Rumsfeld Was in Charge?

[you may have to click on this to enlarge it]
I read the above with a significant amount of trepidation. If true, it indicates two things that I think are important.

One, the Republicans who were politicizing our national defense and citing 9/11 in virtually every speech and were putting themselves in front of U.S. troops so that they could form a backdrop of convenience when appealing to the American people for support, were indecisive and overly cautious when it came to actually fighting terrorism.

Two, Rumsfeld was in charge? Really? Shouldn't President Bush have been the one to make that call? I'm confused.

President Obama is giving the military orders to capture or kill terrorists. That's all you need to remember. He is engaged, he is thoughtful, and he is letting the military do what it is supposed to do in these situations. He is taking a lot of flak from the civil liberties side of the house--and with good reason. I am not comfortable, and I will never be comfortable, with the idea of a U.S. President with the authority to kill American citizens without some sort of due process and some measure of oversight (as in, a check and a balance against his use of power).

But I am comfortable saying that the Republicans are pussies when it comes to defending this country. Absolute, outright wusses who are too scared to do what is necessary.

It was 2005. Bush had just gotten re-elected. Why not go after terrorists? Why kowtow to a fickle ally in Pakistan? Why not get the people who brought down those towers?


Now you know why they are mad when President Obama spikes the football and does the happy dance on the shattered skull of Osama bin Laden.