No disrespect, but your elaborate and well articulated argument boils down to two words: "Trust Bush." Trust him even if he acts on his own, appoints someone close to him, without consulting the people to whom this appointment has meant so much for not just years, but DECADES. In fact, especially trust Bush in that case. I can't go along.
I don't understand this at all. Exactly which people should he have "consulted" with that he did not? Can you name them, because this makes no sense to me at all.