speechlesstx
Aug 16, 2007, 08:01 AM
It's now come out that Bush withheld Rumsfeld's resignation until the day after the election last year:
The White House confirmed on Wednesday that Rumsfeld's letter of resignation was dated Nov. 6, 2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081502089.html), the day before voters -- many of them furious about the war in Iraq -- evicted Republicans from the leadership of the House and Senate.
Specter seems to think it would made the difference had he announced this on election day, "If Rumsfeld had been out, you bet it would have made a difference," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said at the time. "I'd still be chairman of the Judiciary Committee."
Maybe, maybe not. Bush's reasoning he said was, "I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign." Imagine that, he didn't want to play politics on the day of the election. I can respect that and I believe it speaks highly of the man he really is, not the man he is portrayed to be. Would it have been enough to make the difference though?
And speaking of the resignation, this little AP blurb was in my paper today exactly as shown:
The word "Iraq" doesn't appear in former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation letter. Neither does the word "war." In fact, the deadly and much-criticized conflict that eventually drummed him out of office, comes up only in vague references, such as "a critical time in our history" and "challenging time for our country," in the four-paragraph, 148-word letter he wrote to President Bush a day before the Nov. 7, 2006 election.
Why is that significant? Besides the AP, Katie Couric sure seemed to think it was (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/08/15/couric-astounded-rumsfelds-resignation-letter-omitted-words-iraq-war) significant. Geez, you'd think the left would just be thrilled Rumsfeld was gone, should he now be crucified again for not writing his resignation properly? Did he leave without sufficient self-flagellation, wailing and gnashing of teeth over his sins?
The White House confirmed on Wednesday that Rumsfeld's letter of resignation was dated Nov. 6, 2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081502089.html), the day before voters -- many of them furious about the war in Iraq -- evicted Republicans from the leadership of the House and Senate.
Specter seems to think it would made the difference had he announced this on election day, "If Rumsfeld had been out, you bet it would have made a difference," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said at the time. "I'd still be chairman of the Judiciary Committee."
Maybe, maybe not. Bush's reasoning he said was, "I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign." Imagine that, he didn't want to play politics on the day of the election. I can respect that and I believe it speaks highly of the man he really is, not the man he is portrayed to be. Would it have been enough to make the difference though?
And speaking of the resignation, this little AP blurb was in my paper today exactly as shown:
The word "Iraq" doesn't appear in former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation letter. Neither does the word "war." In fact, the deadly and much-criticized conflict that eventually drummed him out of office, comes up only in vague references, such as "a critical time in our history" and "challenging time for our country," in the four-paragraph, 148-word letter he wrote to President Bush a day before the Nov. 7, 2006 election.
Why is that significant? Besides the AP, Katie Couric sure seemed to think it was (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/08/15/couric-astounded-rumsfelds-resignation-letter-omitted-words-iraq-war) significant. Geez, you'd think the left would just be thrilled Rumsfeld was gone, should he now be crucified again for not writing his resignation properly? Did he leave without sufficient self-flagellation, wailing and gnashing of teeth over his sins?