Charlie Rose falsely asserted McCain "call[ed] for the firing of Secretary Rumsfeld"
SUMMARY: During an interview with Sen. Chuck Hagel, Charlie Rose falsely asserted that Sen. John McCain "early on call[ed] for the firing of Secretary Rumsfeld." In fact, while McCain expressed "no confidence" in Rumsfeld in 2004, he did not call for him to be fired; he said the decision about whether Rumsfeld should leave was the president's.
On the March 28 edition of his Public Broadcasting Service program, during an interview with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Charlie Rose falsely asserted that Sen. John McCain "early on call[ed] for the firing of [former Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld." In fact, McCain did not call for Rumsfeld to be fired, nor did he call for his resignation. Indeed, the McCain campaign itself reportedly admitted the falsehood when The Washington Post reportedly contacted the campaign challenging McCain's campaign stump claim "that he was 'the only one' who called for Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation as defense secretary." While 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 President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation -- McCain responded that it was "a decision to be made by the president." Indeed, on the October 31, 2005, edition of Rose's program, McCain said of Rumsfeld: "I don't have confidence in him," but later added: "I don't go out and seek a confrontation with the secretary of defense. And I won't. He serves at the pleasure of the president. I want to do whatever I can to help win this conflict."
On the October 31, 2005, edition of Charlie Rose (retrieved from the Nexis database), Rose said to McCain: "[T]he president must be -- like you -- unlike you, have confidence in his secretary of defense." McCain replied: "Well, I think that's a given, because he's still there. But when I say that I don't have confidence in him, I can't look people in the eye and say that I do, because so many mistakes were made that -- that cost us so much in American blood and treasure. But I don't go out and seek a confrontation with the secretary of defense. And I won't. He serves at the pleasure of the president. I want to do whatever I can to help win this conflict." McCain later added: "We cannot afford to lose, Charlie. The reason why I don't want to have a confrontation with Secretary Rumsfeld -- as long as he's there, I want to work with him, because we've got to win. The consequences of failure are profound." At no point during the interview did McCain call for Rumsfeld to be fired, or to resign.
As Media Matters for America noted, the Post reported in a February 9 article 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." After Media Matters noted the article's failure to report that McCain's assertion that he had called for Rumsfeld's resignation was false, the Post published an article reporting that McCain "overstate[d] his public position on Rumsfeld" and never called for him to resign. According to the February 16 article:
[D]uring a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., aired on CNN, McCain said, "I'm the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go." A McCain spokesman acknowledged this week that that was not correct. "He did not call for his resignation," said the campaign's Brian Rogers. "He always said that's the president's prerogative."
As the February 16 Post article noted: "McCain's false account has been unwittingly incorporated into the narrative he is selling by some news organizations, including The Washington Post." Additionally, The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller wrote in a March 3 article that "McCain has overstated his original position on Mr. Rumsfeld. ... [U]nlike a group of retired generals who called for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation in the spring of 2006, Mr. McCain never did. He said it was the president's prerogative to keep him." Nevertheless, following those reports, as Media Matters has documented, on the March 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, senior political analyst Gloria Borger falsely claimed that "McCain has said over and over again, you know, 'I would have fired Donald Rumsfeld.' ... [H]e called for him to be fired while -- in the Senate." And on the March 26 edition of MSNBC Live, chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell falsely claimed that McCain "called for Don Rumsfeld's resignation." O'Donnell later issued a "clarification": "Yesterday, I suggested that John McCain had called for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation in the past. In fact, what McCain had said repeatedly was that he lacked confidence in Rumsfeld. But he did not directly call for Rumsfeld to step down back when Rumsfeld was still in office."
From the March 28 edition of PBS' Charlie Rose:
HAGEL: No, I disagree with John's point. Did we initiate an action that essentially has destroyed much of Iraq? Yes. We have four and a half million Iraqis who have been displaced. Do we have some responsibility for that? Yes. To say -- to put on the back of the American people and these poor soldiers that we're sending over there for three and four tours, 15 months at a time. You have --
ROSE: Four thousand deaths just been noted.
HAGEL: Four -- 30,000 wounded. You have a moral obligation to go do that? I think John's crossed a line on that. I don't see it that way.
ROSE: And is that the reason you cannot endorse him for president?
HAGEL: Not the only reason. As I said earlier, Charlie, it's the entire frame of his policy on Iraq and where he'd want to go for the next four years and foreign policy.
ROSE: He's not going to change, so you're not going to endorse him at any point.
HAGEL: Well, no, I wouldn't say that. I want to talk to John personally. I want to -- I want to sit down. I owe him that. John is a good friend; I admire him.
ROSE: Is he going to tell you anything that you don't already know about how he feels about this? I mean, he's had the same --
HAGEL: I don't know.
ROSE: -- position about this, critical of the administration and the handling of war, early on calling for the firing of Secretary Rumsfeld.
HAGEL: Yes. There are some of those things that John and I agreed with.
ROSE: Oh, yes. And he also has called recently for closing down of Guantánamo --
HAGEL: Right.
ROSE: -- and has been very strong on the issue of torture --
HAGEL: Those are the things --
ROSE: -- along with [former Secretary of State] Colin Powell and you.
HAGEL: That's right, and me. We agree on those things.
From the October 31, 2005, edition of PBS' Charlie Rose:
ROSE: The war. We saw this week in the last seven days the 2,000th casualty. There's a story today about the highest-ranking officer, I think, killed yet in Iraq, a colonel. What's -- what's your counsel to the country and to the president today in terms of what might be done? And I'll come to what has been disappointing. You -- you literally called for Donald Rumsfeld, almost, that you don't have any confidence in him. Do you have any confidence in the vice president?
McCAIN: Yes.
ROSE: You do?
McCAIN: Yeah, I do. It's the secretary of defense's job to -- to run the defense establishment.
ROSE: But the secretary of defense --
McCAIN: And by the way --
ROSE: -- works for the president of the United States. He's appointed by the president of the United States.
McCAIN: I understand.
ROSE: His long-term colleague is the vice president. Without the vice president's support, he wouldn't be there.
McCAIN: I don't know. I think --
ROSE: You think --
McCAIN: I'm not quite sure that's true, but -- but --
ROSE: Why would you not think that's true?
McCAIN: I think he serves at the pleasure of the president. I think the president is -- keeps obviously very careful attention to what the secretary of defense is doing.
ROSE: So, the president must be -- like you -- unlike you, have confidence in his secretary of defense.
McCAIN: Well, I think that's a given, because he's still there. But when I say that I don't have confidence in him, I can't look people in the eye and say that I do, because so many mistakes were made that -- that cost us so much in American blood and treasure. But I don't go out and seek a confrontation with the secretary of defense. And I won't. He serves at the pleasure of the president. I want to do whatever I can to help win this conflict.
ROSE: Win the conflict?
McCAIN: Yes. Win -- winning means a flawed but functioning democracy in Iraq, the United States either withdrawn or in an enclave so that there's no more U.S. casualties, and the Iraqi military can take over the bulk of their responsibilities. That's what -- and they start to improve their economy. They have a viable, but again, flawed political system. We're going to find out on December 15th, they're going to have an election. They had an election, contrary to the predictions of some, where they approved the constitution. Afghanistan, we don't read about anymore, because it's succeeded. And by the way, there's several reasons, including NATO participation and other reasons, why Afghanistan is doing as well as it is.
So, we need to -- to make progress. We cannot afford to lose, Charlie. The reason why I don't want to have a confrontation with Secretary Rumsfeld -- as long as he's there, I want to work with him, because we've got to win. The consequences of failure are profound.















The harder it's thrown, the better it sticks...
Just one of the way-too-many RNC male-bovine-feces talking points that has been repeated often enough to become "fact" to way-too-many in the MSM.
I always thought the Reagan rule is to never speak ill of another Repub.
They get around that rule by claiming that McCain is "not a true Rrepublican"....
Wait till MMFA gets a hold of this article on Lou Dobbs calling blacks cotton picking ... It's gonna be a looooong day.
Maybe it's finally time for Lou Dobbs to get the Dom Imus/Jimmy The Greek Treatment.
The Imus treatement did not work, he is back today and allowed to spew racist hate.
True, but he's not spewing it on as many stations as he once was. Jimmy The Greek, on the other hand, never worked on television again after his racist comments on "The NFL Today", if I remember correctly.
A lot of parsing by MM here.
The truth is that Sen. McCain was probably the harshest critic of Rumsfeld.
A deceiving post by MM, IMO.
John-I-am.
I do not want
war with Iran.
Would you fight them
here or there?
I would not fight them
here or there.
I would not fight them
anywhere.
I do not like
war with Iran.
Not based on your lies,
John-I-am.
Would you fight them
house to house?
Would you fight them
like a mouse?
I will not fight them
in a house.
I will not fight them
like a mouse.
I will not fight them
here or there.
I will not fight them
anywhere.
I do not want war with Iran.
Not based on your lies, John-I-am.
Would you kill them
with a scud?
Would you kill them
with a bud?
Not with a scud.
Not with a bud.
Not in a house.
Not like a mouse.
I would not kill them here or there.
I would not kill them anywhere.
I would not want war with Iran.
Not based on your lies, John-I-am.
Would you? Could you?
From afar?
Kill them! Kill them!
Here they are.
I would not,
could not,
from afar.
You will kill them.
You will see.
You may kill them
in a tree!
I would not, could not in a tree.
Not from afar! You let me be!
I will not kill them with a scud.
I will not kill them with a bud.
I will not kill them in a house.
I will not kill them like a mouse.
I will not kill them here or there.
I will not kill them anywhere.
I will not have war with Iran.
not based on your lies, Sam-I-am!
Ok got it :-)
Good work BTW, but if I was your boss I'd fire you for playing on the computer ;-)
McCain's camp specifically pointed out that he did NOT call for the resignation of Rumsfeld. If THEY wanted to make the distinction clear, shouldn't the media including Charlie Rose also make that distinction? There's a big difference between a critic of someone, and calling for their resignation.
This is the stuff MMFA was created for.
A lot of parsing by MM here.
The truth is that Sen. McCain was probably the harshest critic of Rumsfeld.
A deceiving post by MM, IMO.
There's a bit of a difference between being a harsh critic of someone and calling for their resignation, Shoes. The only deception around here is you think you're dealing in reality.
lowrider,
I love attempting to converse with libs here. Let's just get beyond throwing bombs. So with that caveat, I admit my post was incendiary with the good news-bad news perspective, but I always try to have facts posted along with that kind of remark. It's not as if there are some less than polite things spoken of us conservatives here. I try to overlook most of it and engage with those willing to follow suit.
ProudMoron. No you dont. You dont even TRY to converse. You toss out conversational landmines. Your every post has ONLY the intent to jab us, to provoke us, to show your contempt for us. You dont start conversations, you are hardly ever within the nieghborhood of the topic. Your every post has a, liberals are...insert derogatory statement of your choice here...usually a hivemind rightwing talking point without merit that no one not braindead could take seriously and no one with any decency would repeat. It is a LIE to say you try to converse here. It is MILES from your intent.
...I admit my post was incendiary with the good news-bad news perspective, but I always try to have facts posted along with that kind of remark.
The addition of facts does not excuse an attempt to hijack a thread. And that's what we've seen from you time and time again - attempts to disrupt discusseions at MMFA by throwing threads off-topic. Well, let this serve as my notice to you, PC. I will flag every attempt I see of you trying to hijace a thread. And I hope others do likewise.
And I'll try to tone down the remarks, but I reserve the right to respond in kind when attacked.
Anyone catch Bill Mahrer's show Friday night? Man Tavis Smiley made a great distinction between John McCain's definition of patriotism and what Frederick Douglas deemed a patriot. Something to the effect of a patriot is one who loves his country but has the courage to criticize it when needed (Not a direct quote). While McCain and Fux News version of a patriot is the flag pin, flag waving, never say anything negative about America spewing, why are blacks so angry wondering, why can't these damn hispanics go home wanting, Obama is untrustworthy propaganda bs, we've been seeing for God knows too long.
I also appreciated the fact someone spoke out against that racist cu&t Pat Pukecannon. Jeremiah Wright makes disparaging remarks about America - Public Enemy number 1. Pat basically says blacks should quit whinning as they're better off because of slavery and every journalist in America glosses over it like "Oh that's just good ole Pat."
I know this is waaay off topic. Just had to vent. Carry on.
Remember, AH, Sen. McCain doesn't wear a flag pin anymore...didn't when former Pres. GHW Bush endorsed him...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23222046/
...didn't when Pres. GW Bush endorsed him...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23481178/
check out the photos...:) USA!! USA!! USA!!
I don't see any whining on the part of Snoopy or Fawltylogic.
So, let's get back to business, shall we?
You are saying basically nothing to the Haditha thing because why? A military tribune successfully got most charges dropped? I see that as much of a problem as letting a fox guard the henhouse. I'm gonna use this article as a starting point for my response to you.
snoopdawg,
your showing your prejudice against the military. The fox in the hen house? That is why I feel like there is hypocrisy about the military from the left. Remember the defense of bowelmovement.org's comments about General Petraeus? Why we love and support our soldiers, it's the mission we hate!
And when Rush was accused of hating the soldiers who had returned from Iraq, why the same thing was blathered.
I have friends who were spit on upon their return from Vietnam. Most were easily accused of atrocities especially after Kerry and the Winter Soldier statements. I contend that those sentiments remain in the left but now generally show up in 'supporting the troops but hating the misson' comments. However, when given a chance to make the hating the mission points, troops will again be lumped into the mix all too easily. That is what Murtha did when he made those accusations before any proper investigation was done. It was politically convenient to use that attack in Haditha to make a point about the war.
Your response is welcomed.
There's no prejudice here. I'm just pointing out a fact, the military does a poor job of of carrying out true justice because they put protecting their own 1st. Just like cops don't like to turn on their own, the military does so too. Same as companies regulating themselves. There's no prejudice here, no big surprise either other than you thinking otherwise.
So let me get this straight though, are you saying the article I posted carries no weight in your eyes?
dawg,
I am not sure which part of your story, and if we are even allowed to talk about it now, is relevant. Is the military just adopting a boy's will be boy's attitude about rape or that military justice is rare or that this haditha story is indeed a coverup?
If it is true about the military's treatment of women, should we keep them from combat units altogether?
woodstock'sfriend,
If John Murtha feels this is a whitewash then he should say so. My problem with his comments were the assumption of guilt right out of the gate. Before anything had been proven or covered up for that matter, he called these guys cold blooded killers. I think his intentions were driven purely by politics and he was willing to throw these guys under the bus so that he could make the challenges of the Iraqi war that much harder to acheive. My initial, (and yes, incendiary) comments, were meant to reflect a frustration I feel that many democratic politicians will strive to make the decision to go to war all about embarassing Bush with little or no regard for the effect of morale on the ground or how our enemies could make a propaganda windfall from their comments.
If the DOD is not prosecuting these crimes within the military then we need to make certain that changes. As yet, not one word from Murtha in recent days either apologizing or calling for investigation of a coverup regarding Haditha.
I'm just pointing out a fact, the military does a poor job of of carrying out true justice because they put protecting their own 1st.
As the late great Groucho Marx put it, military justice is to justice as military music is to music. :-)
wzwriter wrat:
>>As the late great Groucho Marx put it, military justice is to justice as military music is to music. :-)
Did Groucho really say that? Because that *is* funny!
Yes, he did:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/grouchomar161256.html
ProudMoron. I have been in lefty circles for a long time and hear anti soldier statements only very rarely. That is what you have been TOLD to believe and you are just doing your hivemind duty. I dont remember Rush being accused of hating the troops I remember him being CALLED on calling the troops who dont want to be in Iraq PHONEY SOLDIERS. He was accused of that for the best of reasons, he did it.
I think it must be YOU that hates the soldiers. I see no other reason so jump from a crime was committed by some soldiers in ANY instance to hating the troops. I mean it is really simpleminded and you like that but it doesnt make sense. The fact that there are murderers and rapists among the soldiers in Iraq says no more about the bulk of, much less all of, the soldiers in Iraq than the fact there are murderers and rapists in the US says anything about the bulk of Americans. Oh I forgot. You were INSTRUCTED to blur this distinction, to make this completely specious leap of logic, and a hiveminder always does what he is instructed to do.
I'm surprised that the friends you mentioned haven't had their accounts of being spit on verified. As far as I know no accounts have ever been verified.
http://www.slate.com/id/2158608?nav=tap3
I travelled from one end of this country to the other from 1969 to 1971, in uniform, and was never treated with anything other than respect and admiration from anyone I met. I've never met a vet who admitted to being spit on. None of my friends were spit on.
If you think about it, where would this have taken place? And who would have stood by and watched as a vet was spit on.
Everybody in the nation had a brother, father, uncle, cousin, friend or neighbor who fought in Vietnam. Do you think that these people would have allowed someone to spit on a vet and not kicked the spitters ass? They were against the war but they supported their brothers.
I say that if these incidents were as frequent as we're led to believe, there would be ER reports confirming that some idiot spit on a vet and got the sh_t kicked out of him by an angry crowd.
worrierking wrat:
>>I'm surprised that the friends you mentioned haven't had their accounts of being spit on verified. As far as I know no accounts have ever been verified.
Yes, that's as far as I know, too. But the spitting makes such a nice story for the right wing to use, doesn't it?
I thought we were allowed to speak of such matters on this forum?
Is charlie rose part of the great right winged conspiracy?
proudconservative wrat:
>>I think I've been flagged! When you can't win......go nuclear I guess.
Yes, I flagged you, precisely because you were so off topic. Murtha had absolutely nothing to do with this article, and your "incendiary" post (to quote you) added nothing to discussing the topic at hand. If you want to discuss Murtha, go to Freerepublic, or Democraticunderground, or the millions of other sites available. I have nothing against your expressing your opinions, but you need to stay on topic. If we are just going to bring up Rush Limbaugh talking points for every single MMFA item, then an honest discussion on the MMFA item is impossible, isn't it?
Thanks MMFA for doing the yanking.
Oh, PC, before you do more whining about how your freedom of speech has been violated, and how you were winning, blah, blah, blah, you want to keep in mind that MMFA hardly ever yanks posts, no matter how incendiary or insulting. So post away, but try to address the topic, okay?
Charlie Rose falsely asserted McCain "call[ed] for the firing of Secretary Rumsfeld"
proudconservative wrat:
>>Is charlie rose part of the great right winged conspiracy?
Is the easter bunny real? Can I ask what the heck you are talking about? To repeat, MMFA never makes such claims. You might want to spend more time reading carefully about what MMFA really does, and less time trying to derail topics and less time posting stupid insults.
I thought that Media Matters was about the protecting us from the onslaught of conservative media. From the About Us link:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
So again, why would Charles utter such an outlandish statement about McCain or rather is he part of the blinded, corporate profit driven media machine (Even PBS has to have corporate sponsorships you know) that obviously leans to the right?
Or could MM(vl) has just 'mispoke' when it in an incendiary fashion, tittled this thread...
Charlie Rose falsely asserted McCain "call[ed] for the firing of Secretary Rumsfeld".
Mind you he didn't just utter it nor just say it he......falsely asserted! That's pure evil in its manifestation and intent for sure!
Makes you wonder about commrade Rose.
news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda
Did you forget to read this part too?
The commentary from Charlie Rose is not accurate and it forwards the conservative agenda by claiming that McCain had the foresight and the balls to call for Rumsfeld's resignation. McCain failed to call for his resignation because he was too beholden to President Bush to do so.
Well Mr. fancypants,
You got your wish for some stimulating discussion on topic. Wow, can hardly wait for the upcoming explosive, even incindiary, revealing, earth-shattering epic tale of the next time some media person says that McCain said he really didn't like Rumsfeld instead of his really, really not liking him. Oh the humanity!
And Media Matters (vl), keep an eye on that rapscallon Rose. He's a wolf in liberal clothing!
Is that it? Is the left wing really reduced to semantics over the difference between saying you have "no confidence" in somebody and saying you want them fired? How silly would it sound to say "Oh, I of course have no confidence in the man but no, I do think he should keep his job." McCain said, in so many words, that Rumsfeld should be dumped without trampling the President's prerogative to make the final personnel decisions regarding his cabinet. By the way, Barack Obama's thoughts on Rumsfeld's appointment:
"...but I dont think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that." 1/17/2001, WTTW11’s “Chicago Tonight."