pimply adolescents without jobs living in their parent's apartment who can't get laid. What other stereotypes can we offer?

Patrick Henry

11-09-2006, 11:54 AM

I seem to remember a vote to impeach based on a lie about consentual sex. What makes this new lie so much more acceptable from a sitting President than that old lie?I don't think you quite understand the Republican Mindset. Lying about sex under oath - horrendous crime! Impeachable!
Lying to the congress and to the public, with the hope of starting a Manly war in which Arabs get killed by the thousands - Highly commendable! Deserving of re-election!

D_Odds

11-09-2006, 11:55 AM

All politicians play politics. Not all politicians are Liars. I seem to remember a vote to impeach based on a lie about consentual sex. What makes this new lie so much more acceptable from a sitting President than that old lie? Or do we need all press conferences from now on to be held Under Oath?
Because one was under oath?

Not that I'm defending Starr and his idiocy in persuing that impeachment, but that's really the major difference.

Patrick Henry

11-09-2006, 11:57 AM

Do you think he was actually intending to carry off a significant deception or just to defer attention until he got a "yes" from Gates?I think he was lying through his teeth. His plan was:
If Republicans keep control of Congress, or at least the Senate, keep Rummy on.
Otherwise, replace him to appease the Republican party bigwigs who are undoubtedly pissed at Bush, secure in the knowledge that party members will find all sorts of excuses to justify the president's latest lie.

Patrick Henry

11-09-2006, 12:01 PM

I don't think you quite understand the Republican Mindset.I realize now that I am unfarily pigeonholing the Republicans. I forgot an important faction of the party, who thinks like this:
Bush doing warrantless spying - bad; Arab civilians getting killed in a purposeless war - bad; but saving the stem cells good! preventing gay marriage good!
And, of course, the clincher: lowering taxes so that I can buy a bigger SUV - most excellent! That's what REALLY matters. Sure, a few american soldiers are getting killed in Iraq, but they're low-income hispanics and blacks who were probably democrats anyway, so that's an acceptable trade-off.

lieu

11-09-2006, 12:09 PM

Meh, I don't think something this big happened overnight. He was merely trying to smooth the transition in a way that at least attempts to save face for all involved. A mistaken justification for war I get upset about. This... not so much. I actually was kinda encouraged by a lot of what happened yesterday. Even Pelosi said it's not a time for revenge. Call me naive but I'm gonna expect some bipartisan progress here first and view Bush's comments as simply one step in the way to that goal.

Lightnin'

11-09-2006, 12:15 PM

Because one was under oath?

Maybe I'm just being overly idealistic and naive, but it seems to me that the President should always be effectively "under oath" to the American public. I'm willing to grant an exception for necessarily classified stuff.

I really hate that most people don't view the presidency as the ultimate in public service- the president may lead us, but technically he's our employee.

Crotalus

11-09-2006, 12:52 PM

I realize now that I am unfarily pigeonholing the Republicans. I forgot an important faction of the party, who thinks like this:
Bush doing warrantless spying - bad; Arab civilians getting killed in a purposeless war - bad; but saving the stem cells good! preventing gay marriage good!
And, of course, the clincher: lowering taxes so that I can buy a bigger SUV - most excellent! That's what REALLY matters. Sure, a few american soldiers are getting killed in Iraq, but they're low-income hispanics and blacks who were probably democrats anyway, so that's an acceptable trade-off.Pro stemcell research, pro gay marriage, non SUV-driving Registered Republican here. None of my friends and relatives who have served or are serving in Iraq are black or hispanic or low-income. You come across as remarkably angry and stupid.

A couple of questions for you. Do you consider yourself a follower of politicians for whom you vote?

If the president was in the process of getting rid of Rumsfeld and lining up his replacement when he was questioned last week, how would you have liked him to answer the questions?

Are you familiar with the political cliche concerning the "vote of confidence"?

Marley23

11-09-2006, 12:57 PM

In one of the episodes, the minister in charge of the Olympics says that a particular public servant has his full support, and two of the SOCOG employees immediately comment that the public servant is just about to be sacked by the minister.
That happens all the time in sports. If you get a vote of confidence from management, you're toast.

FormerMarineGuy

11-09-2006, 01:00 PM

Why did I have the small hope that it would take more than ONE post for some childish person to say "What about Clinton?"

Yes, all politicians are dirty, and I'm sure that all posters to an internet message board are pimply adolescents without jobs living in their parent's apartment who can't get laid. What other stereotypes can we offer?

It was just a quick comparison using a person of power in recent American history. I personally thought Clinton was a good for president, minus the scandals.

I take it you hate Republicans, no matter what their point of view? Along with Crotalus, I am pro-gay marriage rights, pro-stem cell research, but my wife drives an SUV (and she is a Democrat, whether she admits it or not). I am for a womans right to choose, although I don't PERSONALLY see how someone could abort a baby because the pregnancy was not-planned. I am anti-welfare, pro-big business, and I can keep going on.

I do not consider myself your 'typical' Republican and am not a big fan of Bush. I dislike the fact there are only two major political parties, and have very little faith in 99% of politicians. But to band all people together and trash them because they belong to a certain party, I don't believe in that either.

drm

11-09-2006, 01:07 PM

First of all, let me say that I am as Left wing as they come and that I've never liked Bush.

I have to be honest with you, that was the first time in a long time where I respected the president. He was flat out honest. He said he didn't want the decision to effect the election and he didn't want to answer the question so he said what he could to move on to a different question. He was honest, good for him.

The situation today: The dems control the house and the senate and Rumsfeld is gone. Why not let this little white lie slide?

This is the honesty that I really respect. I just want one athlete accused of taking steroids to admit it. If Bonds or Landis or Giambi or Jones just said, "yes, I took steroids because I didn't think I'd get caught and I thought it was just the edge I needed but at the same time I am sorry because it's not something one can take back. All I can really do now is move on without them.", I'd have a tremendous amount of respect for them and would probably continue to cheer for them. These ridiculous defences they come up with and repeated denials just make me hate them even more

Count Blucher

11-09-2006, 01:09 PM

If the president was in the process of getting rid of Rumsfeld and lining up his replacement when he was questioned last week, how would you have liked him to answer the questions?

...Honestly?

No, that's my answer. I'd like him to answer Honestly. At all times. Or specifically say he will not answer that question.

PS- For your demographic, I'm neither angry nor ignorant; I just believe that the President should be held to the same code of conduct that those who serve under him are held to. I wonder what those who are held to an honor code think of being forced to report to a commander who lies without conscience or consequence and for his own personal gain?

Crotalus

11-09-2006, 01:26 PM

...Honestly?

No, that's my answer. I'd like him to answer Honestly. At all times. Or specifically say he will not answer that question.

PS- For your demographic, I'm neither angry nor ignorant; I just believe that the President should be held to the same code of conduct that those who serve under him are held to. I wonder what those who are held to an honor code think of being forced to report to a commander who lies without conscience or consequence and for his own personal gain?I can understand that in the abstract, the desire for a straight answer or a refusal to answer. Rumsfeld apparently agreed with you, with his "I could answer that question, but I won't" quips. In diplomacy and politics, there is a long history (not just in the US, not just one party, not just presidents) of saying misleading or even false things while events are taking place behind the scenes. Unfortunately, had the president refused to answer the questions last week, it would have been treated as tantamount to announcing Rumsfeld's departure.

The person I referred to as seeming angry and stupid was Patrick Henry, not you.

Polycarp

11-09-2006, 01:58 PM

Because one was under oath?

Not that I'm defending Starr and his idiocy in persuing that impeachment, but that's really the major difference.

So you are saying that it is completely acceptable for a top public official, in fact, the Chief Executive, to lie to the public to his heart's content, so long as he is not under oath at the time? If that really is the difference that people are drawing between the two, then the Republicans around here have much lower moral standards than I had thought.

For all of that, the first "signing statement" where Mr. Bush put in writing his intent to disregard any portion of a bill he was signing into law by it, he was arguably in violation of his Presidential oath of office. Perhaps some of the people who had such high dudgeon about Clinton -- not, of course, because he got a blowjob, but by their own repeated averrals, because he lied under oath -- might have something to say about that issue. I'd be exceedingly interested in seeing what distinction they draw there.

Oh, and as I've said previously, I am not in favor of impeaching Bush, at least not unless something Watergate-like in its dimensions should be uncovered. Like Madam Speaker-to-Be Pelosi, and unlike the House majority of 1998-99, I consider that something as "nuclear-option" in its effect as impeachment should not be used purely for political gain.

D_Odds

11-09-2006, 01:58 PM

Maybe I'm just being overly idealistic and naive, but it seems to me that the President should always be effectively "under oath" to the American public. I'm willing to grant an exception for necessarily classified stuff.

I really hate that most people don't view the presidency as the ultimate in public service- the president may lead us, but technically he's our employee.
It is idealistic and naïve.

In this situation, Bush-bashers (which I sometimes take part in) would be complaining either way. Either he would be tainting the election, regardless the eventual outcome, or he's prevaricating. When called on his earlier statement, he explained why he answered as he did, and his reasoning. Given how the president's every word is scrutinized in great detail, anything other than a strong, clear statement would have drawn attention away from the midterm elections.

Shayna

11-09-2006, 02:10 PM

I think he was lying through his teeth. His plan was:
If Republicans keep control of Congress, or at least the Senate, keep Rummy on.
Otherwise, replace him . . .

Meh, I don't think something this big happened overnight. He was merely trying to smooth the transition in a way that at least attempts to save face for all involved. lieu's actually got it right. I've known since August that Rummy was stepping down one way or another (insider info, given my job in the political consulting arena). They were just hoping for a better election result so they could not only retain their control, but come off looking like heroes for "doing the right thing." Unfortunately for them, they didn't get either result they wanted.

D_Odds

11-09-2006, 02:15 PM

So you are saying that it is completely acceptable for a top public official, in fact, the Chief Executive, to lie to the public to his heart's content, so long as he is not under oath at the time? If that really is the difference that people are drawing between the two, then the Republicans around here have much lower moral standards than I had thought.No I am not. I was pointing out why Pres. Clinton's particular lie regarding sex with an intern was potentially impeachable and Pres. Bush's lie about Rumsfeld's disposition was not. I'm not here to defend either Pres. Clinton or Pres. Bush in any way, shape, or form.

RedFury

11-09-2006, 02:20 PM

Oh, and as I've said previously, I am not in favor of impeaching Bush, at least not unless something Watergate-like in its dimensions should be uncovered. Like Madam Speaker-to-Be Pelosi, and unlike the House majority of 1998-99, I consider that something as "nuclear-option" in its effect as impeachment should not be used purely for political gain.

Poly,

I am not singling you out, just simply curious about the above statement, not only because I've heard it so much over the past 48 hours or so, but, because as you say, even Pelosi is of the same opinion -- along with almost all other Dem politicians I've listened to. Question is, if starting a murderous war with literally countless of casualties under false pretenses and factually proven to be cherry-picked intelligence, is not an impeachable crime, what in the name of High Heavens, is?

Why are so many of you (in the opposition) so eager to give the people responsible a free pass?

Perplexed.

Leviosaurus

11-09-2006, 02:25 PM

What really gets me about this is that Bush's initial statement - that he was keeping Rummy on - probably helped mobilize more anti-Republican sentiment and damaged the Republican's chance of holding the Senate. Bush just could have said "Who can tell what the future will hold?" and walked away clean. It might have been ambivalent enough to keep Allen in the lead in Virginia.

So:
- Bush, when backed into a corner, says the first thing that comes to his mind, and doesn't care if it's the truth

- Bush has no idea how people felt about Rummy or what the impact of his words would be.

D_Odds

11-09-2006, 02:33 PM

Shayna

11-09-2006, 02:41 PM

I'll go with the second. However, the last thing that would have happened had he said, "Who can tell what the future will hold?" or any other interpretable statement would have been the president walking away clean. Actually, neither of those is true. See my previous post just above. Rumsfeld's resignation has been planned and in the bag since at least August -- long before Bush was asked that question. Waiting until after the elections to make the official announcement was pure strategy. They really and truly thought they would keep scaring the populace into keeping them all in power, just like they've always been successful doing in the past. They overestimated their Mad Campaign Skilz. They've allowed their egos to become so overinflated due to win after win after win, that they honestly couldn't see the writing on the wall that sane, intelligent people could see a mile away. They really are that stupid.

Leviosaurus

11-09-2006, 02:44 PM

Actually, neither of those is true. See my previous post just above.Hmm, let me respond using your exact same technique:

Actually, both are true. Read my post.

What kind of response is that, anyway? Geez.

D_Odds

11-09-2006, 02:53 PM

I'm with Leviosaurus, Shayna. Bush didn't care that he was lying, because 'he had a plan'. Bush didn't realize the impact, because he thought he was going to win.

RedFury

11-09-2006, 02:55 PM

lieu's actually got it right. I've known since August that Rummy was stepping down one way or another (insider info, given my job in the political consulting arena). They were just hoping for a better election result so they could not only retain their control, but come off looking like heroes for "doing the right thing." Unfortunately for them, they didn't get either result they wanted.

I call "bullshit" on your "insider info." If this move caught every political pundit in the news media by surprise, allow me to doubt that you have better sources than say...CNN's Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre. Or for that matter, even the Top Military Brass.

Surely if what you say is true, it would have leaked long ago.

Shayna

11-09-2006, 03:06 PM

I call "bullshit" on your "insider info." If this move caught every political pundit in the news media by surprise, allow me to doubt that you have better sources than say...CNN's Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre. Or for that matter, even the Top Military Brass.

Surely if what you say is true, it would have leaked long ago. <shrug> Call "bullshit" all you want. Sometimes meetings and private dinners at people's homes really are closely held enough that big media people don't find out about them, but personal friends do. Funny thing is, I composed a post about it back when I learned it, but decided against posting it precisely because I figured no one would believe me anyway. So be it. That doesn't make it any less true.

D_Odds

11-09-2006, 03:07 PM

Ah yes, the call of the internet. "I call bullshit", "I call shenanigans" and so on. We all know that every last detail, both large and small, gets immediately leaked, and that no administration has any idea of operational security and how to avoid keeping information from being released.

Leviosaurus

11-09-2006, 03:28 PM

Revtim

11-09-2006, 03:34 PM

Funny thing is, I composed a post about it back when I learned it, but decided against posting it precisely because I figured no one would believe me anyway. So be it. That doesn't make it any less true.Why would you care if nobody believed you, when circumstances would have shown you to be correct?

Shayna

11-09-2006, 03:56 PM

Why would you care if nobody believed you, when circumstances would have shown you to be correct? I don't know, I was probably not in the mood for a pissing match or to be "called bullshit" on or whatever at the time. I compose a lot of posts that I think better of hitting 'Submit' on for one reason or another (and quite a few that I should have thought better of before posting, I admit). Despite how it may appear, some days I'm simply not in the mood for an argument. That doesn't make whatever I was about to post untrue, it just means I decided against posting it, and there doesn't have to be any better reason than, "Meh, let's just not go there right now." I don't think my work in the political consulting arena has ever been called into question in my 7 years of posting here, but if you'd rather not believe that I knew about this back in August, well, OK. I can't prove it to you, so by all means, feel free to dismiss me.

Loopydude

11-09-2006, 04:07 PM

Squink

11-09-2006, 04:15 PM

the timing couldn't have been worse for the Republican party.Ahh, but happening now it makes Bush look responsive to the will of the people.
Legacy dude, Legacy!

you with the face

11-09-2006, 04:20 PM

I understand why Bush didn't want to fire Rummy before the election because that would have added more negativity to the atmosphere and given the impression that there was in-house fighting going on. Granted, it's also possible that it would have made him look good, but that's hard to say. He has gotten much mileage out of being The Decisive Decider. So perhaps he decided to wait instead of take a gamble.

But if he knew that Rummy was going to be let go in the near future, he should have simply found a better way to deflect questions or given some non-answers. Because he chose the easy way out, his messed up on both sides. To many Republicans, he looks like he is capitulating to the pressures of his new Democratic overlords. To many Democrats, he looks like a liar.

To the folks in the middle (like myself), he looks like a guy who just doesn't what the hell he is saying or doing. This is an another example of him being an incompetent politician moreso than a liar.

Loopydude

11-09-2006, 04:24 PM

Ahh, but happening now it makes Bush look responsive to the will of the people.
Legacy dude, Legacy!

Responsive! Hee! Kind of like a drunk driver getting tasered is responsive! :D

elucidator

11-09-2006, 04:30 PM

Shocking. Positively shocking.

Plynck

11-09-2006, 06:26 PM

To the folks in the middle (like myself), he looks like a guy who just doesn't what the hell he is saying or doing. This is an another example of him being an incompetent politician moreso than a liar.Well, I'm on the left rather than the middle, but I agree wholeheartedly. If this was in the works for months (and it certainly has been discussed for months), then Bush could have arranged behind the scenes for the House and Senate Republicans to call for Rumsfeld's resignation. It might have given them the edge in this mid-term election, and done no real harm to a lame duck presidency. And it would have mollified those in the military who have been calling for this very thing. This is a trump card that was thrown away. Karl Rove is clearly off his game.

Carol Stream

11-09-2006, 09:27 PM

<shrug> Call "bullshit" all you want. Sometimes meetings and private dinners at people's homes really are closely held enough that big media people don't find out about them, but personal friends do.

Where did these meetings and private dinners take place, Washington, DC? Crawford, TX?

I doubt very much Bush Administration, Cabinet-level strategerizing takes place in Redondo Beach, CA.

marshmallow

11-09-2006, 09:36 PM

If one were to make a calendar with a Bush lie for every day you may have to use this one, because it's kinda funny. But it doesn't even give out a ping on the outrage meter. Try again.

matt_mcl

11-09-2006, 09:42 PM

All politicians play politics. Not all politicians are Liars.

Well put; thank you.

Loopydude

11-09-2006, 10:03 PM

I tend to agree with mstay that on the scale of political deceptions, especially when calibrated for this administration, this one ranks pretty low, and doesn't seem to have helped BushCo a terrible lot.

RedFury

11-09-2006, 11:04 PM

<shrug> Call "bullshit" all you want. Sometimes meetings and private dinners at people's homes really are closely held enough that big media people don't find out about them, but personal friends do. Funny thing is, I composed a post about it back when I learned it, but decided against posting it precisely because I figured no one would believe me anyway. So be it. That doesn't make it any less true.

Yep, like I said, Jamie McIntyre has nothing on you. In fact, he pales by comparison. As do the highest ranking military officers of the nation.

Quite an act you've got going there: Oh, I'm sooooo important that I'm privy to incredibly covert information way ahead of the richest and most powerful media conglomerates in the world...that I almost shared as a National Exclusive on a lowly SDMB post but decided against it in the last minute. After all, not like I need more riches or fame.

When you write your Memoirs, may I ask you to autograph a copy just for me? Something to the tune of: "From a VIP Government insider, to a clueless plebe, with much affection.

Lady Shayna, Queen of Washington insiders, shakers and movers."

Thanx.

:rolleyes:

RedFury

11-09-2006, 11:07 PM

plebe = pissant

:smack:

D_Odds

11-10-2006, 09:17 AM

Where did these meetings and private dinners take place, Washington, DC? Crawford, TX?

I doubt very much Bush Administration, Cabinet-level strategerizing takes place in Redondo Beach, CA.
I have lived in Queens, NY for over the past dozen years. I have worked in downtown NYC (multiple sites), midtown NYC (multiple sites), Jersey City, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, Vienna (VA), Chicago, Scottsdale (AZ), Los Angeles, Bermuda*, and London. I'm looking forward to a couple of weeks in San Diego in January.

Consultants are a very mobile lot.

*In hurricane season, of course. Heaven forbid I get to go to Bermuda in the dead of winter - I get constant rain (no hurricane, though).

Apos

11-10-2006, 10:14 AM

What's interesting is not that Bush lied, but that he so brazenly not only seemed to admit to lying but even explained WHY he lied... and then got all testy when people asked confused questions about the discrepancy!

Figaro

11-10-2006, 10:20 AM

Whose brilliant idea was it to wait on the resignation, if it was planned? It seems in retrospect many would-be fence-sitters or even Republican voters cast their ballots for Dem. candidates to punish Bush for, among other things, retaining Rumsfeld despite him having about the lowest approval rating of anyone in the administration. If it was really so easy to just drop him, the timing couldn't have been worse for the Republican party.That was my first impression, too, but it ignores the basic strategy employed in all cases by the Shrub: Act "strong." Never change your mind. He wasn't trying to stem the tide of Anti-Bush sentiment during this election cycle. He was trying to mobilize the pro-Bush "we admire stubbornness" sentiment.