2006-11-21 06:31:25 · 9 answers · asked by PB_Smith 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
does the pope look like satan?
2006-11-21 06:41:16 · answer #1 · answered by nemesis 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Numerous media outlets reported without challenge President Bush's assertion that the "ultimate accountability" for the Iraq war "rests with me" -- some even asserting that he "took full responsibility for the war." But these reports ignored Bush's consistent pattern of deflecting questions regarding his and Rumsfeld’s judgments on Iraq by stating that he defers to others, including top generals, the intelligence community, and the Iraqi government, in making such decisions. Once he couldn’t defend Rumsfeld’s or his failures no longer….he decided (with a lot of help from his advisers) that one had to go.
2006-11-21 14:44:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No it was not. The primary reason that Rumsfield was replaced was that it became apparent that he had lost his credibility with the senior military leadership.
In fact the decision to replace Rumsfield was made before the elections.
2006-11-21 15:36:37 · answer #3 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure it was. It was Bush shifting the blame to Rumsfeld thinking it would get him off the hook. Doesn't work that easy.
2006-11-21 14:34:49 · answer #4 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
of course! if the republicans would have won congress rumsfeld would still be in power.. he had to try and save face with that defeat and try to salvage his party.
2006-11-21 14:34:23 · answer #5 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely. The man was on fire, a political liability like no other.
2006-11-21 14:45:26 · answer #6 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
very political
2006-11-21 14:33:11 · answer #7 · answered by SKYDOGSLIM 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As opposed to what?
2006-11-21 14:33:33 · answer #8 · answered by foxwallow 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
ya think?
2006-11-21 15:02:04 · answer #9 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋