Writing in WSJ, McGurn falsely claimed McCain "push[ed]" for Bush "to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld"
SUMMARY: In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, William McGurn claimed that Sen. John McCain "push[ed]" for President Bush to "replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, long before anyone else." In fact, the McCain campaign itself reportedly admitted that McCain did not call for Rumsfeld to be fired, or for his resignation.
In an August 5 Wall Street Journal op-ed, William McGurn, News Corp. vice president and former Journal chief editorial writer, claimed that Sen. John McCain "push[ed]" for President Bush to "replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, long before anyone else." McGurn made the false claim in support of his assertion that "[o]f all Republicans, Mr. McCain should have the least to worry about being called a Bush clone." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, and as the McCain campaign itself reportedly admitted, McCain did not call for Rumsfeld to be fired, or for his resignation. The Washington Post reported in February that McCain's campaign admitted that he "did not call for his [Rumsfeld's] resignation. ... He always said that's the president's prerogative."
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."
As Media Matters noted, The Washington 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 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.' " The February 16 Post article also noted that "McCain's false account has been unwittingly incorporated into the narrative he is selling by some news organizations, including The Washington Post."
Indeed, in addition to the Post, MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, PBS host Charlie Rose, syndicated columnist and National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg, and CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger have all falsely claimed or suggested that McCain called for Rumsfeld to resign or be fired.
From McGurn's August 5 Wall Street Journal op-ed:
Yet however awkward Mr. McCain may find standing with President Bush, the greater danger is that Mr. McCain will buy into Mr. Obama's campaign theme. And that is what appears to be happening.
Of all Republicans, Mr. McCain should have the least to worry about being called a Bush clone. Not only was Mr. McCain pushing for a surge in Iraq, and to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, long before anyone else, he has famously gone his own way on everything from stem cells and campaign finance to global warming and (before recanting) tax cuts.
How is it that everyone but MM realizes that a declaration of "no confidence" is essentially a declaration to have someone removed?
What's up, MM? A slow day for "conservative misinformation"?
What's up, MM? A slow day for "conservative misinformation"?
And for Shoes89, today (like every other day) is a slow day for brain function.....
"How is it that everyone but MM realizes that a declaration of "no confidence" is essentially a declaration to have someone removed?"
By having the person who made the declaration backpedal and say his comments "were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation," and that it's "a decision to be made by the president."
That's how.
He could also say, ""I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said."
Or "Needless to say, the President is correct. Whatever it was he said."
Or "Now, settle down, settle down. Hell, I'm an old man, it's early in the morning and I'm gathering my thoughts here."
These quotes have worked in the past, but I forget who exactly said them.
"Oh, I get it. Let's play with the old man's head, is it? He's half-senile, he'll forget I said anything! Wait, uh, what was this about, anyway?"
... or something like that
"I am proud that I was right!"
I'm not sure, King, but those may have been from you. Or me. It doesn't really matter, what's important is that we all keep up with the current reality that McGramp's and his Media Action Team have created.It's a little disorienting at first, sort of like the sudden appearance of the new Darrin on Bewitched, but just play along. It gets easier.
BTW, did you see the link I left you to the archives of wingnut emails?
I get some similar things from from dimwitted friends and relatives.
Soon as I get some time I'll email you.
I remember it was a warm summers evening in '93 as my wife and I approached the ticket booth.
"Two for Dread Zeppelin, please" I said to the cashier. I received my tickets, and we gave them to the doorman as we entered the club. "Enjoy", he said, and I nodded and smiled, knowing that we would, indeed, enjoy.
We were early, but there was already a sense of excitement in the smokey atmosphere, untempered by the gray-green walls which had last been painted sometime before 1970, probably with surplus WWII lead-based paint. There were several open tables, and one immediately behind the rail on the upper tier of the floor appeared to be the best vantage point from which to watch the band.
We sat down, ordered a couple beers, and chatted about banal things while waiting for the band to take the stage...
...The view of the band was magnificent. We watched as Ed Zeppelin pounded out a reggae beat that worked its way deep into our souls, and Tortelvis crooned "Whole Lotta Love", occasionally directing Charlie to shine a flashlight on the more attractive chicks in the audience. Charlie unexpectedly swung the bright beam over in our direction, lighting up my wife, and giving a wink, Tortelvis acknowledged that he had truly seen an angel, as my wife demurely lowered her head and smiled. Other than the time in Sturgis when I offered her topless for the crowd to choose as Miss Buffalo Chip, I had never been so proud.
I picked up my beer to give a salute to the band, but before I could extend my arm, a young gentleman with fake sideburns slid in between the rail and the table where we were sitting, obscuring our view and compromising my wife's honor. I quickly stood up and approached him. "I hope you don't mind, but my wife and I got here early precisely so that we could obtain this table and have a clear view of the band, an effort which you have now transubstantiated to a level equal to pushing a rope. Would you mind terribly finding another place to stand?" With a confused grunt, he took two steps to his right, just enough to frame our view with his left arm and the cigarette machine to our left. All was right with the world.
The band played, the crowd grew, and before long, the man with the fake sideburns was again standing between my wife and a clear view of the stage. I gently set down my beer, and was beginning to stand, when my wife suddenly flew from her chair, and putting a forearm into the back of his neck, bent the man with the fake sideburns over the rail with such fury that his beer bottle went deep into his mouth through the space where his front teeth had been just moments before. She backed away just enough to allow him to stand upright again, turn around, and spit the teeth out. With fire coming from his eyes, he reached out to grab her, but he was too slow, and the thumb of his right hand soon had a new joint at the hands of my now perturbed wife. The screams could be heard over the plaintive refrains of "Black Dog", and his friend - who I have no reason to believe was his gay lover - responded as if coming to his rescue. I quickly blocked the friends path, to which he said "This needs to be stopped before somebody gets hurt". I responded that it was "a decision to be made by the bouncers".
Before long, the bouncers DID make their decision, and escorted the man with the fake sideburns to an area closer to the bar, and farther from my wife.
As she sat down, poured a little beer on a napkin, and wiped the blood off her hands, I leaned over and - giving her a kiss on the cheek - said "I'm proud of ya, ya c**t..."
I have no confidence in anything Media Matters (very little) presents on this website. The job they do is substandard and ineffective. But I guess that other's have a greater say in whether or not MM(vl) will continue to produce a smokescreen for anything leftist.
According to MM(vl), I guess this is a ringing endorsement of what they do.
"other's" should not have an apostrophe.
brightaridplace,
Thanks for keeping a close eye on the important things. Finding mountains in molehills is what MM(vl) is all about. And those supposed mountains are what the leftists here pray will deceive America.
The reversal is all about satire and derision, which is made easy by the moronic stuff this site tries to attach to mainstream media's agenda of attacking liberalism, as it is know today. They are still looking for the 'moutain' that will bring down everything that is right (and good) about this country. But alas, no mountains to be found only the hope that somehow NPR will come back from the dark side or at least go to another state fair!
You forgot the "n" on what I think you intended to be "known". And you misspelled mountain as 'moutain'. Also, mountains aren't usually known to "bring down" things. A different metaphor could have been more appropriate.
You should have used a period after "found" to avoid that run-on sentence, and a comma after "dark side".
rustybike,
Get a grip and consider how ludicrious the idea is that somehow this constitutes a gripping issue for the upcoming election. Voters would rather hear that the surge is both working and recognized as such by the left, see if the democrats who control congress will ever end their embargo on our oil and/or use their hot air to properly inflate the tires on their SUV's?
the surge is both working
How long does it have to work before the troops can come home and we can stop the needless death and endless bonfire fueled by our hard-earned cash? In Vietnam I believe the surge (escalation) lasted about 3-4 years.
boyisayboy,
This just in....more bad news for the left....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797955889015047.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Does this mean the troops can come home and the war profiterring can stop next month? Next year? Next decade? Next milleneum?
Bad news for the left, my a**. That's the #1 wingnut talking point that any bad news in Iraq is good news for the left, and vice-versa. Try again.
By the way, your guy Gramps had this enlightened thought at Sturgis:
"We going to win in Iraq the right way.....BY WINNING!"
How can you refute that logic, PC?
boyisayboy,
So are we losing in Iraq?
The continually missed question is, why did we need a surge?
Some bad decisions in the time frame pior to it? That time frame enclosed how many years of bad decisions?