Bush Says Rumsfeld Resigning, Gates to Replace Him

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

And people wonder why I choose to not play nice with some of you.

Because we ask direct questions and challenge you to articulate your position fully, rather than rely on quips, soudbites, and lopsided editorials? Cripes, do you want me to go back over the last week and pull all of the direct questions you refused to answer and instead changed the subject?

I'm done playing the game of pretending it's charming and "just Neph". There are plenty of people on this board whose positions get misunderstood. You know what they do? They respond and clarify themselves. They don't whine that their "words are being twisted." So yeah, I'm done letting that crap slide. I'm going to call you on it every time because it's childish and unbecoming of this board which otherwise contains thoughtful and varied discussion of political views.

[Gemini Cricket]

What I'm confused about about the whole Rumsfeld thing, is that for months and months Bush said that Rummy was doing a fine job and that he was staying. Now he accepts his resignation and then says that he couldn't do so before the election. Then he says that he knew he was going to let him go. So Bush lied. And flip-flopped, might I add. He was for Rumsfeld before he was against him...

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

And flip-flopped, might I add. He was for Rumsfeld before he was against him...

One week before the election, Bush said there was no way he was getting rid of Rumsfeld. And yet, here we have evidence that it's been in the works, as you say, for months. I can't think of any clearer evidence that Bush was using Rumsfeld for party politics.

Par for the course for either party, of course.

What I don't get is Rumsfeld NOW admitting things aren't going well in Iraq. I mean, I really don't get it. Why is he saying that now? Did he believe that before the election and just wasn't saying it because he thought it would help the party? That seems...unlikely considering that the overwhelming indication was that the "staying the course" message was hurting the party a lot. Did he believe it and never say it because he didn't want to appear weak? That seems likely, but stupid considering that part of what's wrong in Iraq is that our leaders have approached it with pig-headed stuborness and one of the solutions is to simply back off and be open to the idea of altering course.

Or is he saying now because he FINALLY believes that, yes, people really are ticked off at the way he handled it and he's trying to save some face?

Some other reason? I'm baffled.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

itOr is he saying now because he FINALLY believes that, yes, people really are ticked off at the way he handled it and he's trying to save some face?

Some other reason? I'm baffled.

I think it has to do with the "Bush Legacy" personally. In the end he and daddy are going to do all they can to secure a place in the history books and if he can suck up just enough in the "end" of his term, I'm sure they hope they put as much as the "bad stuff" into the background as possible.

Sort of "History is written by the winners and not totally truthful."

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Because we ask direct questions and challenge you to articulate your position fully, rather than rely on quips, soudbites, and lopsided editorials? Cripes, do you want me to go back over the last week and pull all of the direct questions you refused to answer and instead changed the subject?

I'm done playing the game of pretending it's charming and "just Neph". There are plenty of people on this board whose positions get misunderstood. You know what they do? They respond and clarify themselves. They don't whine that their "words are being twisted." So yeah, I'm done letting that crap slide. I'm going to call you on it every time because it's childish and unbecoming of this board which otherwise contains thoughtful and varied discussion of political views.

I'm not whining GD- I am refusing to participate in a conversation with a person who I feel deliberately twists things to be antagonistic.

This is not a huff- or whining. This is me not wanting to discuss things with you.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I'm not whining GD- I am refusing to participate in a conversation with a person who I feel deliberately twists things to be antagonistic.

This is not a huff- or whining. This is me not wanting to discuss things with you.

You sure you don't have a headache? You aren't emotionally exhausted?

I am not deliberately twisting anything. I honestly read your justification for Bush's actions as advocating "party before country" patisan politics. If you have a different view, I'd love to hear it. That's what "?" <--- these little things mean.

But no. Your response any time someone questions what you mean is to complain about twisting your words. Until you decide to just try clarifying your position when someone misundersands you instead of instantly accusing people of purposefully going after you, which I guarantee you is not the case, this is the type of covnersation you're going to have. Over and over. Sorry if that's not what you came here for, but dealing with someone who can't have a rational debate without giving up every time they're misunderstood isn't why I come here for, so I guess we're even.

ETA: You want an example of how to handle such things? Go find where you, correctly, caught me saying things in a way I didn't mean them regarding poll workers. Did I throw my hands up, roll my eyes, and accuse you of twisting my words? No, I restated my position in a way that more accurately communicated what I meant. It's a debate technique I like to call "communication".

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I'm not whining GD- I am refusing to participate in a conversation with a person who I feel deliberately twists things to be antagonistic.

This is not a huff- or whining. This is me not wanting to discuss things with you.

Words have meaning, Nephy. You should either learn to choose the ones you use more carefully, so that you are not misunderstood, or be prepared to rephrase your statements when people question their meaning.

This is not an attack, but heartfelt creative feedback.

[Moonliner]

Excuse me if I go back on topic for a moment...

CNN and others are running an interesting news story. It seems some republicans are pissed at Bush over the Rumsfeld timing. Since most Americans voted against the war, they argue that firing Rummy well ahead of the election would have helped their cause and prevented the loss of both houses. I think I have to agree, I certainly would have had a better opinion of Bush if I thought he was taking concrete measures to try and improve the situation in Iraq (ie firing him).

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Neph

And people wonder why I choose to not play nice with some of you.

Well, you ARE our chosen victim, don't you know. At least you've chosen to play that part.

[Gemini Cricket]

In my attempt to be more positive in my life (and failing the last couple of days ) I must spin this thread to put dear Donald in a positive light for just a sec.



When he was younger he was a beefy hunk wrestler.
That's kinda hot.