No doubt about it, Bush was lying at the press conference today

Lying about lying:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/08/the-presidents-casual-admission-of-lying/

At his Press Conference today, President Bush expressly admitted that he lied last week when he said that Donald Rumsfeld would remain Defense Secretary for the next two years (only to announce today that Rumsfeld is being replaced). When the President was asked about this discrepency, he simply admitted that "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 on to another question was to give you that answer."

That the President would so brazenly lie is not, of course, surprising (although the lie was so glaring that even conservatives James Joyner and Byron York objected to it). But what is surprising, and encouraging (although it should be commonplace), is that the Washington Post is more or less calling this what it is:

Asked about that comment, Bush said he made it because "I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign," Bush said. He appeared to acknowledge having misled reporters, saying, "And so the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer."

He added later, "Win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee."

The phrase "misled reporters" in this passage should have been replaced with "misled the nation," since that is what the President actually did. What possible justification is there for the President to definitively assure the country that Rumsfeld is staying when he was actively in the process of replacing him? That a major election is about to be held is a reason which compels disclosure of such an important matter, not which justifies its dishonest concealment.

We've become so accustomed to being lied to in this manner by our political leaders that the President can just casually admit to this (just like he can casually admit to breaking the law), and it causes only the most minor of controversies, if that.


...........


That whole exchange was bizarre--not just the now notorious admission of the lie, but the follow up, when he tried to backpedal:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html

Q Mr. President, thank you. Can I just start by asking you to clarify, sir, if, in your meeting with Steve and Terry and Dick, did you know at that point --

THE PRESIDENT: I did not.

<BW: Look at him jump on the question. He knew he'd fucked up with his previous answer.>

Q -- you would be making a change on Secretary Rumsfeld?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I did not. And the reason I didn't know is because I hadn't visited with his replacement -- potential replacement.

<BW: He's being really cagey here, trying to pretend he didn't just admit to a lie.>

Q But you knew he would be leaving, just not who would replace him?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I didn't know that at the time.

<:wtf:>

Q Okay. May I ask you about Nancy Pelosi --

THE PRESIDENT: The other thing I did know, as well, is that that kind of question, a wise question by a seasoned reporter, is the kind of thing that causes one to either inject major military decisions at the end of a campaign, or not. And I have made the decision that I wasn't going to be talking about hypothetical troop levels or changes in command structure coming down the stretch.

<BW: In the past, when Bush has not wanted to answer a question about "strategy," he has flat out said he won't answer a question about strategy. Why did he not similarly deflect the question about Rumsfeld? Why would he make such a sweeping, definitive slapdown of the suggestion that he'd get rid of Rumsfeld when he knew he'd be caught in the lie just a couple of days later? Why give the reporters anything? He never usually does. Bush seems to be aware of the trap he's set for himself, and his attempt to get out of it is astonishingly clumsy. >

And I'll tell you why I made that decision. I made that decision because I think it sends a bad signal to our troops if they think the Commander-in-Chief is constantly adjusting tactics and decisions based upon politics. And I think it's important in a time of war that, to the extent possible, we leave politics out of the major decisions being made. And it was the right decision to make, by the way.

<BW: But now it's suddenly *okay* to send the very same signal to the troops? :wtf: Why is it more okay after the election than before, especially when before the election you've just demoralized them into thinking they're stuck for Rumsfeld for two more years?>

And secondly, I hadn't visited with Bob Gates. I told you I visited with him last Sunday in Crawford. You can't replace somebody until you know you got somebody to replace him with. And finally, I hadn't had my last conversation with Secretary Rumsfeld, which I had yesterday.

<BW: Again, though: why the big fat fucking lie on Sunday about keeping Rumsfeld to the end of the term? Something very weird is going on here. But then weird is par for the course with these bizarros.>

You can't spell 'misled' without an L, an I, an E and a D.

is that he didn't want to inject this decision into the last days of the campaign. This, from a man who didn't have any scruples about calling false terror alerts to boost his ratings in the last campaign? If he'd decided Rummy was going under the bus, you can bet he'd have put it out there so it might soften a few more brains into voting for the Bushbots.

his lies are legion by now -- but perhaps rather the loss of the Bush mystique and a slowly growing iritation in the press corps about having to play fratboy games and agree to vapid nonsense in return for ... for ... well, for what? for still more bullshit?

It seems clearly thrust on him. Of course, that's no great surprise, that the Great Decider is a little boy behind the curtain. But this is such an inelegant lie about how this decision was made, it throws into stark relief the Big Lie about the Bushists at this point, which is that they are led by the Bush boy.

what DUers mean by calling him an "empty suit"

of his lies! But throwing that shitard out on his ass is a start.

Rove is cooking up something. And it better not be the politics of destruction like they used against Bill Clinton. We have work to do to restore what rights they've shredded.

Like Cafferty said - they better not try to peddle a neocon agenda to the American people. I say neither the agenda nor the tactics. We have the power of the Congressional oversight hearings now. Both houses.

as long as it benefits them. Bush has no idea how that sounds outside the beltway.

They can be categorized almost as psychopathic liars. The only difference between them and the clinical variety is they are doing it to try and meet some insane goal for all of us. The other type is just insane without too much of an agenda

"If confirmed by the Senate, Bob will bring more than 25 years of national security experience and a stellar reputation as an effective leader with sound judgment...

Do you think the Senate will go along with that?
I realize that the freshly elected victors won't take office til next year...
but the fact that WE WON:woohoo: might infuse a bit of spine and 'nads into the current bunch...

So whattaya think?

He's going to choose a winner and back him in the bloodbath, and, after every Iraqi who disagrees with this plan is tidily in a mass grave, the lights in Baghdad are going back on and we get to go home.