It really boggles the mind. It's beyond belief.
All the great generals have said Rumsfeld has no idea what he's doing. Yet Bush keeps him on.
Smart Democrats don't even have to come out against the war, all they have to do is agree with all the retiring generals who declare Rumsfeld an incompetent moron.
This is the key point: Is Bush more loyal to an incompetent Rumsfeld than he is concerned about the lives of our children in Iraq?
Bush's supporters should be defeated (in the elections) to keep an idiot in charge of the lives of our children in Iraq. Or am I wrong?
2006-08-31 14:12:45 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
World leaders have a tendency to worry about their place in history via how the history books will write their bios. Most of the time the important stuff, like the people, get pushed aside. I've never seen any public figure consider anything but their own self proclaimed destiny. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans.
2006-09-08 09:23:00 · answer #1 · answered by The Mick "7" 7 · 18⤊ 0⤋
Bush or Rumsfeld have no clue what they are doing....They did make the cut as "First Retarded President and Secretary of Defense"....So that would make them so proud!!
Be sure to send Barbara a Thank you letter as well,for her wonderful lil Dubbya offspring......
I support the troops but Not the two idiots you are talking about.
Let's send the twins over and see how long it takes for the war to end......
2006-08-31 16:25:57 · answer #2 · answered by Holly 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
i understand of a few republicans that are very unhappy with the way good ole' Don is handling the conflict (see: fiasco) in Iraq. We handed the crossroads whence we had the probability to win the Iraqi human beings's hearts. Now there is both extra of a similar or worse to seem ahead too. those are the words I have heard used (through many protection stress human beings that lean to the right)
2016-12-06 01:53:04 · answer #3 · answered by auldridge 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably because Rumsfeld can suck better then Mrs. Bush and he prefers the reach around while taking it. HAHAHAHA!
2006-09-08 11:34:53 · answer #4 · answered by AlanaBana 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only reason can think of is that Mr. R has so much dirt on Mr. B that the book he'd write after being fired would make Richard Clarke's book look like a nursery rhyme.
2006-09-07 04:50:04 · answer #5 · answered by Victor C 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Of corse you're not wrong! Bush can't fire Rumsfeld (or Chaney ) because they are HIS BOSS and he basically works for them not the USA taxpayer; having stolen 2 election for him.
2006-08-31 14:33:45 · answer #6 · answered by razor 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
He should fire Rumsfeld for being too soft. The idiot Dems would fire him for being to hard.
We need somebody with more teeth who will be willing to tear their heads off and like it.
We need to be so mean and aggressive that these Muslim CSuckers will wanna become born again Christians or some crap, just for us to leave them alone.
He should order the executions of all the Gitmo terrorists immediately, that would be a good start.
2006-09-06 09:21:45 · answer #7 · answered by TG Special 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Donald Rumsfeld is the most effective Secretary of Defense in the history of this nation.
Who are "all the great generals"? More importantly, what have "they" done?
We have established that you do not like Donald Rumsfeld. Just because a few, and I do mean a few, disaffected flag grade officers do not like him does not mean he is incompetent.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
2006-09-05 15:48:56 · answer #8 · answered by JAMES11A 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
You have to find Cheney to ask him this question. Cheney disappears while Bush chuckles when Rumsfeld speaks. Hell, they are all nuts!
2006-08-31 14:37:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps because Rumsfeld is such a good buddy of Cheney, who is the guy who really runs the country.
2006-08-31 14:18:24 · answer #10 · answered by TxSup 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋