Posted on 05/08/2004 3:24:31 AM PDT by kattracks
Did it ever occur to anyone in the media elite that President Bush's decision to retain the services of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was a sign of political courage, not misplaced loyalty?It is the easiest decision in politics for an elected official to throw one of his appointees under the bus. Nothing takes the air out of a public relations crisis faster than sacrificing a scapegoat.
Far harder is to stick by underlings under fire. Doing so essentially means accepting that the bull's eye will be placed on the politician's own back.
That's not a position most elected leaders are willing to put themselves in. Bush clearly is - and only six months from a general election to boot. By doing so, he has placed himself at huge political risk, and there's something admirable about that.
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 president has supreme confidence in the soundness of his policies and in the people he has picked to carry them out.
It doesn't follow that Bush is blind to policy or human failings. That he took Rumsfeld to the woodshed - and then authorized aides to make it public - makes clear he's no patsy.
We don't agree with his decision to keep Tenet. Any CIA leader who accepts that it will take five years to fix that troubled operation isn't the right person to lead the turnaround.
And certainly a major ball was dropped in the handling of Iraqi prisoner abuse cases.
Rumsfeld acknowledged as much in testimony before Congress yesterday: ``I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees. They are human beings. They were in U.S. custody. . . . I offer my deepest apologies.''
Rumsfeld warned that there are worse disclosures to come. Further review may make it clear that he, like Tenet, is the wrong choice for the country.
That the president isn't willing to make that choice now doesn't show a lack of leadership. It is leadership.
The Boston Herald editorial staff??? Writing a pro-Bush editorial? There must be some mistake.
Why? Boston Herald often takes pro-Republican (or supports conservative Democrats, yes there are such in Massachusetts). Probably you were thinking about Boston Globe.
. . . just as Bill Clinton took "responsibility - personal responsibility - for the missteps of" Janet Reno at Waco and of whoever hired Craig Livingstone. And for Travelgate. And for Lewinskigate. And for lying to the judge in the Jones case. </sarcasm>(My sarcasm is directed at the Democratic Party, not the author of this unexceptionable article). BTTT.
Ah, it's the Democrat party. Know your enemy, although more than half the check cashing, drool dribbling, whining layabouts and their oxygen thieving spawn call their organized crime syndicate the Democratic Party also. But, since they can't read beyond a roadside yield sign, and even then they have to stop the Volvo, trace the letters with their fingers and do some phonetic spelling, it's no excuse for the likes of us.
Homosexual rape of boys, beating of prisoners and a few other examples of perversion are out there and still to be digested by the public. The breakdown of self- discipline and moral depravity in our own civilian population is being reflected in those entering the armed forces. This is going to get far worse in the court of world opinion and our outrage at home.
"The Day I had to Explain to my Eight Year Old what Oral Sex Was" or
"President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky: Degrading OUR White House"
"You Dems want someone out? Okay, we can do that". WATCH!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.