Bush Admits He Lied (video)

Oh come on! That is barely a lie, if at all. He shouldn't be attacked for something so inconsequential as that. Damn, that lie is almost as inconsequential as that one that Clinton told about not getting his dick sucked by that chunky lady. What was her name again?

Brandon, do you realize what a laughing stock you have become here? Anyone with an ounce of pride would have quietly slithered away long ago.

You miss the point. He casually and cavalierly admitted he lied. That is the issue. He is not only a liar, he is pathological.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Brandon, do you realize what a laughing stock you have become here? Anyone with an ounce of pride would have quietly slithered away long ago.

GOP furious about timing of Rumsfeld resignation
By Patrick O'Connor

Donald Rumsfeld's abrupt resignation from the Pentagon the day after Republicans lost both chambers of Congress has infuriated some GOP officials on and off Capitol Hill.

Members and staff still reeling from Tuesday's rout are furious about the administration's decision to dump the controversial defense secretary one day after their historic loss, they said in a series of interviews about the election results.

President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation on Wednesday and named Bob Gates, a former CIA chief and president of Texas A&M University, as his replacement.

"The White House said keeping the majority was a priority, but they failed to do the one thing that could have made a difference," one House GOP leadership aide said Thursday. "For them to toss Rumsfeld one day after the election was a slap in the face to everyone who worked hard to protect the majority."

Exit polling suggested that an overwhelming majority of voters disapproved of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, and members and aides were frustrated with the timing of the announcement because an earlier resignation could have given them a boost on the campaign trail, they believe.

"They did this to protect themselves, but they couldn't protect us?" another Republican aide said yesterday.

White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten called outgoing House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) on Wednesday morning to notify him of the move, Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said Thursday. A spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the White House also notified the House leader before the news was announced.

Citing the various scandals that have roiled the Republican Congress, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow Thursday downplayed the impact of the war in Iraq on Tuesday's election.

"The voters said, 'You know what, we expect you to come to Washington and do the people's business,'" Snow said during his regular press briefing Thursday. "And when people lose sight of that, voters tend to remind them of the priorities. That's 10 seats right there."

The working relationship between Bush and congressional Republicans will be an interesting subplot for the next Congress as the GOP adjusts to its new role in the minority.

Relations between the president and Republicans on the Hill have frayed dramatically since he began his second term, with GOP lawmakers placing increased blame on the administration for its perceived inability to reach to members and staff on legislation, personnel moves and its interpretation of the legal code in the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists.

Republicans cite the fumbled rollout of Social Security reform, the administration's continued support of comprehensive immigration reform and the president's insistence to defend American involvement in Iraq on the campaign trail.

There were also very public spats between Hastert and the administration over an FBI raid on Rep. William Jefferson's (D-La.) congressional office and a major split over the near acquisition of port operations in six major cities by a firm based in Dubai.

Bush met with Boehner, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Thursday morning.

Had Bush removed Rumsfeld before the election it would have appeared as nothing more then a cheap political move by Rove to try to win the elections. By doing immediately after the elections, it shows that Bush is indeed the "decider" and has "decided" to make some changes.

McGentrix wrote:

Had Bush removed Rumsfeld before the election it would have appeared as nothing more then a cheap political move by Rove to try to win the elections. By doing immediately after the elections, it shows that Bush is indeed the "decider" and has "decided" to make some changes.

Disagree. The demand for Rumsfeld removal has been going on for some time. The removal of Rumsfeld would tell the nation and the world that a new course must be and will be taken in Iraq by the Bush administration. He tried to give this message but he contradicted it by keeping Rumsfeld. Again, as we see often in this administration, the action does not back up the talk.

The removal of Rumsfeld had to be done before the election if Bush was to convince the electorate that he was sincere in seeking new solutions for Iraq. I suspect Bush would not have fired Rumsfeld if the Republicans had retained the House and Senate. But with the loss of Congress the hand writing was on the wall; Rumsfeld had to go. The Democrats would never allow him to stay. They would make life hell for Bush if he kept him on.

xingu wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Had Bush removed Rumsfeld before the election it would have appeared as nothing more then a cheap political move by Rove to try to win the elections. By doing immediately after the elections, it shows that Bush is indeed the "decider" and has "decided" to make some changes.

Disagree. The demand for Rumsfeld removal has been going on for some time. The removal of Rumsfeld would tell the nation and the world that a new course must be and will be taken in Iraq by the Bush administration. He tried to give this message but he contradicted it by keeping Rumsfeld. Again, as we see often in this administration, the action does not back up the talk.

The removal of Rumsfeld had to be done before the election if Bush was to convince the electorate that he was sincere in seeking new solutions for Iraq. I suspect Bush would not have fired Rumsfeld if the Republicans had retained the House and Senate. But with the loss of Congress the hand writing was on the wall; Rumsfeld had to go. The Democrats would never allow him to stay. They would make life hell for Bush if he kept him on.

What exactly is it that Rumsfeld was personally responsible for, that removing him indicates might now take a new direction? The only thing I can see that he personally bears the blame for is not beating the insurgents. Removing him certainly does not indicate a re-thinking either of the decision to invade, or of the decision to continue with the battle, since he was not responsible for those policies.

Well then, exactly what "changes" was the "decider" indicating he was willing to make, when he did release Rumsfeld?

Brandon9000 wrote:

xingu wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Had Bush removed Rumsfeld before the election it would have appeared as nothing more then a cheap political move by Rove to try to win the elections. By doing immediately after the elections, it shows that Bush is indeed the "decider" and has "decided" to make some changes.

Disagree. The demand for Rumsfeld removal has been going on for some time. The removal of Rumsfeld would tell the nation and the world that a new course must be and will be taken in Iraq by the Bush administration. He tried to give this message but he contradicted it by keeping Rumsfeld. Again, as we see often in this administration, the action does not back up the talk.

The removal of Rumsfeld had to be done before the election if Bush was to convince the electorate that he was sincere in seeking new solutions for Iraq. I suspect Bush would not have fired Rumsfeld if the Republicans had retained the House and Senate. But with the loss of Congress the hand writing was on the wall; Rumsfeld had to go. The Democrats would never allow him to stay. They would make life hell for Bush if he kept him on.

What exactly is it that Rumsfeld was personally responsible for, that removing him indicates might now take a new direction? The only thing I can see that he personally bears the blame for is not beating the insurgents. Removing him certainly does not indicate a re-thinking either of the decision to invade, or of the decision to continue with the battle, since he was not responsible for those policies.

I see you don't keep up with the times. If your that ignorant at this stage of the game then there is nothing I can say to enlighten you.

Did I say it was better timing?

No, I said it would have appeared to be nothing more then a cheap political move to appear to try to win the elections. Imagine the field day the liberal media outlets would have had over that decision just prior to the elections.

Gates was a member on the Iraq Study Group chaired by Baker. No doubt a close inspection of their report will give an indication of the direction he will try to go.