Therein lies the problem. The media's contemporaneous accounts were nothing more than a cheap attempt to smear Gen. Haig. They did not give any context - the fact that Haig was attempting to rein in the chaos in the room; no context that the question he was answering concerned who was in charge in the WH, not the line of presidential succession. It was a cheap attack that has been repeated countless times since against anyone who doesn't share the media's collectivist philosophy.
If you watched what happened, then followed it with a concentrated dose of the media's "analysis", then it's no wonder you have reached the conclusion you have. However, it doesn't change the fact that General Haig was a patriot; he was in no way trying to usurp control of the government, and he was unfairly maligned for trying to restore order to a chaotic situation.
The only regrettable aspect of the situation is the fact that he didn't say things in a way that was bullet-proof to the media's spinning. But, alas, he didn't have the use of a teleprompter like today's Great Communicator. }8^D
I respectfully disagree with you.
I think, that in his effort to calm the nation, he used a rather unfortunate choice of words, at a moment when stability was required. His remarks produced IN-stability! Should a man be condemned forever for such a thing? Of course not. Especially not a man with his background of service to this nation.
That said, not one freeper has answered my question:
What if HRC had done and said the exact same thing?