I did read it, and I respectfully disagree.
I was alive at the time, saw the whole thing in real time, read the contemporaneous accounts. It was a regrettable way of doing things, diminishing the memory and history of a remarkable career.
Let me put it this way:
Let’s pretend something happened to the Idiot in Chief right now. Then imagine that HRC would get her mug in front of the camera and claim she is IN CHARGE right now (Until Biden sobers up or whatever)
FreeRepublic would be ON FIRE.
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
“It was a regrettable way of doing things”
Then please enlighten me, how should he have done it, what should he have said?
If he is the senior person at that facility then is in charge at THAT facility and should state that, as should Hillary.
You have swallowed media twaddle and regurgitated on a thread dedicated to Gen. Haig, upon his death. That is a regrettable way of doing things.