if I were OBL, or Saddam, or any number of other terrorist so-called-leaders, I would NOT like the current Adm.
I would imagine so. I would imagine that Rummy going down would give them a cheap thrill.
This is the clip to which I responded.
<<Keeping Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and George Tenet at the CIA means Bush is essentially taking responsibility - personal responsibility - for the missteps of these two agencies, past and future. He's gambling that the American public will look, as he does, at the bigger picture.
>>
The author is saying that the voters will reward Bush for taking responsibility, thus Bush should keep Rumsfeld.
I complained that the author was focusing on the election rather than the war.
You are arguing that keeping Rummy will be good for the war effort, too, because ditching Rummy would hearten terrorist leaders. OK, I'll buy that.
But Rummy's staying or going would have other effects, too. Hard to say what they all are let alone whether the net impact would be positive or negative for nation building in Iraq or the war on terror in general. I imagine the cheap thrill or lack of it for Saddam and bin Laden etc. would be all but forgotten very quickly and it would be of relatively trivial consequence in the grand scheme of things. Of the greatest consequence for the big picture, IMO, is the perception of the US, the rule of law, and open government in the eyes of moderate Arabs and Muslims. We need to be focused on how to optimize that, not on Bush's polls nor bin Laden's jollies. |
