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.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.