Reply
Fri 10 Nov, 2006 12:50 pm
The headline in the paper the other day was "Bush dismisses Rumsfield".
I'm sure this has been discussed here already, but I don't feel like digging around for such a thread. Perhaps someone could direct me?
But, if the thread doesn't exist, please answer my question. I know Bush is not capable of making such a decision. I know Cheney or Rove were not behind this one. It had to be the old man, right?
It just seems so friggin obvious.
If not him, who?
Cheney or Rove could easily be behind it. This is my take, from another thread:
sozobe wrote:Firing Rumsfeld is an admission of failure, and this administration has long shown that (whether it's true or not) they see any admission of failure as poison. I think they may be right -- I think that firing Rumsfeld before the elections would have actually just fed the frustrations of the electorate, bolstered the idea that things are so **** up that even Bush realizes something needs to change. It makes sense to me that Republicans would NOT want the change=good message out there just before the elections.
I do think that it's finally actually sunk in that Iraq is in shambles, and rather than changing course/ backtracking/ admitting that what's happened so far was idiocy, they're doing it this way. New guy, new ideas, what's that you say new guy?, hey good idea let's do that! Gosh, this new guy sure is smart. Etc.
Basically, I think that this is seen as a way to try to extricate ourselves from the mess in Iraq with the least possible fallout for the administration as a whole. As such, I think whomever is in power within the administration (Cheney, Rove, whomever) is most likely behind it.
I still see the old man's footprints all over on this one.
But...I have been wrong before.
I just don't think Bush II listens to Bush I much. And I think the replacement makes sense if one assumes that the known power players are behind it -- that it doesn't need the involvement of Bush I to make sense.
But could be. Or could be that Bush I was the impetus and it dovetailed with a lot of other stuff so that's why it happened. Dunno.
I guess we'll just have to wait for Brandon.
gus
Really tough to answer this one. It's the sort of deliberation which happens deep in the WH and even the reporters closest to these matters are susceptible to 'tips' which are actually spin.
Those reporters, the ones I find credible, are saying that in this case Bush acted over the protests and wishes of Rummy's long time ally, Cheney. I think that's likely.
I also think it likely that Bolton (Josh, not John), following Andy Card, weren't on Rummy's side here. They both seem to be relatively benign fellows, at least in relationship to cheney and rummy and the neocon crowd.
It doesn't have to be pappy Bush at the source of this decision. We know that the realist crowd who surrounded pappy have been deeply unhappy with the Iraq project (and the neocon project) since before it began.
I'd guess that the slow degredation of the Iraq situation, followed by the damage it was doing to the military and the country and the party's electoral position, all have contributed to a general consensus which finally overturned the power wielded by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Of course, my analysis will wait for verification and correction from brandon.
Bernie-
What were turnouts? Highest, lowest, average.
They won't answer it over yonder.
gustavratzenhofer, I think Poppy Bushie's footprints have always been all over this administration. They, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Baker etc, paved the way for both Iraq wars and profited from their partnership with Saddam in the 80s and with all the blowback since. Now we're waiting for the report by Baker and Hamilton and Gates is taking Rummy's place. Mass murderers like these should be put away not making recommendations.
gustavratzenhofer wrote:I still see the old man's footprints all over on this one.
But...I have been wrong before.
Which "old man" did you have in mind Gus?
Quote:Asked by Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, if he had ever consulted the former president before ordering the invasion of Iraq, Bush replied that "he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher father that I appeal to."
spendius wrote:Bernie-
What were turnouts? Highest, lowest, average.
They won't answer it over yonder.
spendi
Voter turnout seems to be well above average for an interim election. Motivated electorate.
mesquite wrote:gustavratzenhofer wrote:I still see the old man's footprints all over on this one.
But...I have been wrong before.
Which "old man" did you have in mind Gus?
Quote:Asked by Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, if he had ever consulted the former president before ordering the invasion of Iraq, Bush replied that "he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher father that I appeal to."
So sad.... so very friggin sad.
And thanks for the input, blatham. (and others)
watched part of PBS news tonight . two of the "regular" contributors were interviewed about their take on rumsfeld's dismissal .
they said that they were quite surprised about the announcement . they said that so far rumsfeld has been the guy that people were unhappy with ; now that he is gone , who'll get the blame ?
hbg
gustavratzenhofer wrote:So sad.... so very friggin sad.
You didn't answer the question Gus. Yep, sad it is.
I watched that too, hamburger -- didja see that David Brooks said something really similar to what I posted about this? I was like "hey!"
But I agree that the other guy (Mark...?) made a good point with the "don't take the punching bag out of the gym" story.
Actually, I will take responsibility. When I told Rummy to bomb Iraq I meant it in good humor. I didn't know he was actually going to go and do it! Recently I said to him, "Rummy, get outa here. Take a hike and don't come back. Bush was with me at the time but he didn't understand what was going on.
Here's one take on it, Gus.
Quote:
Op-Ed Columnist
A Come-to-Daddy Moment
By MAUREEN DOWD
Poppy Bush and James Baker gave Sonny the presidency to play with and he broke it. So now they're taking it back.
They are dragging W. away from those reckless older guys who have been such a bad influence and getting him some new minders who are a lot more practical.
In a scene that might be called "Murder on the Oval Express," Rummy turned up dead with so many knives in him that it's impossible to say who actually finished off the man billed as Washington's most skilled infighter. (Poppy? Scowcroft? Baker? Laura? Condi? The Silver Fox? Retired generals? Serving generals? Future generals? Troops returning to Iraq for the umpteenth time without a decent strategy? Democrats? Republicans? Joe Lieberman?)
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/opinion/09dowd.html?em&ex=1163307600&en=2a51284b0876fc6b&ei=5087%0A
From the above Dowd piece:
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace