Rumsfeld’s Resignation
According to The New York Times the decision that Rumsfeld should go was made months ago already. The only question was when not whether he should go.
I find it quite funny that newspapers and bloggers are so overly pointing out that Bush recently said that Rumsfeld should stay. What would one have wanted him to say? “Yes, I am not happy with Rumsfeld either, but I have difficulty finding a good replacement”? Logically Bush could not have said that. Logically, could only answer questions about Rumsfeld’s future either positively or – basically – not at all. Purposefully keeping the answer vague would be the best approach, but bloggers who suddenly attack Bush for publicly supporting his, then, Secretary of Defense don’t understand politics. Not even a little bit.
As you all know I was not happy with Bush’s words back then; that he planned on keeping Rumsfeld on. However, when a President says something like that, it is always important to remember that he cannot just speak out against his own Secretary of Defense either.
“Bush’s lie”… Now that’s exaggering it a bit, isn’t it.
53 Responses to “Rumsfeld’s Resignation”
The amazingly overlooked admission here is Bush stating that with bipartisan cooperation and fresh eyes, he is confident we will see progress in Iraq, telling the terrorists not to celebrate ’cause we’re still gonna kick their butts, after claiming JUST LAST WEEK that if the Democrats win, the terrorists win.
This evil man is admitting he has withheld bipartisan cooperation and retained an incompetent Secretary of Defense, even if just for a week, for political reasons, while soldiers died. That one day after losing the ability to lie without fear of investigation, he dumps Rummy is a clear admission that he valued politics over the lives of our brightest and best. Shame.
he is confident we will see progress in Iraq, telling the terrorists not to celebrate ’cause we’re still gonna kick their butts, after claiming JUST LAST WEEK that if the Democrats win, the terrorists win.
Doesn’t it seem like no matter what we do the terrorists will win? If we leave Iraq too soon, the terrorists win, if we stay they can recruit additional volunteers and exhaust ours, so the terrorists win. If we increase the number of troops they win, because we will lose the dwindling good will of the Arab world and the respect of our allies. If we stay but decrease troops, they win because the Iraqi army won’t be able to control the violence. So we might as well make up a series of deadlines and have a staged withdrawl-leaving just a bare bones force in Kurdestan. Maybe the Democrats can make a nice plaque up for Bush congratulating him on his outstanding “victory”.
BTW, congressive- I really think that by using that type of extreme rhetoric on fellow Americans, Bush and the neocons lost the war and the election.
Michael, you have got to go back to school and work on your writing skills. “Overly pointing out,” do you mean “overtly pointing out?”
Seriously, you are a terrible writer.