Quote:
Originally posted by fintstone
Removing Rumsfeld right before the election would not have changed a thing except to make the President appear weaker and grasping at straws....purely a political ploy and nothing more. The election was not about Rumsfeld....except for those residing at the dunce's academy.
|
And removing him the day after the election doesn't seem like a political ploy and make the President look weaker? Get real.
Doing it before would have given him (Bush) a shot at blunting the Democratic momentum, doing it after is pure weakness. As someone said, he grossly misjudged the electorate's mood - a major political error. ( Admittedly, replacing Rumsfeld 1 day before the election would have been too late, would have had to do it in late summer.)
To those who say they were negative on Rumsfeld but withheld their criticism for some reason - why didn't you speak up? Afraid to speak your mind? Value loyalty over competence? Or are you just jumping on the bandwagon on the morning after?
To those who say the US won't support big spending on the military - look at the military spending over the past several years. How can it not be called "big"? The country is willing to spend on, and support, the military.
To those who say Rumsfeld was doing the right thing by making the military smaller and more lethal - theory is fine, but results are what count. When the Sec'y of Defense is so set on small/lethal that he won't commit the necessary mass of troops to do the job, that's a failure.
I've said for a long time (here) that we should greatly increase the number of US troops in Iraq, rather than try to pull US troops out. But in everything there is a window of opportunity; let it pass, and your options get bad. I am not sure that window remains open.