Quote:
Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
Rumsfeld has a bit of "foot in mouth" disease for sure, and Bush could have approached this differently, but so could everyone. Chirac is nothing but diplomacy in action? The Russians and Chinese tread delicately?
I think Bush gets a bad rep because he is in a position to act with or without the permission of others. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but the fact that he "could do" this or that in the future if left to "run wild" is very much held against him regarding the issue at hand despite the fact that most who oppose him say "if and could" scenarios shouldn't be counted against Saddam.
Before the world gets in too much of an uproar, lets remember Bush could be gone in '05. I think he'll get to hang around until '09 though.  [img]smile.gif[/img]
|
Sorry Ronn,
But Rumsfeld is the Sec. of Defense, his job is to comment about the defense of the USA, not the Diplomacy of the USA. That is Sec. of State Powell's job. Rumsfeld answered the question accuratly and honestly, can the USA do this war without the UK. The question was not IS the USA going to do this war with out the UK. There was NO diplomatic Faux Pas if his statments are taken for what they were and not what the press says they were.