all the time before elections that he will keep Rumsfeld serving until the end of his term, and that Rumsfeld decided to resign on his own only yesterday?
Is our president trying to confuse us?
Why can't Bush ever keep his stories straight?
2006-11-09 09:31:05 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Oooohh yeah right. Bush "never" misleads the people"...
Typical close-minded ignorant redneck conservatives.
2006-11-09 09:36:27 · update #1
You just can't trust anything Bush says.
Here's my take on the Rumsfeld resignation. With Democrats taking control of the House and Senate, they will begin investigations for the Bush administration's failures and most likely more. I am really wondering why Republicans have had private talks with Henry Kissinger very recently. Quite possibly, damage control. If you look back to the 70's, Kissinger was part of the Nixon team, when Watergate was investigated.
Bush is trying to raise his popularity rating whether he'll admit it or not. He'll say anything to make himself look good. Bush only confuses himself not us, not all of us. Bush can't keep the story straight because, he doesn't understand the plot. I think he may finally begin to realize that it's not about him. I am wondering if anyone else saw that none of Bush's best buds were present at the press conference yesterday. No Cheney, no Laura Bush. Does Bush have children anymore?Parents? Must be lonely in the Duck Pond.
2006-11-09 17:36:34 · answer #1 · answered by Schona 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He was just trying to look strong before elections. If he would have fired Rumsfeld before the election would have been like a cut and run policy which he made so many jokes about it, now that he lost senate and house he did to keep those supporters on the hook, although they try to make it look like Rumsfeld reach retirement when he resign and I will not be surprised if they give him some sort of condecoration and or retirement pay.
Simply put is just more dirt to feed the worms...if you know what I mean.
2006-11-09 18:05:33 · answer #2 · answered by Jose R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He said it was becuase it was election time so he had to say that.
"BUSH: Right.
No, you and [wire service reporters Terence] Hunt and Kyle 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."
2006-11-09 17:33:58 · answer #3 · answered by E 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If Rumsfeld had left before the election, you know you would be on here shouting about how it was just a political move to influence the election. Just accept the fact that you hate Bush and that nothing he does will ever be good enough for you and go on believing that when we get a Democrat president, he will never lie and flowers will never wilt and it won't ever rain on the weekends.
2006-11-09 17:42:01 · answer #4 · answered by BigRichGuy 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If Bush had fired Rumsfeld a month before the election, the GOP would have at least kept control of the Senate. Instead, he was incompetent, as always, and blew it.
What goes "quack, quack, tax cuts for the rich, quack"????
2006-11-09 17:34:59 · answer #5 · answered by truth be told 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It had been decided that if the Democrats took either house that it would be seen as a reprimand of our policy in Iraq and that Rumsfeld would step down to take responsibility. Who did the deciding, I don't know. We do know who the decider is, though.
2006-11-09 17:34:02 · answer #6 · answered by Chris J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Bush was told what could go down and he wanted to take the bang out of the Democrat's winning . I also believe he didn't fool anyone with his tactics with Rumfield, some of his own Buddy's wanted Rumfield out. I enjoy his dancing around with each word at the press conference as he tried to not look like he got a thumping. Some of the reporters had him jumping through hoops.
2006-11-09 19:08:19 · answer #7 · answered by honest abe 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rumsfeld only reigned because he was scared. He was scared that the Dems have contol of the House. If he were to have stayed in office, he would have been under investigation, and put on trial before Congress on his record. Now he is a private citizen, and Congress cannot force him to appear before them. What a chicken!
2006-11-09 17:39:30 · answer #8 · answered by Andy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
THe deal is that Rummy wanted to resign before the election, that Rove and Bush thought that would hurt republican chances, so they asked him to wait until after the election. That is also why Bush was saying those things about Rummy before the election, because he thought he would get votes and "energize his base".
Oh, I forgot, Bush would never do anything for purely political reasons, so I must be wrong...not.
2006-11-09 17:35:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
US troops were kept in limbo (the borders of Hell) for the hopes of the Republican party to be reelected,, for political gain,, Bush is clearly not for the troops,, he is a GOP good ole boy,,, how many lives were lost just while he was out campaigning
2006-11-09 17:36:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋