The Reality-Based Community

It certainly sounds like that's what he said. And if he wanted to avoid announcing a change before the election, he could have done so without categorically saying there'd be none. Competent politicians know how to avoid giving away their hand without lying. The weird thing today was how blandly he acknowledged the misdirection.

But it's just one more thing: I assume that authoritative reporters will parse his comments very charitably, esp. in the current situation. NBC & ABC have already explained it away.

If he had acknowledged Rummy was leaving before the election, it would have been torpedoed as an election move to save congressional seats.

Perhaps, Bush had a bit of couth and doing things in an honorable manner for it is better to for Rummy to leave under his own terms than to be forced out by an election cycle.

Rumsfeld has served this country a long time. Despite your opinion on his actions, he still served.

Ty, Rumsfield has disserved his country far more than he has served it. He told the experts to f*ck off, and disregared their advice. When it was clear to many, if not most, Americans that things were going downhill in Iraq, he 'stayed the course' - the course into the rocks.

In the end, he was just a dumbf*ck pilot, who didn't understand the reasons for large ground forces.

Good riddance to rubbish.

Instead of lying, an evasive answer or a simple 'no comment' would have shown some minimal concern for honesty. But what does that have to do with this administration?

Rumsfeld has served this country a long time. Despite your opinion on his actions, he still served.

You know, I think some folk take that 'service' thing too far.

Rummy served to enable the ship of state to plow into an iceberg. SFW, that 'Kinggg of the worrrrld' bit.

His service s*cked. He served without honor.

Best,

D

Oops. HTML not enabled here. That first line above should be italicized. I hit 'preview' this time.

D

Only eight weeks for this Senate to confirm Mr. Gates. It's hard to imagine that the new Senate wouldn't like to cut their teeth on a detailed confirmation hearing for SecDef and it's hard to imagine that they'll get a chance.

I thought his explanation was powerful: he lied because telling the truth would have been inconvenient.

Umm.. I may be very uneducated in the ways of government but, isnt that against the law?

Unless it's under oath, it's legal. Doesn't make it nice though...