Wash. Post repeated McCain's false claim that he called for Rumsfeld's resignation
SUMMARY: In an article about President Bush's relationship with Sen. John McCain, The Washington Post reported that McCain "regularly reminds audiences that he also criticized Bush's management of the war and called for Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation as defense secretary." But when McCain was asked in 2006 whether Rumsfeld needed to step down, he replied: "Well, I've said for a long time that I had no confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, but that's a decision to be made by the president."
A February 9 Washington Post article discussing the relationship between President Bush and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) reported that McCain "regularly reminds audiences that he also criticized Bush's management of the war and called for Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation as defense secretary." However, the article failed to point out that although McCain expressed "no confidence" in Rumsfeld in 2004, the Associated Press reported at the time that McCain "said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation." Further, when Fox News host Shepard Smith specifically asked McCain, "Does Donald Rumsfeld need to step down?" on November 8, 2006 -- hours before Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation -- McCain responded that it was "a decision to be made by the president."
A February 7 Economist.com article similarly reported that McCain "called early and loudly for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation."
From Fox News' November 8, 2006, coverage of the midterm elections:
SMITH: The people have said that, in large part, coast to coast, state to state, district to district, this is about the war. What sort of changes are possible in the immediate hours and the days ahead? Does Donald Rumsfeld need to step down?
McCAIN: Well, I've said for a long time that I had no confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, but that's a decision to be made by the president. I'd just like to remind you that [Sen.] Joe Lieberman was re-elected in Connecticut, a liberal state, who supports the war. I think the war was a major issue, but I think there's other issues, the ones that I just talked about before, particularly fiscal responsibility.
But on the subject of the war, we have to have the will to win. I believe we can win. I believe we can prevail. I think we can bring order out of chaos, and I think we need to do whatever is necessary. And if the Democrats would join us, we -- I think we could work out a strategy that would succeed. But I believe if we allow chaos to prevail there, that chaos will spread and we'll be paying a very heavy penalty.
In a December 2004 interview with the Associated Press, McCain also said that he had "no confidence" in Rumsfeld. When the AP asked whether Rumsfeld constituted a liability to the administration, McCain similarly responded, "The president can decide that, not me":
McCain, speaking to The Associated Press in an hour-long interview Monday, said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation, explaining that President Bush "can have the team that he wants around him."
Asked about his confidence in the secretary's leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago. "I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence," McCain said.
He estimated that 80,000 more Army personnel and 20,000 to 30,000 more Marines would be needed to secure Iraq.
"I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops -- linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.," McCain said. "There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue."
Asked whether Rumsfeld was a liability to the Bush administration, McCain responded: "The president can decide that, not me."
In an April 2006 article on McCain's support for a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Rumsfeld, The Hill reported that while McCain "went so far as to say publicly that he had no confidence in Rumsfeld," he "never asked for the resignation of the fellow former Navy pilot, saying that it is President's Bush prerogative to keep Rumsfeld."
On the campaign trail, McCain has repeatedly claimed that he called for Rumsfeld's resignation. In a November 19, 2007, speech, he said: "I made the Pentagon angry when I called for the resignation of Don Rumsfeld." Further, during the January 30 Republican presidential debate on CNN, McCain asserted: "I'm the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go."
From the February 9 Washington Post article:
McCain hopes to fend off the Bush-clone argument with his long-standing reputation as an independent-minded politician willing to fight his president and his party when he disagrees with them. While boasting of his support for the troop buildup in Iraq last year, the candidate regularly reminds audiences that he also criticized Bush's management of the war and called for Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation as defense secretary.
He is "running here to be his own man," said Charlie Black, a senior McCain strategist who has also been an informal adviser to the Bush White House over the years. "And politics is always about the future and not the past. I'm sure the Democrats will try from time to time to run against President Bush. That won't work."
HSTYBUF:
You mean, you think Rumsfeld is gone for good?
Two questions: WHY do you think he will not reappear in a Republican Administration?
And two, WHO ELSE has achieved the "pariah for life" mantle from the Bush Administration, so we won't be seeing them again? (Bush? Cheney? Condi? Gonzales? Feel free to add to the list of people SO incompetent who have caused SO much damage to America and/or were SO corrupt that they won't be seeing a position of responsibility ever again!)
HUGH:
Amen, brother.
Umm.
The dance of the seven veils express.
The notice that at no time do my fingers leave my hand express.
The kookamunga express.
The look at me I'm wonderful express.
The make sure the VP is someone mostly sane express.
Or a coming favorite here, the less jobs more wars express.
So many choices, some of them sing a bit, some do howl.
How about the grumpy old man that likes to throw F bombs express.
Or the bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran Express.
Or the hundred years in Iraq express
The Deferential Deniability Express?
The Submissive Semi-Suggestion Express?
The Shlt Talk Express?
The Don't Question Your Superiors Express?
The Wingnut Extremist Alienation Express?
No wonder they settled on an imaginary theme, these reality-based ones suck.
There's a BIG, BIG difference between having "no confidence" in someone, and calling for their resignation.
It's the difference between being critical in rhetoric, and taking bold ACTION.
McCain, NOW, wishes to be viewed as a man of BOLD ACTION.
Yet, his record does not support his claim.
We all recall GW Bush in his borrowed flight suit, declaring MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in Iraq after landing on a carrier. It was all ballsy and showy and really heroic, the only problem was ... IT WAS A FRAUD AND A SHAM.
Now McCain is rewriting history to give himself a record of BOLD ACTION where instead he was only an equivocating talker.
If he pulls this claim in a debate with a Democrat, I wonder if they will politely ask him to say WHEN he made this call for resignation. Or will McCain be smart enough NOT to make the claim where it might be CHECKED.
See, the MEDIA will not fact-check him, so he's safe if it's JUST the Media he's talking to. How great IS it that he can lie all day long to the Washington Post, and they will print his stuff verbatim unquestioningly and without comment? It's GOLD, from a partisan bias point of view.
Hillary Clinton called for Rumsfeld's resignation in August 2006, to his face at a Senate Hearing.
I voted for Barack Obama, but clearly there is a substantive difference between both Democratic candidates on Rumsfeld and McCain on Rumsfeld while Rumsfeld was still in office.
Yes, Clinton and McCain both voted to Authorize Use of Military Force in Iraq, but Clinton had the sense, in 2006, to hold Rumsfeld accountable for his disasterous handling of the war.
McCain has proven, over and over and over again, that he is no profile in political courage. He's a political opportunist, stubborn, and a bit of a bully. That's why Joe Lieberman loves him.
BRUCE:
Hillary is big on rhetoric on MOST issues that call for presidential leadership, since she has not become president, yet. Same's true for McCain and Obama, so it's not a very valid CHARGE to make.
She says she'll get the troops out of Iraq, but carefully. That's better than just a quick withdrawal. She says she will negotiate with countries in the world, friend and foe. Bush won't talk to a foe. I think she will do as she says.
She made a serious error, but it was made by a great many legislators ... she TRUSTED the Bush Administration, BELIEVED them. That was, we now know, foolish beyond belief. It was a bad, but understandable, call, and it doesn't remove her from consideration for president.
So, once elected, we will see Hillary's "ACTION" where it comes to the war and many other issues. I fail to see what you're calling a "Double Standard." McCain hasn't been questioned on Rummy; do you suggest that Hillary hasn't been questioned on her "authorization" vote?
If Hillary is on the ballot in November my plan is to vote for her. Still, I don't see her as a woman of BOLD ACTION on this war, just as McCain isn't. She owns her vote regardless of what the administration was selling. She owns that.
BRUCE:
I agree Hillary "owns" her vote, along with all the other congresspersons who made up the majority that PASSED the thing.
GW Bush and the REPUBLICANS, however, OWN the war, and the disaster it has become. They OWN torture, they OWN the lies about WMDs and "mushroom clouds", they OWN the outing of the covert CIA agent, they OWN so very many things that have been horribly costly and damaging to the USA.
Bush said the authorization would lead him to exhaust all diplomatic means to get the inspectors back into Iraq. He LIED. Blatantly. He never INTENDED to do anything but invade. The inspectors had to be pulled OUT of Iraq so that Bush could invade. Bush viewed WAR as a FIRST option, not a LAST option as he assured Congress and the American People. He lied to ALL of us.
Weighed against all THAT, it's OK for Hillary to "own" that vote. The Republicans OWN Bush, and Bush OWNS utter failure.
Hillary Clinton voted to Authorize Use of Military Force in Iraq in 2001. Twenty-three of Hillary Clinton's Senate colleagues voted Against the Use of Military Force in Iraq in October 2001. It was not an inevitable fait accompli that she vote for the war. She had a choice.
If 23 of her colleagues had the sense not to support Bush, why did she?
John Edwards was in the US Senate for 6 years. He had to run on his votes, his decisions, his accomplishment, his statements and his mistakes. Hillary Clinton has been in the US Senate for 8 years. She needs to run on her record, not Bill Clinton's. And whether or not her vote to support the war is now politically advantageous to her, she remains responsible for her vote, NOT George Bush.