Disregarding flat reversal, conflicting explanations, O'Donnell called Bush move to replace Rumsfeld "decisive"
SUMMARY: Despite the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld coming less than a week after President Bush pledged to keep Rumsfeld on until the end of his presidency, MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell opined: "This president, whether you love him or hate him, is decisive."
During a discussion on the November 8 edition of MSNBC Live about President Bush's announcement that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was resigning, MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell opined: "This president, whether you love him or hate him, is decisive." But as Media Matters for America noted, Bush's remarks came less than a week after he pledged to keep Rumsfeld on as defense secretary until the end of his presidency and told the Associated Press that both Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney are "are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them." When asked about the dramatic reversal by a reporter at the press conference, Bush claimed that he had said Rumsfeld was staying on because he "didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign," and later asserted that at the time of the November 2 press conference in which he expressed his support for Rumsfeld, he hadn't yet decided to replace Rumsfeld because he had not yet met with his eventual replacement, former CIA director Robert Gates.
Later, while addressing the timing of the announcement, O'Donnell said: "I do think that this president would not fire the secretary of defense days before an election because it would look like his only motivation is political." O'Donnell added that Bush "recognizes the consequences of his policy and I don't think he would do something as political before an election, while it nevertheless became known that there was a sentiment in this country that something had to be done." As Media Matters has noted, there are numerous instances in which the administration has reportedly timed events or made policy decisions in Iraq based on political considerations.
From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the November 8 edition of MSNBC News Live:
O'DONNELL: This president, whether you love him or hate him, is decisive -- and he moved forward and was apparently led by his new White House chief of staff, [Joshua] Bolten, to make this decision. From our reporting at NBC News, what we know is that of course this decision to get rid of Secretary Rumsfeld at least was discussed within the last couple days before the election, that there was a disagreement between the political people and Josh Bolten, who is the White House chief of staff and Vice President Cheney, who wanted Rumsfeld to stay. That decision was then put off until after the election and then, lo and behold, what happened today. But it appears, once again, I think, the whole subtext, the important subtext of today, not only that Rumsfeld is gone and this may mean a new change in Iraq, but what this means is that Vice President Cheney, who apparently for the past several years of the Iraq war, has been the one person that has convinced the president -
PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC political analyst): Right.
JOE SCARBOROUGH (MSNBC host): I -- I was going to say --
O'DONNELL: -- to keep Secretary Rumsfeld, is no longer in the -- is no longer in the confidence of the president on this matter.
[...]
O'DONNELL: I do think that this president would not have fired the secretary of defense days before an election because it would look like his only motivation is political. And I do think the president is concerned about execution.
I think this president recognizes that there are 140,000 men and women in Iraq. He has met personally with many of the families of members of people who've died. He visits Walter Reed [Hospital]. I think he recognizes the consequences of his policy and I don't think that he would do something as political before an election, while it nevertheless became known that there was a sentiment in this country that something had to be done. And so, I just -- while this White House is very political -- I just don't think that the president would've thrown him overboard just to win more votes in the House and Senate.

















I know she's a shill. But last night, during the coverage, I just kept wanting her to say "caucus" again and again. Those eyes, that skin. For her, I think I'd put up with a little bit of conservative misinformation.
... echo my thoughts, exactly!
Had I been a talking head on that panel I would have nodded disagreeement. After she gives me that up-and-down challenging / evaluating glance she does with her compellingly perfect eyes, I would have thrown caution to the wind and kissed her passionately!
(Hey, if I have to say so myself... my writing is at least on a par with Lynne Cheney's!) :)
I became so... enthralled watching Norah, but just as my interest was peaking they flashed the still picture of Rumsfeld and kept it on-screen... I felt so used, so wrong... and then they showed Norah again and my feelings returned... only to be undone again as they flashed a picture of Dick Cheney on the screen! Sheesh... I think I'm physio-psychologically damaged goods, now!!
Wouldn't you know, anything is good news for republicans: [link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
Being pessimistic again, there will be no investigations. The democrats will play nice. They should, of course, do exactly what the republicans did to Clinton.
(I also predicted a Diebold-induced win for republicans. Here's to being wrong again.)
Yes, thankfully there were no voting scandals or irregulatities and every single vote was properly counted, and accounted for - because the Democrats won. Shhh, on any talk of suppression, intimidation, stolen elections or Republican owned voting machines.
No. We should all still press for voting reform so that everyone is assured their vote is counted, and recountible. The result of this election hasn't changed my position on that.
he doesn't care
...it is a weak stance to presuppose that Dems don't care about voter reform just because they won. That is wholly unsubstantiated and a blatant bait, if you ask me.
for your side's mistakingly thinking the election was in the bag. If there were a Presidential election, you can bet Bushie and Rove would flip a State or two. Or maybe he's getting bored with all this killing.
If there are any major conflicts with exit polls or any commitments to helping Dems win from the owners of the voting machine companies, then that should come to the forefront in no time. I want clean elections, and I think we need paper trails. Meanwhile, the lack of any major fraud yesterday simply doesn't prove that previous elections were legitimate.
Incidentally, there was talk about intimidation and suppression in Virginia, but Allen isn't crying foul. Wonder why?
>>"...- because the Democrats won."<<
A tad, shall we say... bitter???
Good.
Sure, Tommy's bitter, but if you want to see some SERIOUS bitterness check out the election open thread on Little Green Footballs. It's freakin' hilarious.
An English teachers wet dream!
They give new meaning to the word paranoid. I'll bet you could make a fortune selling bomb shelters to these people. And tin foil hats too.
I'm thinking anti-terrorist underwear. The mood in that sector of wingnutland seems to be that now that the Dems have Congress we are seconds away from invasion by a swarm of ululating swarthies. So they are terrified of terrorists, and have soiled themselves. Thus, anti-terrorist underwear.
Self changing underwear. It changes itself as they flee for their lives.
My favorite lines from the LGF thread was:
"I guess I'll go and buy a gun now".
and
"Look out for happy terrorist parades".
absolutely lust for another terrorist attack on the U.S., just so they can blame the Democrats. Kinda messed up.
- the distribution of a fake voting guide that falsely stated the Republican candidate had the enodorsement of black leaders
- the calls to some minorities and seniors telling them that their polling place had moved
- the intimidation of some voters by telling them they would be arrested on the spot if they attempted to vote at their current precinct but had been registered elsewhere previously
- the intimidation of some legal immigrants by telling them that that they could be subject to arrest and deportation if they voted
- the distribution of flyers indicating that Republicans were to vote on Tuesday, but Democrats were to vote on Wednesday
...the, yes, I fully agree.
"Shhh, on any talk of suppression, intimidation" ========================================== Not quite so fast there Tommy, there were attempts at voter suppression and again minority communities were targeted. You know the usual bad Republican behavior they always attempt to supress blocks of Democratic voters by telling them to go to the wrong polling stations, telling them the date to vote has been changed, etc. Word has got around in the community so AA voters are now suspicious of these type of communications and calls they receive so it doesn't work anymore.
Only it was decided by Shooter and Turd Blossom . . . not Dumbya . . . he just carried it out.
as decisive as a puppet can be.
She just misspoke. She meant to say "divisive".
No matter how wrong he is, no matter how stupid his decisions are, no matter how many lives are lost, and no matter how many dollars are spent--This President is decisive!
Would someone explain to me why decisiveness is an admirable quality. ???
It's hilarious that a grand flip-flop like this would be evidence of decisiveness to someone. It just shows what we're dealing with.
Yep... as soon as Bush got the election results Rumsfeld was history. I agree with Rush Limbaugh for once in my life... Bush is now concerned about his legacy. Funny how Bush is now relying on his daddy's old crew to give him a face saving way of extricating himself from his Iraq misadventure. Look for a "new" Bush... one that conservatives will soon hate.
The conservatives -- especially Bush -- need someone to pin all the woes of a disasterous Iraq upon. Rummy is the guy. Not that I don't cheer his ousting (too little too late if you ask me tho).
Bush was the "decider"? So, even if they try to pin something on Rumsfeld, which they will, Bush, as he likes to tell us, is the Commander in Chief, and the buck stops with him. It would be, and will be, a sad day when Bush tries to throw someone else under the bus for his mis-deeds and problems. Oh wait, that's already happened time and again... I thought republicans were the party of "personal responsibility", maybe W ought to take some for this screw ups? Then again, ask him, he's never messed up, so here we have a little circle going around again, and again, and again, and again...
Would we expect anything less from
The Decider?
1999-2000; 2003-4: He decides everything once, and then when he gets "elected," he decides it again.
2001-November 8 2006: Almost everything that he's already decided twice, then when the polls are disasterous enough, he decides it again.
November 9 2006 when the election results are disasterous enough, everything that has not already been decided twice he decides again.
Flippity floppity happy election day!
Bush is without question, The Decider. Nobody can beat him at deciding because he's had so much practice at it.
must be vying for "first questioner" status at the next press conference.
Shame on you guys for allowing your objectivity to influence your criticism of Ms. Norah. She would be deeply offended to think that her appearance had anything to do with her selection for/retention of her job. She would never exploit her looks... oops. [link to possumblog.mu.nu]
Well, I guess there is an outside chance that I'm wrong and that being a "correspondent" really means, in most cases, being sufficient eye-candy (male or female) to help keep the "news" division of the entertainment industry profitable.
... suggests for how Bush should handle this loss. It's an amazing thing ...
How Bush Should Handle Loss [Jonah Goldberg]
"I think James Baker and Dick Cheney should take Bush out to the woods around Camp David. After 24 hours in a sweat lodge, he should be given only a loin cloth, a hunting knife and a canteen of water. Bush should then set out to track and kill a black bear, after which he should eat its still beating heart so he can absorb its spirit. He should then fly back to Washington in Marine 1. His torso still scratched from the bear's claws, his face bloodied and steaming in the November chill, he should immediately give a press conference at which he throws the bearskin on the front row of the press corps, completely enveloping Helen Thomas, declaring, "I'm not going anywhere."
This will send important messages to Democrats and well as to our enemies overseas, who are no doubt high-fiving as we speak."
--------
Unspoken by Goldberg, but explicitly implied, is that FAILING such a deed by Bush, he will be seen as a gutless impotent incompetent wimp.
Actually, good call, Jonah.