Because if there's one thing Rumsfeld knows, it's following protocol and showing respect to dedicated public servants when they retire, right? Oh I guess not.
Btw, it's off topic - but what the hell is that last little bit of Novak's column referencing when he talks about Ronald Reagan continuing to fight on for victory in the Cold War, even in his final days in office? Was Novak, at the time, a cheerleader for the much kinder, gentler, Gorby-friendly Reagan we saw at the end of that administration? And how does that era's high prioritization of diplomacy mesh with Novak's usual view of how one should achieve victory over evil empires? It seems a really peculiar line to include. But maybe Novakula couldn't think of any other substantive matters on which Reagan held firm after the debacle of the 1986 elections, and since the aim of his column is to press the point home that George W. should never retreat and never surrender ...
Posted by armand at November 23, 2006 11:43 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics