Since Bush fired Rumsfeld on Wednesday, he must have been dissatisfied with Rumy's job performance. That dissatisfaction did not occur overnight - it must have been brewing for some time.
So why would Bush fire him the day AFTER the election, when firing him a month before the election would have helped Pub chances at the polls?
Could Bush be sucking up to the Rats so he can build his legacy - open borders with Mexico & a money filled AMNESTY program for illegals?
Bush knew there was no good legacy to be had in Iraq. Social Sec. reform - not a chance. But "solving" the illegals problem - that might be doable, with the Rats help. He knew a Pub controlled congress during his last 2 years would never pass an amnesty bill, but a Rat controlled congress might. And to attain that, he did not have to do anything, until the day after the election.
I take President Bush at his word. He stated that he did not want to make a major change in DOD leadership, affecting our military in a time of war, that could be viewed as a decision made purely for political reasons before an election.
We all know that angle would have been exploited by the Democrats and slammed mercilessly by the Democrat Media for weeks. Republicans did the same against Bill Clinton for attacking Iraq to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky affair three days after his grand jury testimony. Of course, Clinton had the cover, not the scorn, of the huge Democrat Media cabal to help him run that ruse.