"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
....
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
pan.2006.11.08.22.31.18.706173@tepidmail.com...
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:44:34 +0000, Charly the ***** wrote:
Yeppers, he's out the door. Like the proverbial rat, he's leaving the
sinking ship before the waters of Democratic change close over his
head. His proposed replacement is Bob Gates, ex-CIA head and current
president of Texas A&M University. One last gasp of cronyism from our
Lamest Duck. BTW, Texas A&M lost to the University of Oklahoma last
Saturday, so our guys should be home real soon.
Charly
Hold on - Bush had a replacement way too fast for this to be a sudden
decision. I'd say that Rumsfeld was going to be out in the next few
months anyway, which means Bush lied again (big surprise). Recall that
Bush claimed that Rummy would stay on for the duration of his presidency.
Woods
For once in your life you may be on to something about Bush not being
(P.S. Sorry for the poor choice of words last night, this is merely a way of
speaking, of course I don't mean that you are never right, although you have
been quite influenced since 9-11. J.)
straightforward, but there is a rationale for it of course. At the
beginning of the month, the resignation of Rumsfeld wasn't decided, hence
there had been absolutely no consultation with his replacement. But yes,
the choice to make this blanket statement meant that he didn't have
anticipated it, but his excuse that he said that so he wouldn't look as if
he was caving to political pressure was an admission that he had
(anticipated it); very ill adviced... he should have been more prudent.
This is nothing like Bill Clinton's lie to the American people about his
affair, but this is the first time that there is a bad decision from the
president in matters of international policies under his discretion, one
which is not some lie made up by his opponents or even his peers at times,
like it has always been so far. Is the pressure getting to him? But for
the first time, Wood, it is not the journalists making stuff up from the
clear logic of the US leader, for once, there is something there, even the
White House briefings (see:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061109-2.html ) couldn't
deny it was difficult to comprehend, this never really happened before.
Wonder if it will be related as such in his memoirs, if he can really
admit, in this case, that instead of showing inflexibility in his
unconditional support for his defense minister, it would have been wiser,
showing strenght even, if he had been admitting wavering towards change
about it, despite the bad timing of the elections. It was a presidential
decision, to act in accordance with the obligation of the office, and in
any other circumstances, maybe any other president could have done the
same thing without a second thought, but in his case, because of the
incredible (to me) antagonism from so may people in the US and the world,
he couldn't afford to play with the facts at all, even if, although
anticipated, they were not yet known even to him, in such a manner that
could have made any such hesitation an almost impossible focus away from
the election at stake, to address without any subnstance to back up his
statement. But the tremendous hostility of his adversaries inside and
outside the country gives him absolutely no margin of maneuver.
He should have performed the miracle of being less categorical about
Rumsfeld support while at the same time not triggering instability by
speculation on the follow up, and yet achieve the transition as it
happened. A Presidential decision, unfortunate in his case as the
confidence is so (undeservely) undermined by so many, but with this kind
of unprecendented (domestic and international) pressure, such a slip up in
judgement might have been unavoidable eventually, as he is always eager to
explain himself spontaneously and this required a very deep reflexion.
I'm sure he will be more careful in the future.
J.
.
