It's like the time at the end of a children's game, the time when everyone tells where they hid or what they pretended to be. Only it's not a children's game, of course, but thinking in those terms keeps my head from exploding, given that I'm a somewhat idealistic goddess.
I'm talking about Donald Rumsfeld, of course. He's coming clean now that not coming clean doesn't benefit him. First, he has a different interpretation of his resignation than our Dear Leader. Remember that Bush argued Rumsfeld was going to go whatever the election results might have been. But this is what Rumsfeld himself said to Hannity (a wingnut pundit on Fox):
HANNITY: What happened this time, though?
RUMSFELD: I think that this time the outcome of the election, just to put it right up on the table, created a situation where I personally believe, and the president agrees, it is better for someone else to be leading this department with that new Congress. And it's better for the military; it's better for the department; and it's better for the administration. And I feel comfortable with that.
Ok, so this is fairly trivial. But note that Rumsfeld has been making other contradictory statements, too. Such as these:
In a new interview posted on Townhall.com, conservative columnist Cal Thomas asks outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "With what you know now, what might you have done differently in Iraq?" Rumsfeld offers a remarkable response:
I don't think I would have called it the war on terror. I don't mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word 'war' conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn't going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a 'war on terror.' Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So 'war on terror' is a problem for me.
Click on the link to find Rumsfeld saying the exact opposite umpteen hundred times in the past.
Isn't it odd how quickly things change in the faith-based reality? And how very hard it is to tell what the conservatives actually think? If they think, that is.