More from the 'Saddam wasn't such a bad bloke' crowd.
We have a Commander in Chief. He's running the war, as he should. If he has confidence in Rumsfeld, so do I. On this subject I support Bush and Rumsfeld 100%.
Every war will have it naysayers, but when generals speak out, they MUST have an overpowering arguement. If there was an overpowering arguement, Bush's military advisors would let him know about it.
A person in Rumsfeld's position cannot fake it forever. If he wasn't doing his job, Bush would know by now and make a change. He hasn't, therefore Rumsfeld is doing a great job.
All these generals are doing is making it easier to destroy troop moral in the theater of war.
If Rumsfeld truly wasn't doing his job and our troops were suffering because of it, I'd be very inclined to support his removal.
To this day I dispise Robert McNamera. To this day I admire and respect Rumself a great deal.
I wish these generals would put a sock in it.
[To this day I dispise Robert McNamera.]
I wouldn't even want to guess how many American military lives he cost us.
You have to also take into account that these generals are likely not thrilled with changes that have been and continue to be made in our military, changes that Rummy is committed to.
Ditto. I completely agree.
This is the one area that I agree with Bush and I trust Rumsfeld.