I don’t bother with people like you usually. Your “eastern” arrogance is a bit much, as if I owe you an explanation just because you feel a little combative over a simple comment.
Someone is supposed to tell the emporer that he has no clothes on. If the emporer persists in not believing this person, then a protest of sorts needs to happen. If the problem still persists, then the advisor is supposed to resign out of moral obligation. Even the Rat McClellan had no info regarding any conflict between Bush’s protectors; therefore, it did not exist.
The only reason Rove was not “chief of staff”, was because Bush knew he would never fire him, since a true chief of staff has to be the fall guy. In other words, Rove was essentially the only person with permanant standing to advise Bush. Not even Dick C. had that ability.
So my friend, it was Rove’s obligation to do something, and he didn’t. The very fact that Bush was his boss, is the sole reason he should not have just collected a paycheck.
I questioned your original statement, and rather than answering my question or supporting your position, you replied with an insult.
I asked the question again and you replied with another insult but at least you gave me an answer. I guess that’s progress.