Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3
Keeping Rumsfeld onboard is more about loyalty than integrity. Integrity keeps you on mission. Loyalty keeps friends on staff who don't get the job done.
The troops won't lose confidence in Bush as long as they know he has a plan, will stay on mission and will complete the mission. In this case, the mission was to depose Saddam Hussein, provide for democratic elections, train an iraqi army to fight insurgents and turn the reins over to the new iraqi government with a small US occupying/advising force. Four years later, Rumsfeld hasn't finished the job and the end is still out of sight.
As a matter of integrity, Pres Bush should have replaced him long ago so he could achieve his goals in Iraq. Integrity isn't perpetuating a losing strategy just because you won't fire your friend. Integrity is saying, I'm on a mission and you're not getting it done.
|
Don't Clinton-speak this. YOU said it was ironic and if the President would have replaced Rumsfeld before the election, it would change the outcome.
He didn't sacrifice morale for political gain. You hide your true political position behind your words. That is cowardly.
You are a partisan Democrat and don't practice what you preach.