rumsfeld announces resignation of secretary of defense post

Dys


I've been trying to figure out why Bush waited until after the election to announce Rumsfeld's resignation. I think this has been planned for several weeks, even months. It certainly was not his explanation that he didn't want it to be a factor in the election. If he had announced it before the election, he might have retained control of the senate, maybe even the house.

So why didn't he do it? Above all, Bush wants to guard his legacy. I'm beginning to think that both Bush and Rumsfeld know that Iraq is not salvageable and we will be forced to leave it to regional chaos and expanded violence. That wouldn't be good for his legacy. So maybe he wanted the Democrats to take over the house (probably didn't expect a senate takeover.) Why would he do that? Well, if he can't solve the Iraq problem, he probably thinks the Democrats won't be able to as well. So when Iraq and the region go to hell, who will get the blame? The Democrats. After all, they were in charge when hell lit up. Blame the Democrats---protect his legacy.

Sounds like something Karl Rove would dream up, don't you think? Bush sacrificed his Republican Party candidates to protect his legacy. That's very typical of Bush's priorities.

Am I nuts, or is this possible?

BBB

This is obviously an olive branch to the Democrats who have been calling for Rumsfelds head for years.

If the Republicans held onto the House and Senate, Rummy would not have been fired.

He is a casualty of war and now the Rummy chip is off the table.

Bush explaining why he didn't tell the truth...




Waiting for Cheney to be replaced....

Re: Dys
\

It is certainly possible, but I think you're nuts. Real life involves more subjective oddities and less conspiracy than you appear to assume..

In the first place it would be a difficult calculation to determine whether it would have been better for Republicans generally to replace Rumsfiel;d before the election or after. Doing so before the election would have involved apparent repudiation in the eyes of many, but would not have provided enough time to demonstrate any positive benefit. This may well have yieldeed an even worse result for republicans. It is certainly hard to demonstrate that a rational estimate of the political situation would have indicated a better outcomre by replacing Rumsfield just before the election.

Clinton's well-known concern for his "legacy", does not appear to be shared by Bush, at least to the same degree. Instead he appears to be a bit stubborn and a bit more loyal to committed subordinates than Machiavelli would recommend.

It appears to be accepted truth among some that Karl Rove is the master conspirator whose hand is behind all bad things and all the machinations of the hated administration. While he is undoubtedly influential, this preoccupation is not supported by the facts available to us, Indeed Rove's influence (or that of anyone in his position) is naturally less in the second term of a President like Bush than it was in the first.

georgeob1
georgeobi, the reason I questioned Bush's motives is based on his history. People who know him well say all of Bush's decisions are based on politics. It's what he knows best. Bush and Rove combined creates a government led by political considerations above all else. That's what has made him such a disasterous president.

BBB

I think that the facts suggest strongly that this is far less true of the Bush Administration than it was of Clinton's. All politicians play politics in earnest, but this Administration - for good or ill, depending on how you see it - has distinguished itself by stubbornly sticking to unpopular positions, right from the start, with the rejection of the ICC and Kyoto treaties, and continuing with the Iraqi intervention.

The Bush Administration didn't play to popular opinion, it played to far right opinion. It's actions re. the ICC, the Kyoto treaties and the Iraq war played directly to ultra-conservative ideology. It's fervid obstinacy and inflexibility in these issues, especially its pet project, the Iraq invasion and occupation, reveals its concerns for its legacy thereof, that of an unwavering, rabidly conservative administration with George W. Bush as its figurehead.

Certainly, they will be fondly remembered with moist eye, and palpitating heart by their co-ideologists.

For an alternative view of Rumsfeld's retirement, see
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/the_day_we_lost_the_war

It is a post on a conservative blog. You might not agree with the author, but you will probably enjoy reading it anyway. Here is a short excerpt:



Personally, I'm thinking it might also have a lot to do with the fact that a third Bush presidency is just now getting off the ground in the form of brother Jeb. That is a family legacy that would trump all other presidential legacies to date.

Why do I say the firing of Rumsfeld has a lot to do with the 2008 elections? It gives them two years to rebuild the country's anti-democrat/liberal furor (over abortion rights most probably). The suspicious vote problems happening in Florida again only add more fuel to my theory.

In Florida's 13th Congressional District (Sarasota), the Republican U.S. House candidate is leading by 368 votes, and all of the votes have been reported. The problem relates to undervotes.

If you will reflect back six years to 2000, you will remember learning the meaning of "undervotes." An undervote occurs when a particular race receives fewer votes than the number of people who voted in the race. Undervotes are caused when voters vote only in particular races and skip other races.

In FL-13 the undervote in the House race using the new electronic voting machines was 18,382 out of approximately 142,000 votes (1 out of 8 voters). Contrast the size of the House undervote with the size of the undervotes for the U.S. Senate and Governor, which were 1,600 and 1,800, respectively. There may be no reliable way to determine whether the undervote was caused by machine error or by some amazing voter disinterest in one of the most competitive House races in the nation.

FL-13, by the way, is the district that was represented by Katherine Harris before she decided to run for the Senate.

Source:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-flcontest0906nov09,0,104919.story

Removal of Rumsfeld Dates Back to Summer
New York Times
November 10, 2006
Removal of Rumsfeld Dates Back to Summer
By JIM RUTENBERG

President Bush was moving by late summer toward removing Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary, people inside and outside the White House said Thursday. Weeks before Election Day, the essential question still open was when, not whether, to make the move.

Mr. Bush ultimately postponed action until after the election in part because of concern that to remove Mr. Rumsfeld earlier could be interpreted by critics as political opportunism or as ratifying their criticism of the White House war plan in the heart of the campaign, the White House insiders and outsiders said.

The White House has refused to divulge the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that went into Mr. Rumsfeld's announced resignation on Wednesday. Those who were interviewed would speak only on condition of anonymity, but included officials at the White House and those in a close circle of outside advisers. They said the administration had been engaged in painful off-again-on-again discussions about Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster for months, even as Mr. Bush said repeatedly that Mr. Rumsfeld was his man for Iraq.

The delay in Mr. Rumsfeld's departure was painful for some Republicans, who have argued that his continued presence in the administration was politically counterproductive. Some complained Thursday that the resignation had come too late to be any help during an election in which Mr. Rumsfeld became a whipping boy for Democratic, and eventually some Republican, candidates.

The people who agreed to speak about White House thinking said that Mr. Bush had resisted earlier entreaties by aides and outside advisers who urged that Mr. Rumsfeld be removed ?- in part because of a deep sense of loyalty to the defense secretary, not to mention Vice President Dick Cheney's own longstanding ties to Mr. Rumsfeld. They said Mr. Bush was also influenced by his deep appreciation for Mr. Rumsfeld's work in overseeing two wars and transforming the military, and, in an unintended fashion, by the loud calls last spring from former generals for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, which they said had caused the president to dig in to support the defense secretary.

In addition, officials said, Mr. Bush did not have an immediate idea for a successor.

The man Mr. Bush chose, Robert M. Gates, ultimately came from the world of Mr. Bush's father, having served in his administration as director of central intelligence during the Persian Gulf war of 1991. Mr. Gates is also close to James A. Baker III, the elder Mr. Bush's longtime political consigliere, and is a member of Mr. Baker's Iraq Study Group.

But, officials said, the decision to replace Mr. Rumsfeld with Mr. Gates was made by the president, in close consultation with Mr. Rumsfeld and with advice from a group of close advisers. The group ?- including the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and the White House counselor, Dan Bartlett ?- was led by Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff, who came into his job last spring wanting to send clear signals that Mr. Bush was ready to make major changes to save an unpopular presidency.

Mr. Bolten took over just after the retired generals had stepped forward to call for Mr. Rumsfeld's dismissal, a striking break with military tradition. A senior official, who would speak only on condition of anonymity, said the generals had in effect ensured Mr. Rumsfeld's job security, because the White House was unwilling to make any move that could be interpreted as the civilian leadership buckling under pressure from the military establishment. Still, "Without question it's been in the works for a long time," said Fred Malek, a Washington financier with longtime ties to Mr. Bush and his father.

"I don't think he initiated it," Mr. Malek said of Mr. Rumsfeld. But, he said, "I don't think he resisted it," adding that at 74 and after six years at the helm during two wars, Mr. Rumsfeld was ready to step aside.

For months, if not years, the walls had seemed to be closing in on Mr. Rumsfeld, who was a polarizing figure within the White House itself..

Some political strategists close to Mr. Bush regularly complained that Mr. Rumsfeld had become a liability. Tension between him and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spilled into view in the spring, when they publicly argued about her statement that there had been "thousands" of tactical mistakes in Iraq.

Ms. Rice is among Mr. Bush's closest advisers, but an aide refused to discuss her private conversations with the president.

The former White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., has essentially confirmed an account in "State of Denial," the recently released book by the journalist Bob Woodward, that he raised the possible ouster of Mr. Rumsfeld twice ?- once in 2004, once earlier this year ?- but only as part of broader questions about staffing.

But Mr. Bush rejected the suggestions, and by the time Mr. Bolten came in, the question of Mr. Rumsfeld's dismissal was off the table because of the generals' revolt, said the administration officials and outside advisers. The White House spokesman Tony Snow said that Mr. Bolten had not included Mr. Rumsfeld on a list of possible changes.

Among those aides brought in to meet with the president in the late spring ?- as part of a broader effort under Mr. Bolten to expose Mr. Bush to more outside views ?- was Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, one of Mr. Rumsfeld's louder critics. A summer of heavy violence in Iraq increased pressure on Mr. Rumsfeld from within and outside the White House. An associate of Mr. Bolten's said that in early October, he had indicated deep concern about Mr. Rumsfeld's tenure.

A senior administration official said that while the idea of Mr. Rumsfeld's removal had periodically come up over the years and been shot down by Mr. Bush, "Obviously, the last month or two he was more receptive."

The official said Mr. Bush had given his team the go-ahead to start planning for a switch and to explore the options. "He made it very clear to us two things: one, he did not want there to be any perception he was making a political decision because of the signals it sends; the second was, he wasn't going to be comfortable with a decision or make a move unless he was comfortable with the person," the official said.

Although Mr. Gates serves on the study panel Mr. Baker heads, administration officials said Mr. Baker was not involved in his selection, and they took issue with suggestions that somehow the first President Bush's old team was riding to the rescue. A senior administration aide said Mr. Baker had found out about the choice minutes before it was announced.

This official said Mr. Gates's selection came during a round of meetings in the last two months, as discussions between Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld evolved to the point where Mr. Rumsfeld had offered his resignation and Mr. Bush had finally accepted it.

On Thursday there were recriminations from some Republicans ?- among them Newt Gingrich ?- that Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster came too late, and Republicans paid a price for it.

But officials said Mr. Bush had always planned to delay action until after the election ?- and to announce his decision immediately afterward, whether or not Republicans or Democrats won, to avoid the appearance he was acting in response to a drumbeat from a new Congress.
-----------------------------------------
Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.

While answering questions at Kansas State University, Rummy didn't appreciate a question from an audience member and quite casually flipped him the bird. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/101106Rumsfeld.htm

So, what Bush and his lawyer Bartlett have been saying ever since Wednesday - that Rumsfeld was set to go, no matter what the outcome of the midterms - is just a bald faced lie?

Yes, in my opinion

Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN

Posted Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Just days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

That will be very interesting to follow. It may not come to anything more than accusations. The US will protect him and serious damage will not happen to this man, no matter how guilty he is.

I love the claim that this was to set up Jeb to be elected President.

I can see the slogans now..
Vote for Jeb, he can't possibly be as bad as GW.

Rumsfeld, On Way Out Door, Again Hits Media on Iraq
Poor Rummy, he doesn't understand that the Jihadists learned how to manipulate the Media from the Bush administration. Media manipulation is the only thing that Bushco is good at. ---BBB

Rumsfeld, On Way Out Door, Again Hits Media on Iraq
By E&P Staff
Published: November 10, 2006

Delivering the annual Landon Lecture at Kansas State University, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, soon to leave his post, continued to accuse the media of being "successfully" manipulated by the terrorists.

He also continued to lend some credence to beliefs that Iraq under Saddam Hussein did have WMDs -- and spirited them out of the country or buried them before the U.S. invaded. The Iraqis "buried a lot of things," he said, as for moving the WMDs to a friendly neighbor: "I guess some day we'll know."

When Rumsfeld was aske from the crowd about what's ahead in the war on terror, he replied that "communications" on our side needs to be strengthened: "Today's global, 24-hour media presents new challenges for a government that operates on a -- on a very different schedule. Al Qaeda's second-in-command, al-Zawahiri, has said that, quote, 'More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.' This is the number two al Qaeda leader explaining to his people that it's not so much only on the battlefield today, it's in the media.

"The enemy we face has skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part, our country and our government have not yet completed the adjustments that will be necessary. The enemy is fast, with headline-grabbing attacks. By doctoring photographs, lying to the media, being trained to allege torture in their training manuals, the enemy successfully manipulates the free world's press, a press that they would never allow to be free -- and they do so purposefully to intimidate and break the will of free people. We need to understand the ruthlessness, the skillfulness of this enemy."

Another audience member aske about reports of Saddam getting rid of his WMDs. Rumsfeld answered:

"There are reports from people, Iraqis, that that happened - that things were moved out of Iraq just prior to the military action. I can't prove that it happened. I can't prove that it did not happen. I guess that some day we'll know.

"We also know that the Iraqis buried a lot of things. They buried complete jet aircraft. I can't quite imagine that -- when you think of what they cost and how easily they're damaged -- to bury them in the ground takes a certain mentality. (Laughter.) What else they may have buried I don't know."

The Rumsfeld Kiss of Death
The Rumsfeld Kiss of Death
By E&P Staff
Published: November 17, 2006

At least he's consistent. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has been criticized by the press for his overly optimistic or downright misleading appraisals of our progress in Iraq, did it again Wednesday night -- on a quite different subject. In remarks at the annual dinner for the American Spectator, Rumsfeld hailed a long ago Spectator piece by economist Milton Friedman calling for an all-volunteer Army -- then added, Friedman is "still going strong."

Friedman passed away the next day at the age of 90.

As it happens, Friedman was against the Iraq war. "What's really killed the Republican Party isn't spending, it's Iraq," he told the Wall Street Journal this past July, adding that he was "opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression."

Earlier, in the opening of his remarks, Rumsfeld had told a joke that, intentionally or not, likened the military and /or Iraq to a certain barnyard animal. Endorsing the view that "we broke some china" at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld said: "People don't like to change, and big institutions particularly don't." He said this "recalls to mind that wonderful fable about the man and the boy and the donkey."

The joke, as Rumsfeld told it, is basically this: The old man tells the boy he can ride the donkey but people they pass complain that the youth is letting the old fellow walk while he rides. So they switch places, and now the bystanders say it's awful that the man is making the boy walk. According to Rumsfeld, it ends this way: "So they both got on the donkey, they come to the bridge, the donkey can't handle it. He falls in the water and drowns. And the moral of the story is: if you try to please everybody, you're going to lose your donkey."

Other highlights from the talk:

--He hailed Michael Barone, who was about to receive an award named for Barbara Olson, as "one of the greats of the Washington press corps. He's certainly one of the most influential journalists in town, in no small part, because of his commitment to fair-mindedness -- a trait to be greatly valued anywhere, anytime -- and in Washington, D.C., to be treasured."

--He also praised former Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Robert Bartley, saying that he had "elevated and pressed the often unpopular ideas of supply-side economics and a robust -- some might even say an aggressive national defense. It's instructive to note that much of what we today consider to be reasonably self-evident was the source of such heated debate back in those years."

--Returning to the army, Rumsfeld said, "Every single person in it is a volunteer. They raised their hand and said, 'Send me.' And God bless them for it." This, however, would not seem to pertain to the hundreds of thousands of reservists who hardly said, "Send me," in regard to Iraq.