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.
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.
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.
Sadly, this is SOP for all politicians. There was a brilliant TV series called The Games 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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
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?
[Rant]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[/Rant]
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.
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.
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.