Decider-in-Chief Sticks With Rumsfeld
Off with his head, cry the critics of Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. So seven Generals are crying for Rumsfeld to be fired, all during a time when we are fighting the Global War on Terror. President Bush apparently is not amused by these critics, firing back that he and he alone makes the decision whether or not to replace a cabinet member. As the Decider-in-Chief the President is happy with Rumsfeld and is not planning to replace him any time soon.
Pressed to respond to critics who say he is ignoring the advice of respected former military commanders, Bush vigorously stood by Rumsfeld.
“I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision,” he said. “And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He’s not only transforming the military, he’s fighting a war on terror. He’s helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld.
“I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.”
Let’s see if this new title catches on like “Leaker-in-Chief” did. I doubt it. As the Decider-in-Chief the President makes no bones why he is sticking with Rumsfeld even though talking to the press about personnel matters is not something he normally does.
You have to give credit to the President, he did not stick his finger into the political wind like some politicians are apt to do. He vigorously defended his Secretary.
In response to the seven generals coming out against the embattled Secretary of Defense, four others, Lt. Gen. John Crosby, retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Fox News analyst), retired Maj. Gen. Buron Moore (Fox News analyst) and retired Maj. Gen Paul Vallely (Fox News analyst) have come out in support of Rumsfeld in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.
More than likely, Mr. Rumsfeld’s departure would create new problems, starting with a crisis of confidence in Iraq about American staying power. What do Mr. Rumsfeld’s critics imagine Iraqis think as they watch former commanders assigning blame? And how would a Rumsfeld resignation contribute to the credible threat of force necessary to meet America’s next major security challenge, which is Iran’s attempt to build a nuclear bomb? Sacking the Defense Secretary mid-conflict would only reinforce the Iranian mullahs’ belief that they have nothing to worry about because Americans have no stomach for a prolonged engagement in their part of the world.
I agree. I agree. I agree. Their complaining is just so much sour grapes. Besides, such a move as replacing the Sec. Def. would only embolden the terrors. Believing they are tiring America the terrorist would renew their attacks with unequaled fury. By sticking with Rumsfeld the way he is, the President is proclaiming loud and clear for all to hear, we are winning with Donald Rumsfeld, and I am sticking with him.
Posts
