Dys
dyslexia wrote:That Bush didn't act sooner was politically foolish. Far more seriously, by waiting so long he let his pride get in the way of a much-needed change in Iraq policy. That mistake didn't just cost the Republicans seats in the Congress. It may have cost lives.
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...
Quote:REPORTER: Last week you told us Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now, and how much does it have to do with the election results?
BUSH: You and Hunt and Keil came into the Oval Office and asked me to question one week before the campaign. Basically, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? The reason why is I did not want to make a major decision in the final days of the campaign. The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you that answer. The truth of the matter is as well, that is one reason I gave the answer. The other reason why is I had not had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet. I had not had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet at that point. I had been talking with Don Rumsfeld over a period of time about fresh perspectives. He likes to call it fresh eyes.
Waiting for Cheney to be replaced....
Re: Dys
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
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
\
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:
Quote:The sacking of Don Rumsfeld yesterday will become obvious in the days and weeks to come as the day on which President Bush decided that winning in Iraq was just too much work and the sacrifices made in blood and treasure in Iraq, when stacked up against the forlorn possibility of appeasing the new majorities in the House and Senate, simply do not matter. He decided that a fig leaf of respectability could be attained by replacing an active and loyal cabinet secretary with a gray little man, a creature of his father's consigliore, who will offer political cover as we conduct a full-Murtha under the guise of the soon to be released "bi-partisan Iraq Study Group" report. Most likely a Murtha-plus because at some point the Democrats will discover that we no longer have basing rights in Okinawa and we'll base the troops really "over the horizon" in the United States.
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
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
woiyo wrote: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.
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?
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.
