[Steel Wolf]

Whether or not Rumsfeld should have been tossed overboard long ago, he certainly shouldn't have been tossed on Wednesday morning. For one thing, it's a startlingly brazen confirmation of the politicization of the war, and a particularly unworthy one: ... The president's firing of Rumsfeld was small and graceless.

Again, Steyn nails it. Firing Rumsfeld was probably the right thing to do, and should have happened a long time ago. Even thought I think he should have been removed earlier, doing it immediately after a lost election was an unworthy act. Were I still in uniform, and still in Iraq, I'd have not taken that well. If for no other reason, the troops deserved better than seeing their boss deposed in a brazenly political retreat.

[7thson]

I agree. He should have been given the choice to resign back in August or July, or wait until the end of December, just before the new Congress took over. I am of the belief that Rummy wanted to go because he had enough. However, it made Bush look small, petty, and Pelosi's dog!

[MrNatural]

..The president's firing of Rumsfeld was small and graceless..

Ok, maybe so, but there's another explanation that could at least be considered; namely, he had to go because his ability to run DOD is over. Beginning in January, he would have been spending 5 days a week on Capitol Hill being raked over the coals by various Senate and House committees.

And since he had to go, it had to be ASAP,

1) So Bush's new guy could be voted on by the still-Republican Senate.

2) So it wouldn't be after a week or a month of Democrat congressmen publicly gloating over what they would do when they got Rumsfeld in front of them. How ignoble would that look?

3) We don't even know he didn't resign. He may have just informed GW that he didn't care to spend the next year as a Pinata for the democrats. In which case, See 1) and 2).

Just a thought.