Full Version: BushCo - setting up a fall guy?
I've never been a big fan of Donald Rumsfeld - and this goes back quite some time. A couple of curious events over the past week have planted a seed in my tinfoil hat - is he being set up by BushCo as a fall guy for the failures in Iraq?
Exhibit A: Rumsfeld was paraded out on CBS's "Face the Nation" last Sunday, and came up with this gem.
Exhibit B: Today, Drudge Report (that bastion of Kerry-intern-lying-neocon rumormongering) posts a snippet from a 60 Minutes interview with Richard Clarke, former terrorism expert in the Bush madministration.
Topic for debate: Is Donald Rumsfeld being set up by the Bush administration as the scapegoat for the situation in Iraq?
Exhibit A: Rumsfeld was paraded out on CBS's "Face the Nation" last Sunday, and came up with this gem.
Exhibit B: Today, Drudge Report (that bastion of Kerry-intern-lying-neocon rumormongering) posts a snippet from a 60 Minutes interview with Richard Clarke, former terrorism expert in the Bush madministration.
QUOTE
Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.
The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.
Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke.
Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.
The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.
Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke.
Topic for debate: Is Donald Rumsfeld being set up by the Bush administration as the scapegoat for the situation in Iraq?
QUOTE(Occams Chainsaw @ Mar 19 2004, 11:14 PM)
Topic for debate: Is Donald Rumsfeld being set up by the Bush administration as the scapegoat for the situation in Iraq?
I'd say "No". Look, if CIA Director Tenet cannot get fired for the obvious screw-up with Iraq and the complete surprise of 9/11, why should Rumsfeld be the target of BushCo's ire? Seems far-fetched.
Topic for debate: Is Donald Rumsfeld being set up by the Bush administration as the scapegoat for the situation in Iraq?
Not a chance! Donald Rumsfeld has been around the inside track for decades and is not a fall guy for anyone, including the President.
Maybe in the eyes of Richard Clarke as related in his latest novel. Clarke has worked under four Presidents Reagan Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 before he "retired." Like so many others that have come and gone, he is both respected and hated and has had his share of successes and also embarrassing mistakes.
And surprise, shortly after his "retirement", he writes a book with vituperative "kiss and tell" tales about various inside key personalities and will probably be on a talk show marathon for a few days and after his 15 minutes of fame and, like many others, will be forgotten in a couple of weeks.
Not a chance! Donald Rumsfeld has been around the inside track for decades and is not a fall guy for anyone, including the President.
Maybe in the eyes of Richard Clarke as related in his latest novel. Clarke has worked under four Presidents Reagan Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 before he "retired." Like so many others that have come and gone, he is both respected and hated and has had his share of successes and also embarrassing mistakes.
And surprise, shortly after his "retirement", he writes a book with vituperative "kiss and tell" tales about various inside key personalities and will probably be on a talk show marathon for a few days and after his 15 minutes of fame and, like many others, will be forgotten in a couple of weeks.
QUOTE
And surprise, shortly after his "retirement", he writes a book with vituperative "kiss and tell" tales about various inside key personalities and will probably be on a talk show marathon for a few days and after his 15 minutes of fame and, like many others, will be forgotten in a couple of weeks.
You discounted O'Neil in the exact same way. I guess Clarke is lying too.
I dont think Rumsfeld is a fall guy of any type. He's very entrenched in the Admin.
I will be interested in what Clarke has to say in the interview, since he appears to be saying what every other whistle blower thats left the admin recently has said about the premeditated plans to invade Iraq and spin a great farce for all our benefit.
QUOTE
You discounted O'Neil in the exact same way. I guess Clarke is lying too.Artemise
Unlike some, I try to refrain from travelling the low road and calling people, especially representatives of our government, "liars." Now Aristide, Saddam, Osama and their ilk...I don't hesitate for a moment calling a spade a spade. In fact, you almost fooled me, Artemise into thinking I insinuated that Clarke was less than truthful. How would I know that? And as far as O'Neil, he spent almost a week on follow-up talk shows stating that he wished he could take back some of his comments and that he didn't intend to offend anyone. And the real laugh was when asked who he was going to vote for he answered, "Probably President Bush because he is the best prepared to lead."
The main thrust of my original post was to answer the question....Rumsfeld isn't a patsy for anyone including President Bush. And like previous administrations, there are always those former members of the inner circle who write "kiss and tell" books, have their 15 minutes of fame, and then move on to do their thing.
QUOTE(Occams Chainsaw @ Mar 19 2004, 11:14 PM)
Topic for debate: Is Donald Rumsfeld being set up by the Bush administration as the scapegoat for the situation in Iraq?
This presumes a scapegoat is sought in the first place.
The path we've taken is a righteous one. Naturally there are bumps along the way, that's to be expected. Iraq is a better place today than it was a year ago. And it will be even better in the future.
Terrorists are on notice that we will not surrender to them. They are scrambling madly to impact the changes in Iraq before they take hold but are losing the battle.
Rather than 'scapegoat' Rummy might be getting positioned for something more akin to the Nobel Peace Prize.
QUOTE
Topic for debate: Is Donald Rumsfeld being set up by the Bush administration as the scapegoat for the situation in Iraq?
Rumsfeld knows his job too well to ever be led into the position of ''scapegoat.'' Bush had an interview with Russert a while ago, so I don't think sending out Rummy means much of anything. He is smarter than Bush (in my opinion) and is a much better orator. His experience and position in the administration have placed him in a situation where it can almost be argued that he rivals President Bush as the ''behind the scenes'' commander-in-chief.
I agree with some of the other members' thoughts for the reason Bush has shared in a long and strong relationship with both Powell and Rumsfeld and the need to make either one of them the fall guy probably wouldn't be a consideration or necessary.
President Bush has asked Rumsfeld and Powell to stay out of the campaign/election year arena and according to Rumsfeld, they are following his request. Sounds to me like President Bush is telling Rumsfeld especially that his department and position delegates a non-partisan viewpoint and thinks they have better things to do other than participate in ping-pong campaign rhetoric.
Link to transcript of Larry King Live 03/19/04-Donald Rumsfeld interview.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/19/lkl.00.html
President Bush has asked Rumsfeld and Powell to stay out of the campaign/election year arena and according to Rumsfeld, they are following his request. Sounds to me like President Bush is telling Rumsfeld especially that his department and position delegates a non-partisan viewpoint and thinks they have better things to do other than participate in ping-pong campaign rhetoric.
Link to transcript of Larry King Live 03/19/04-Donald Rumsfeld interview.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/19/lkl.00.html
QUOTE
KING: Are you going to be involved in the campaign?
RUMSFELD: No, I'm not, Larry. The president of the United States has talked to me and to Colin Powell and asked that we personally stay out of the campaign. He thinks that the work we're doing in our departments is such that it's in the best interests of the country that we do that, and Colin and I have both agreed that that would be the case.
KING: So does that mean through the year you will not comment on statements made by Senator Kerry or any other opponent?
RUMSFELD: Well, it's pretty close. If there's a matter that involves the department and it's a substantive issue, and I can cast light on it in a way that is not seen to be or thought to be partisan, and I can stay within the constraints the president's imposed on me, I certainly feel it is my job to make sure that the American people fully understand what it is we're doing and why we're doing it. And also, I should say, it's important that the American people understand what a wonderful job these volunteers who serve in the Army and the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines and the National Guard and the reserves are doing for our country. And to the extent that statements are made which would lead them to believe that what they were doing is not important, or that they weren't doing it well, I think it would be unfortunate and I certainly would want to make sure that there was clarity there, because they're doing a great job.
RUMSFELD: No, I'm not, Larry. The president of the United States has talked to me and to Colin Powell and asked that we personally stay out of the campaign. He thinks that the work we're doing in our departments is such that it's in the best interests of the country that we do that, and Colin and I have both agreed that that would be the case.
KING: So does that mean through the year you will not comment on statements made by Senator Kerry or any other opponent?
RUMSFELD: Well, it's pretty close. If there's a matter that involves the department and it's a substantive issue, and I can cast light on it in a way that is not seen to be or thought to be partisan, and I can stay within the constraints the president's imposed on me, I certainly feel it is my job to make sure that the American people fully understand what it is we're doing and why we're doing it. And also, I should say, it's important that the American people understand what a wonderful job these volunteers who serve in the Army and the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines and the National Guard and the reserves are doing for our country. And to the extent that statements are made which would lead them to believe that what they were doing is not important, or that they weren't doing it well, I think it would be unfortunate and I certainly would want to make sure that there was clarity there, because they're doing a great job.
Set up Rumsfeld? Even Cheney wouldn't try. There are some people who this could be done to but try with Rumsfeld and bodies will appear out of closets like a Day of the Dead parade.
A sensible decision by Bush----Was that thunder??
--- they are doing more important things.
QUOTE
President Bush has asked Rumsfeld and Powell to stay out of the campaign/election year arena
A sensible decision by Bush----Was that thunder??
--- they are doing more important things.
QUOTE
you almost fooled me, Artemise into thinking I insinuated that Clarke was less than truthful.
QUOTE
Donald Rumsfeld has been around the inside track for decades and is not a fall guy for anyone, including the President.
Maybe in the eyes of Richard Clarke as related in his latest novel.
Maybe in the eyes of Richard Clarke as related in his latest novel.
Since a 'novel' is fictional narrative , I assumed you meant to say what you said.
QUOTE
Unlike some, I try to refrain from travelling the low road and calling people, especially representatives of our government, "liars."
This is interesting. Is it that you believe they do not lie, or simply dont say it to be polite?
So we should take the high road and pretend they do not lie, or at least not say so in public...shhh?
But we can infer lies by discounting whistleblowers books as 'novels' and saying they will get15 min of fame and disappear, even though they have already had long successful careers?
QUOTE
Now Aristide, Saddam, Osama and their ilk...I don't hesitate for a moment calling a spade a spade.
Now these lies we can shout from the rooftops because they arent OUR governments lies?
Im not getting all that logic, to me it seems like one is trying to convince themselves (and everyone else) of a false sense of what is truth.
Armitse, yes I said novel (which it isn't) one time and book the second time...sorry for the confusion.
In my comments about O'Neil and Clark, I never insinuated that either one was lying as I don't know that. What I did insinuate is like so many former administration staff or cabinet members before them-regardless of whether the administration is Democrat or Republican-they write "kiss and tell" books, get invited on a marathon of talk shows, have their 15 minutes of fame....and move onward to do their thing. In other words....so what else is new about writing a book after one leaves the White House? Reagan had his share of "kiss and tell" books written about his administration, as did Kennedy, Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, and now Bush 43. Whether O'Neil's and Clark's books are honest representations of the facts...I will let others in a position to know be the critics and the responders. What I did find laughable about O'Neil's interviews is that after his marathon of talk show interviews, he felt as though he should have another round of interviews to take back or explain some of his remarks. And the real show stopper is when asked who he was going to vote for, he answered "President Bush because he is the best prepared to lead."
When making accusations about a person's actions or character, IMO it is better to choose less inflammatory language. It is not only more respectful, but in some situations may save one from being slapped with a lawsuit for slander. As to whether I am using a double standard and showing lack of respect for evil dictators or terrorists such as Saddam, Osama, etc.? No question of which side of the coin I would rather be guilty of not showing proper respect to.
BushCo - setting up a fall guy?
Bush has a long and respectful relationship with Rumsfeld (as with others in his administration) and wouldn't even consider setting him up as a patsy nor would Rumsfeld permit someone trying it much less getting away with it.
In my comments about O'Neil and Clark, I never insinuated that either one was lying as I don't know that. What I did insinuate is like so many former administration staff or cabinet members before them-regardless of whether the administration is Democrat or Republican-they write "kiss and tell" books, get invited on a marathon of talk shows, have their 15 minutes of fame....and move onward to do their thing. In other words....so what else is new about writing a book after one leaves the White House? Reagan had his share of "kiss and tell" books written about his administration, as did Kennedy, Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, and now Bush 43. Whether O'Neil's and Clark's books are honest representations of the facts...I will let others in a position to know be the critics and the responders. What I did find laughable about O'Neil's interviews is that after his marathon of talk show interviews, he felt as though he should have another round of interviews to take back or explain some of his remarks. And the real show stopper is when asked who he was going to vote for, he answered "President Bush because he is the best prepared to lead."
When making accusations about a person's actions or character, IMO it is better to choose less inflammatory language. It is not only more respectful, but in some situations may save one from being slapped with a lawsuit for slander. As to whether I am using a double standard and showing lack of respect for evil dictators or terrorists such as Saddam, Osama, etc.? No question of which side of the coin I would rather be guilty of not showing proper respect to.
BushCo - setting up a fall guy?
Bush has a long and respectful relationship with Rumsfeld (as with others in his administration) and wouldn't even consider setting him up as a patsy nor would Rumsfeld permit someone trying it much less getting away with it.
QUOTE
BushCo - setting up a fall guy?
Bush has a long and respectful relationship with Rumsfeld (as with others in his administration) and wouldn't even consider setting him up as a patsy nor would Rumsfeld permit someone trying it much less getting away with it
I agree that Rumsfeld will not be the FALL GUY. He has been around the block too many times and probably knows too much on scores of people. If he opened the closet door there would be an avalanche of bodies coming out,that you would be buried 10 deep.
Eventually if the kitchen gets too hot, there may be a sacrifical lamb(or would that be a wolf)given to the public. Only time will tell.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.