bush said 2 week before the elet.that rumsfelt is to stay the next 2 years
but new he was going to let him, go depending on the outcome of
the elect.so he lied for votes noing it us going to be close .didnt wont to lose vote by letting us fineout to soon but he lost anyway???????????
2006-11-10 14:00:20 · 11 answers · asked by corflaten 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html
Its not so much Bush's speech but his back-peddling answers to the questions that followed that makes one doubt his honesty and integrity.
The war and Rumsfeld issues were part and parcel of the election. Nobody can deny that. I would understand a decision to keep quiet the acceptance of the resignation of a key player just prior to an important election.
But, on the same hand - that being the avoidance of riling the masses and votes being cast out of anger and/or fear -, the President should not have made any statements to the effect that terrorists win, America loses if Dems gain power in Congress. Truth doesn't run both ways, only lies and deception.
Rumsfeld has stated frequently that he has tendered his resignation in the past, but Bush refused to accept it. Only now, Bush talks of "fresh perspective". Balderdash.
This wasn't a presidential election, Bush had no votes to lose. But, his base is now opening their eyes. I sure hope their awakening is due to their respect of their constituents/former constituents and not just self-preservation.
I hope these next two years don't leave George lame.
I would rather have the two branches working together instead of fighting each other.
2006-11-10 16:19:28 · answer #1 · answered by buggeredmom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is a little hard to follow but how did he lie to get votes by waiting to accept the resignation of Rumsfeld until AFTER the election? If Rumsfeld was one of the sticking points with the Democrats, wouldn't it have been better to let him go before the election? That doesn't even make sense! Look, if you wanted him gone, what's the problem? Celebrate--and learn a bit of English grammar and syntax and spelling while your at it.
2006-11-10 22:07:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He didn't want to do it before the election for political reasons. I'm sure bothBush & Rumsfeld were planning this well before.
2006-11-10 22:34:23 · answer #3 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
first, everyone has been wanting the exit of Rumsfield. Bush, if he were trying to sway the election, would have announced Rumsfield's departure. that would have surely been better for him than keeping him.
2006-11-10 22:05:35 · answer #4 · answered by Teresa A 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Rummy is changing parties, he coming back as a democrap.
2006-11-11 11:50:53 · answer #5 · answered by fmf3 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think it would have help us out more if the news came before nov,7,i not saying i didn't like rumsfelt,but a lot of people hated him
2006-11-10 22:08:42 · answer #6 · answered by ny giants 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What makes you think Bush or anybody has to tell you or any reporter anything? He doesn't.
2006-11-10 22:37:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sec of Def donald Rumsfeld went of his own accord and resigned in order to get some fresh ideas on the war on terror!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-11-10 22:19:48 · answer #8 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rummy went of his own accord "he quit" get the facts!
2006-11-10 22:05:12 · answer #9 · answered by no one here gets out alive 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Why are you surprised , that's what he does best is lie
2006-11-10 22:23:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋