Rumsfeld done
Seguine
Wednesday that his Iraq policy was "not working well enough, fast
enough", after announcing that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was
stepping down.
Bush, speaking at a news conference after Democrats won control of the
House of Representatives from his Republican party, said he and
Rumsfeld agreed that a "fresh perspective" was needed on Iraq.
Tuesday's election outcome was widely seen as voters' rebuke to Bush's
handling of the unpopular war.
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L08156780
Joe Smith
he was going to replace Rumsfeld back when he said he wanted Rumsfeld
and Cheney to stay through the end of the term.
So he lied to the American people, most likely for political gain. I'm
not so naive as to believe this does not happen on a daily basis. What
strikes me is how he essentially admitted as much yesterday. And had
no remorse for it, nor an explanation.
JoeR
--
And if you look away, you'll be doing what they say.
And if you look alive, you'll be singled out and tried.
Seguine
> What I find most interesting about this whole drama is that Bush knew
> he was going to replace Rumsfeld back when he said he wanted Rumsfeld
> and Cheney to stay through the end of the term.
What gives you this impression?
> So he lied to the American people, most likely for political gain.
What gain, exactly? One would think he'd have been better off cutting
Rummy loose well before the election, in a sort of sacrificial
concession to anti-war undecideds.
> I'm not so naive as to believe this does not happen on a daily basis. What
> strikes me is how he essentially admitted as much yesterday. And had
> no remorse for it, nor an explanation.
Well, he certainly acknowledged that Iraq is not turning out the way he
expected (a little late to that party, George), but I don't recall him
saying anything about having planned to ditch Rumsfeld before now. What
did I miss?
Tom Reingold
On Nov 9, 12:12 pm, "Joe Smith" <joe.ras...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I find most interesting about this whole drama is that Bush knew
> he was going to replace Rumsfeld back when he said he wanted Rumsfeld
> and Cheney to stay through the end of the term.
>
> So he lied to the American people, most likely for political gain. I'm
> not so naive as to believe this does not happen on a daily basis. What
> strikes me is how he essentially admitted as much yesterday. And had
> no remorse for it, nor an explanation.
>
> JoeR
Sometimes you can't divulge stuff until later. You can't always tell
your workers that a layoff is coming. Or maybe you'll tell the person
you're laying off but not their cow-orkers until later.
I don't think dilulging this stuff late requires an apology or even any
shame. However, keeping Rumsfeld on this long does.
Tom
Joe Smith
Rumsfeld to stay through the end of his term. However he had Gates all
lined up the day after the election. In my mind, either he truly did
not expect to be dumping Rumsfled when he made the speech, and Gates
was a quick decision, or he knew he was getting rid of Rumsfeld and
lied when he said he expected him to stay.
It'a minor issue to me, since I have just about no trust in this
President, but he either made yet another seemingly quick and
un-thought-out decision, or he wasn't truthful.
To what gain? I'm not sure. I have a tough time associating reason to
much of what this President has said and done.
I don't mean to particularly bash Bush. I'm not a fan, but I don't
think he had some nefarious purpose for doing this. It's just odd to
me to say you want someone to stay one day, and then just a couple of
weeks later cut them loose.
JoeR
Seguine
Ah, come on Joe. Were this a different president, you'd call that good
management.
Bush was betting his agenda could survive the midterm elections. But
(rather unlike the way he managed our adventure in Iraq) he planned for
a separate eventuality, that's all.
I wouldn't call that "lying" to the people.
Joe Smith
that just a few short weeks ago he said that Rumsfeld should stay
through the end of his term, THEN he ditched him. Not much changed
during those weeks militarily. I have little doubt that he knew
Rumsfeld was gone when he said he wanted him to stay.
But I don't want anyone to think I'm rabid about this. I'm not going
to call for his impeachment, or anything like that. And I would say
the same about any President (though i do have a particular dark spot
in my heart for this one). It would have been good management, IMHO,
if he had said nothing about Rumsfeld weeks ago, then dumped him
Wednesday. It was not the fact that he waited until after the
election, though I really do think he could have retained the Senate
if he had dumped him prior to election day.