Quote:
|
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.