For the Republicans who are saying that Bush should have fired Rumsfeld before the election, do you really think that would have motivated the base to go out and vote? Probably the biggest reason the Republicans lost big is they gave people nothing to vote for, and you really think seeing Rumsfeld get fired would have had everyone running to the polls? Maybe – maybe – it would have affected a few independent voters, but firing Rumsfeld just looks like weakness, and weakness doesn’t win elections.
Firing Rumsfeld is appeasement to the Democrats, and appeasing the Democrats is the first step on the road towards appeasing terrorists.
No appeasement!
Like I said in Sara’s post, Rummy will now have more time to strangle idiots, no doubt some wonderful Machiavellian plan by Karl Rove.
So if we take away the college tax breaks, would they have to go to Iraq?
And there’s a greater question Frank. Whould a dumb monkey faced liberal in Iraq (Since only idiots go to Iraq) be stuck in a vegetative state where they can do no harm??
So now that our President has formally and publicly “dropped trou” for the democrats, what’s next? Bend over, grab his desk and take it up the keister a few times from Barney Frank in the new “spirit of bipartisanship”? sigh–I miss Ronald Reagan!
Well now that “our” president has cut-n-run from Rumsfield…its on to amnesty for the 12 million illegals…who knows what else “our” president will do to make nice with the demo’s. So much for “staying the course”. (Spit!)
It’s “dumb monkey-faced liberal.” Don’t forget the hyphen, eh.
Not to mention that the term “would” is spelled without an “h”. Bhut who am I to say…