Bush Faces GOP Ire Over Rumsfeld Timing

AP ^

[Omega Man II]

The White House is trying to soothe Republicans who say the party might have fared better on Election Day if President Bush had not waited until after the vote to oust Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"You could argue that either way, of what political effect an earlier decision on Secretary Rumsfeld would have had. But it doesn't matter," White House chief of staff Josh Bolten said Sunday.

"The president correctly decided that this decision does not belong in the political realm. And a decision as important as your secretary of defense should not be made based on some partisan political advantage. It would send a terrible signal to our troops, to our allies, even to our enemies," Bolten said.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has suggested that if Bush replaced Rumsfeld two weeks before the election, voters would not have been as angry about the unpopular Iraq war. Republicans would have gained the boost they needed, according to Gingrich, to retain their majority in the Senate and hold onto 10 to 15 more House seats.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed with that assessment.

[highball]

Frankly, although I hate to see it happen to such a great man as Rummy, it was a brilliant political maneuver

I agree, to a point.

Removing the new Dim majority's largest target is a brilliant move on W's part. Admitting that he misled the American people in the weeks before the election is a terrible move.

[jamesrichards]

Bush needed to hire a real all star general like norman shwartzkof to have had a big effect.

That would have severely underminded the change memo out there.

Imagine if it could have been gop with a great new leader at the pentagon and the dems consulting with mcgovern.


Anyone know about general mcafrey. Is he a dem? I think if he is a republican he would have had instant credibility with the public.


I think the dems knew bush would have benefited from this that is why the dem generals came out against rummy and the dems all called for his ouster. They knew by doing that bush couldn't then fire rummy.


Bush should have done it in the summer so it wouldn't have looked political and it might have helped allen.

[livius]

That's true, but I think this was more recent. Bush has stuck by truly hopeless people, and Rummy was by no means hopeless. I think Rumsfeld simply got tired of thinking of himself as the albatross around the Administration's neck.

He wasn't, of course, but he was a particular target for the media because he was unabashedly himself, Rumsfeld, and gave them no quarter. I think he probably felt that leaving would protect Bush, although the truth is that it made Bush look even worse.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Punch here and you won't be surprised at all."

" Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has quietly positioned himself for a comeback to head the Republican Party as early as 2008."

Personally, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Gerald Ford might announce he's making a run in 08...
Newt's time has come and gone-the media, with some help from Newt-has made him into a caricature.
Dan Quayle has a better shot at 08 than Newt.
If the Republicans had a national leader, he would take Newt aside and thank him for his service to the cause and acquaint him with reality.

[JRandomFreeper]

For a very, very busy person, there is another answer... SecDef would be hamstrung by demoncratic congressional investigations, and rendered powerless. Given that option, I would have suggested to my sponsor that he cut me loose. No work will get done, anyway.

Cut losses, and make reasonable decisions, based on the facts on the ground.

Nothing personal... just a decision.

/johnny

[Babu]

It was a dumb move to have Rumsfeld resign at any time. He is a great manager. We were fortunate to have such a talented man.

[Jackson Brown]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has suggested that if Bush replaced Rumsfeld two weeks before the election, voters would not have been as angry about the unpopular Iraq war. Republicans would have gained the boost they needed, according to Gingrich, to retain their majority in the Senate and hold onto 10 to 15 more House seats.

Bull pucky!

ALL it would have taken is 5% more registered republicans -- about the percentage in 2002 -- coming out to keep the democrats where they belong...out of power! Rumsfeld leaving early woulnd't have changed an iota, since it was BUSH that was hated above anyone else....period.

[livius]

Personally - based on absolutely nothing, of course - I think he had probably told Bush that he would resign if the Dems won. Bush had obviously taken him seriously enough to line up a replacement, but probably didn't really believe he was going to have to carry it out. I think that's why Bush seemed so flustered and unprepared. Sadly, I don't think Bush expected the Dems to win.

[dandiegirl]

"The constant bashing of Bush and Rummy by the MSM, democrats, and selected republicans helped defeat the Republicans on 11.07"

This is so true. You NEVER see democrats on tv bashing their own.

[ElPatriota]

No, on this one I agree with GW 100%. In fact he did it with skill of surgeon!... His TIMING was absolutely perfect! (Assuming it was GW who made that decision...) we'll never know the truth on this. But I would think they discussed what they should do if election was lost. Would Rumsfed want to stay on and take all the abuse of the *&%$ Left?... WHY?... and in doing so, he would give the Left the excuse that could not accomplish anything with Rumsfeld still at the helm?

Naaah... it made perfect sense to find a new person if nothing else to remove the excuse of the left not to have to come with a plan of some kind. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY... to try to find bipartisanship in getting our Soldiers home as soon as it is possible. At least now they have to put up of shut up... quite a different situation.

IF ANYTHING...GW... WAS RIGHT ON THE MONEY ON THIS ONE. And Rummie deserves some rest :)

[JRandomFreeper]

You have freepmail. A couple, in fact.

/johnny

[BW2221]

"Bush Faces GOP Ire Over Rumsfeld Timing"

should read "Bush Faces (Conservative) GOP Ire Over a Multitude of Things"

[BW2221]

"Bush Faces GOP Ire Over Rumsfeld Timing"

should read "Bush Faces (Conservative) GOP Ire Over a Multitude of Things"

[BW2221]

"Bush Faces GOP Ire Over Rumsfeld Timing"

should read "Bush Faces (Conservative) GOP Ire Over a Multitude of Things"

[BW2221]

"Please if Rumsfeld had resigned before the election the same old loud mouth malcontents, would still be screaming."

Dane - last Sunday when you were bashing the Buchanan article, you predicted the GOP would hold both houses. So much for your political insight.

[BW2221]

If you think Newt is trying to throw the President overboard what will you call it when Bush teams with the Dems to pass a comprehensive immigration (amnesty).

Bush and Tony Snow both have commented it will be easier to pass "comprehensive immigration" with the next Congress.

[BW2221]

"Maybe they are mad enough to fight him, Kennedy and Pelosi on amnesty for the criminal aliens and their enablers. If not they can start looking at a worse thumping in 08."

As much as it pains me to say so, the GOP senators are our only hope.

[BW2221]

It's better to lose with Randy Graf than spend millions to try keeping Lincoln Chaffee in office.

[backtothestreets]

"Also, we ARE fighting them there, and not yet here, as I am certain you know."

Be it a shame on me as it may be, but I believe we are fighting them here too. We haven't seen the materialization of another 9-11 ... yet. I'm having an enormously difficult time accepting no al Qaeda backed plots are already moving about our nation at a time UK intelligence is aware of approximately 30 such plots in the works within their nation. They are here. It may be that again we will not recognize they were among as right along and making war until another attack materializes, but they are here, and war they wage.

I'm worried if another attack came while a Democratic Congress were in place a great many people would jump to the conclusion the Democrats were the cause. If it were to happen again, and everyone tends to believe it will, the blame must not be turned inward as to present a divided nation to our enemy. The cause would be our enemy.

Even now, so many people want to make either the Clinton or Bush Administrations responsible for the deficiency of protection within our nation that produced the 9-11 attacks. The failures rest with both, but neither in particular. And never should the blame be laid at the feet of President Bush as the terrorist plots were hatched well before he came to office, and most importantly, regardless of who occupied the White House at the time, the anger of all Americans must be brought to bear on those to blame, the terrorists organization.

I've reflected a good deal of thought toward President Lincoln in light of the recent election results. He suffered no less a political humiliation in mid-term election than has President Bush. And Lincoln had even less support from the media in his time of war. President Bush can be thankful his experience did not mirror that of FDR who saw his party suffer much larger mid-term election losses less than a year into war.

I'm stubborn, so I'd have no choice but to go down fighting. Being stubborn and rational (at least in my own view), I'd be inclined to talk with Iran. The talk would be direct so there would be no chance of misinterpretation by a third party and would state flatly that either they stop the illegal flow of their citizens into Iraq, or we would view such activities as being state sponsored, provocative, and make our objections known militarily on Iran itself. Similar direct talks would take place with Syria.

[SUSSA]

We may get enough Blue Dogs to hold the line in the House, but that's a REAL long shot. The best bet is to hammer the Senate and remind them that they don't own those seats and they can be voted out too if they don't vote right.