Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nephythys
Which is actually what I was using to base my theory that if he bailed on Bolton too he would look like he was backpedaling and weak as far as how the base sees him....my theory may be off.
|
I don't disagree that that's
why he's sticking with Bolton. His stubborn refusual to change course in the face of facts is the hallmark of his Presidency. I just bristle at the thought that he's doing it as a political move to bolster his party, rather than as an actual attempt to make this country and world better. Of course, he probably figures he's got a free pass right now. Throw the nomination, which will get rejected, out there to appeal to the base, then find someone more moderate. I suspect it will backfire, though.
re: the CNN article, feh. Hindsight is 20/20. Had he dumped Rummy and they still lost, those same folks would have been moaning that he should have stayed the course.
Of course, a year ago, when Bush and Rumpunch were starting to
really obstinant and totally blind to the reality of what was happening in Iraq, I was theorizing that the plan was to have the administration go off the deep end, tank the approval numbers, so Repub. candidates could safely and effectively say, "Hey, now, we don't support HIS version of the war, but we are still strong on national safety," an reel in the center of the party and the indies that were starting to drift over to the Dem side. But either they waited too long, or I was off. In which case, I have no explanation as to why Bush and company patently refused to recognize the losing (or at least stalemate) effort in Iraq.