why did Clark say he'd fire Rumsfeld?

[pruner]

didn't anybody tell him that cabinet secretaries serve at the pleasure of the president, and as such, if he were to become president he'd be able to appoint his own cabinet secertaries.

by saying he'd fire Rumsfeld, was he implying that he'd let the rest of Bush's cabinet remain in place?

[Catch22Dem]

1. Link?

[carpetbagger]

2. To point out that it is Bush who lets Rumsfeld run amok.

He's personally gone after Ashcroft for one, and I think he's already on the record with views that are irreconcilable with further tenure for at least half of the things that lurk in the rotting dumpster known as Bush's cabinet.

[Meshuga]

3. By that logic...

He would have to nominate Rumsfeld first. Why would he nominate Rumsfeld? Just to fire the him?

[JI7]

4. i think

i think he was saying if he was in that position now what would he do. so he would fire rumsfeld if he was there. candidates talk in this way many times. put themselves into a current situation and what they themselves would do .

[w13rd0]

5. I would hope he wouldn't appoint someone like Rumsfeld...

...in the first place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. He was making a very good political

point that plays well in Peoria where most people
ARE NOT aware of that factoid... neither are tehy aware
that the Cabinet resigns as a matter of course and protocol at
the end of each term.