While we're piling on

I just wanted to make the quick point that this result in Iraq is, in some part, the result of Bush's "loyalty." Often described as "strength of conviction," clearly putting a positive religious tilt on stubbornness, this "loyalty" has kept Don Rumsfeld in a job through all the previous failures in Iraq that led up to this moment. Promoting an obviously overwhelmed Condi Rice to Sec State? Still listening to Dick Cheney?

You can't say for sure that the outcome would have been different had Bush made such obvious personnel changes years ago, the initial mistake of invasion might have made this course inevitable, but at least it would have given the Iraqis a chance.

Why in the world did George Bush not accept Rumsfeld's resignation when he offered it around Abu Ghraib, twice?

What sort of incompetent manager wouldn't have fired this guy years ago?