Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Just to follow up on my previous post, I'd like to flag this Jerusalem Post article in which William Kristol frankly discusses what Buchanan called "the backstab of the year", Kristol's call for Rumsfeld's dismissal.
The bottom line is that he says Rumsfeld is safe for awhile but that he won't last four years. Here's some quotes...
Asked how widespread the anti-Rumsfeld sentiment is among hawks, Kristol said
He noted that the anti-Rumsfeld position is strongest among people actually in the military, saying, "To know a lot of what it is like on the ground is not to be pro-Rumsfeld," and concluded
Oh, yeah, here's Kristol's Post editorial that started this ball rolling.
The bottom line is that he says Rumsfeld is safe for awhile but that he won't last four years. Here's some quotes...
Asked how widespread the anti-Rumsfeld sentiment is among hawks, Kristol said
There's a lot of support for Rumsfeld ... There's a few people like me who are willing to be quite critical. A lot of conservatives say, "you're a little harsh, Bill. He's done a lot of good things. But you know, maybe you're right... Bush could do better for the next four years." I'd say a lot of people are somewhere in between.
He noted that the anti-Rumsfeld position is strongest among people actually in the military, saying, "To know a lot of what it is like on the ground is not to be pro-Rumsfeld," and concluded
I want to win the war. ... Everything depends on Iraq, and Rumsfeld doesn't seem to care about it as much as he might.
Oh, yeah, here's Kristol's Post editorial that started this ball rolling.
