Redstate

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I agree. That is the automatic reaction of most Republican politicans, to surrender when challenged.

Here's the reaction of Howard Dean, Democratic Party Chairman. As I expected, the Democrats are saying that this proves that they were correct all along, that Bush was totally wrong about the war, and that the problem never would have been fixed if the Democrats weren't elected. IOW, they are saying that the Democrats are the ones we can trust for national security, the ones we can trust with the lives of our troops, not the Republicans. To the Democrats, this is an unconditional surrender by Bush.

DEAN: I am glad that President Bush has finally listened to the growing chorus of retired Generals, civilian leaders and Democrats who long ago called for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation. This is a good first step but the American people have spoken and it must be followed by a real change in direction in Iraq and in America's foreign policy by the President. Democrats are united and ready to get to work with Republicans to find real solutions to the challenges we are facing in Iraq. Our brave troops fighting in harm's way deserve nothing less.

will get through. Not a one. Why? The Democrats won't allow it. Thus meaning political suicide for them.

The people are demanding a change in Iraq. If Bush "stays the course" now, he will never be able to get anything done, and may cut the Republicans legs out from under them. Rummy has to go. Replace him with Baker, Powell, or Lee Hamilton.

If Rummy goes, maybe it cuts the Dems sails a bit,

-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason

If 43 has a sound reason to replace Rumsfeld related to Rumsfeld's performance, fine, it is his call. But to replace the best person for the job, as 43 has stated and as people here who are much more capable of military analysis than I am have stated, because of politics is simply negligent - it's putting the wrong priority ahead of the mission.

If Rumsfeld stepped down on his own, then I feel the same criticism for him. If he believed he was the best person for the job and that the mission was progressing in step with expectations, then resigning seems, to put it mildly, an act of cowardice - particularly in the sense that a person in that role ought to be putting America ahead of themselves. I hope he didn't resign just because he took a public beating.

I don't see any political gain from this at all. It seems like a sour grapes move. Maybe I'm missing something...

But not so fast: the fact is that in some cases the policy becomes inseparable from the personality -- or the public perception of the personality -- in such a way that that person becomes too much of a liability to keep on keepin' on, even if they are the "best person for the job." Even if everyone who knows them, including themselves, agrees that they are the "best person for the job".

As Robert A. Hahn was once fond of saying, anyone who has played institutional politics above the Junior Varsity level realizes that once certain kinds of no-confidence perceptions are established, they're very difficult to undo at senior levels of leadership in particular. I've watched this happen myself to the Dean of a law school.

It's nice to be able to turn this into a physics lab experiement with frictionless surfaces and certain assumptions about the model so that the results work out the way they should according to theory, but the reality is that confidence has a lot to do with a leader's effectiveness.

I think Rumsfeld resigned because he realized that in the current political environment there are better options for the Administration, certainly politically and also perhaps in terms of policy. It isn't as though his successor is going to inherit an office that doesn't carry a lot of his momentum. For what it's worth I think that Rumsfeld is a very thorough man and will seek to make the transition for his successor as seamless as possible, but his resignation will bring a vast sigh of relief from a lot of people who know what a lightning rod he's been.

I think instead that the onus is on the Democrats now to give his successor a fair shake. Donald Rumsfeld was not going to get a fair shake in the next two years with the Democrats holding both houses of Congress. So in that sense I think it was a wise decision, and the sooner the better.

This seems consistent with Wei Wu's theory farther down, I think - that the move is designed to defuse any potential snafu that a (D) congress could create as a result of attacking Rumsfeld, or blaming him in the future future. It makes some sense to me, but I just don't see how that's very far from what the current atmosphere was. We already knew (D) were unhappy with him. In the last week or so we've heard some (R) candidates expressing this too. Maybe there was some pressure from his own party in that respect.

Still, aside from public approval polls which don't affect the mission, aside from press conferences which don't affect the mission, the measure of his performance should have been strictly confined to his ability to manage his staff and indirectly the armed forces working in Iraq consistent with the goals set by 43. If there's a case to be made that he's failed there, fine. But admitting to it now calls into question why it wasn't contemplated earlier than a week or two ago.

As far as political strategy goes, I could even see how this move could also forstall a (D) congress attempting to take credit for any future success in Iraq. By doing this, 43 could rightly claim credit for those successes - "the policy change we enacted starting with Gates was MY idea, the D's hadn't even taken office yet when we put the new approach in place". I think it's cynical and unbecoming to think that an otherwise expectation-meeting person and approach are dumped in exchange for political points in the middle of the mission. Assuming the administration is above this, you're left wondering whether Rumsfeld really was failing to live up to expectations, and if so, for how long?

A lot of angles to this, not the least of which is that a new SecDef is going to have a "honeymoon period" in which even a virulently-opposed Democrat congress is going to have to give the new Secretary a bit of elbow room before coming down on him like the proverbial ton of bricks. And in that sense it's a gain in time as long as the underlying policy remains sound (or is adjusted according to the need.)

Secondly, while I know what a terrible blow this is for some people who really care about Rumsfeld personally (and I am one of them) the most important thing is to look at the overall strategy and ask what the best option in the next 6-8 months is going to be? And that means keeping more options open than foreclosed, see paragraph #1.

In an oversimplified way, I look at it like this:

With a Democrat-controlled Congress, I am *sure* that we would be having more hearings for Donald Rumsfeld that would take him away from his job at the Pentagon over the next year than even he could shake a stick at. We may still have those hearings, but let's hope that at the same time there is a real SecDef at the conn.

In other words, I think Donald Rumsfeld just "took one for the team." And it makes my estimation of him as a man and a public servant and a SecDef even greater.

I think Donald Rumsfeld looked at the options and the scenarios and had them all laid out before November 7 (and probably before October 1) and had already drawn up a decision tree based on the various possible outcomes, trying to make the best rational choice.

And I think that's what he did. I think he's a brilliant man and I don't have any doubt that he took this step for reasons he thought were going to be more beneficial to the overall mission than the other alternatives.

I don't think Rumsfeld would do anything (including resigning) unless he thought that it was best for the troops, the war and America.

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

replace him with a person hostile to him, hostile to conservatism, and hostile to the war in Iraq. What a brilliant proposal.

Rumsfield resignation prior to the election may have helped, or may have hurt. It's hard to say. Some folks would have looked at it as positive change, and then cast their vote for the best candidate rather than for a Democrat in order to express a need for a change. Others might have jumped on it as "admitting a mistake" or something. I think it would have been the latter- and it would have made things worse for the Republicans.

stating that he knew he was going to make a change but a) didn't have a definite replacement yet and b) did not want to inject what he felt were operational issues with the war into the political campaign.

Perhaps he could have answered it differntly, saying 'I am always evaluating the effectiveness of my advisors but I have no plans to make a change at this time'. It might have opened the door to speculation, but it might have kept a few much needed votes on the R side last night

Rant Street! www.rant.st

As you recall, he wasn't confirmed by the last Senate, and was a recess appointment. No way he gets through the next Senate. Which is too bad, in my opinion, because while confrontational he was basically pushing some very important issues that need to be addressed. He took the UN seriously enough to challenge it to be better, which hasn't happened in a while.

If he has to resign, do it in December or January, not the day after the election. It looks really bad. But the WH never did have a clue about politics.

It might look bad to Rumsfeld supporters but those people had become rarer than Unicorns, and after this election they were going to become rarer than unicorns with diamonds growing on the ends of their horns. It's good that Bush did this now. It's clear that they were anticipating a loss in this election if they got the process started a couple of weeks ago (which they must have, because you just don't have this conversation with a University President at the last minute.)

My guess is that for all the proud faces people were putting on over the last several weeks, the internal intelligence was that this election was likely to be a blowout and the Admin. was keeping that close to the vest, and thinking about what to do The Day After. We came close. We got within about 100,000 votes nationwide, but the loss of those 100,000 votes across 18 House and 2 crucial Senate races was absolutely devastating.

In the current political environment Donald Rumsfeld is an unsustainable liability for the President and the Administration. It's terribly sad to watch. The Administration is in complete submission right now, and they're basically begging Nancy Pelosi not to impeach the President.

Elections matter, and this one has mattered catastrophically.

I disagree with a whole lot of things they have done, but they were political miracle workers for six years. If anything, they are a victim of their own political success, because they were so politically formidable that they got away with stuff (for a while) that would have gotten pushback from a Congress not so intimidated by their political skills.

Their success these last few years has been due to the "rally-round-the flag" effect in war time, not due to any astute politiking on their part. It took the Swift Boat vets to pull Bush through in 2004. People here have been complaining for months that the election strategy this year was little more than "Vote for us because we're not the Democrats".

It's still amazing to me that nothing at all was done to try to change the course of this election. Either the WH is completely out of touch with the public mood, or they just don't care much about losing Congress.

The main thing that people said (and yes I'm echoing one of the talking heads on Fox cuz he made sense) is that Iraq is a mess and something needs to change.

Rumsfield is the face of Iraq so changing him now is a good idea.

The reason it wasn't done before the election is because then the Dems would have seized on it and said, See even Bush thinks Iraq is a failure.

B.S. If thats so he shouldn't have said he would be here till the end of the administration. Now it looks like he caved.

Bureaucrats however have been seen dancing in the streets.

The base was completed stabbed in the back by the illigal immigration and the amnesty issue proposal.

Iraq, while being a tough situation, did not control this election. Contrary to the media's declaration that this was a referendum on Iraq, most people understand that Congress has little to do with how a war is carried out. A new congress is not going to provide a new direction for Iraq. The only thing they could possibly do is cut off funding which probably won't happen.

With all that said, the Republican party and the Leadership betrayed conservative values. They were drunken with power. They could have easily legislated themselves to victory, but they chose not to. They completely ignored the conservatives. Oh, and don't anyone say they gave us border enforcement. They should have done that to begin with. That was a last ditch effort to save themselves.

Now I'm going to puke up my lunch.
Disgusting.

Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum

I'm checking my ammo supplies. Time to move out to the hinterlands and away from ground zero.

Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Do you have any idea how may weapons and how much ammo you can hide under a burka?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

as Bush is saying Gates is on that Baker commision which the Dems have been in favor of. He could also do it as a recess appointment but have to imagine this was bounced by the senate Dems first.

Rant Street! www.rant.st

Not the nomination of Murtha...the first fillibuster of a presidential cabinet nominee by members of his own party.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

I have been watching the entire speech and nothing makes sense.

Thinking it over, and seeing the way Democrats are crowing over this, I have a very, very bad feeling. The termination of Rumsfeld seems like a total surrender, and more importantly a confession that everything the Democrats said about the war is true. That's the way the Dems will spin it, along with their allies in the media.

Worse, there has to be some bad information that will come out during the hearings on this, something that scared Bush into acting. The Democrats will say that Bush covered that up, and the only reason the voters know it, is because the Dems won.

I think Bush has gone a long way towards destroying the Republican party at a national level for at least a decade.

wasn't all of that inevitable with the Democrats taking over Congress? In addition, they would have extracted a few pounds of flesh in the meantime.

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

When someone is accused, there is a big difference between confessing or maintaining innocence all the way. When the Democrats hurled charges that the war was fought totally the wrong way, and Bush responded, "no..." with some argument, lots of voters thought "Partisan bickering" or "I wonder which one is right?"

But for Bush to fire Rumsfeld on the very day the Democrats win the election, and (probably) change course the way they want, people will see that as a total confession. No doubt any more.

I stand corrected

Considering Bush had a replacement immediately Rummy didnt walk into the Oval Office and give him his 2 weeks notice. This was planned and it could have been done a while ago if it was going to be done at all.

But now was not the time to do it. Last week would have been the time to do it. A month ago would have been better.

The President didn't want to appear like he was playing politics with the troops.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

Before he gets bipartisan and does even more damage.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

It would be unwatchable.

The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire

> The "post 9-11 W" ain't on vacation...he's dead and gone for good

What ever happened to the strong leader we saw shortly after 9/11? Some conservatives seriously wondered aloud if Bush started drinking again. Now that the election is over the question has to be asked, what is wrong with him?

...what happened to him. I liked that guy. I respected that guy. That guy, wherever he may have gone, doesn't live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue anymore.

I mean some would say "Bush has liberal genes" and "sometimes Bush is wimpy", which is PART of the problem.

But some things are just weird too, like the Harriet Miers nomination. That sounded like something Ross Perot's crazier cousin might do, nominate his aide to the Supreme Court. It's just weird.

He was the president who yelled into the magaphone at the ruins of 9/11 "...and the terrorist are going to hear us", and yet now it seems like two years since he was able to put any passion or focus into defending the war or anything else. Why? It is just strange. There must be some cause.

Your post above "The secret message" actually made a lot of sense to me as an alternative theory indicating a sound strategy behind this move.

But as you point out, to me there are two obvious explanations you can use when enacting a change like this to explain why:

1) we've discovered a new person and a new approach that are significantly better than our previous person/approach - there was nothing wrong with the previous approach, but the new mix is so much better that making the change is the correct move.

2) the old person/approach wasn't working, and we've (only now) opted to make a change to correct the deficiency. The new person/approach is better than the old.

There could be a bit of a combination of the two, perhasp... at any rate 1 seems more defensible than 2, of course, but even 1 raises some questions: why did the significantly better person/approach only become apparent recently, and so on.

I still think your other post is the best rational explanation for the move. Thanks...

I respect your opinion from previous posts here. I had hopes that Bush's cutting and running was at least going to replace Rummy with someone reasonable. I'm now afraid we lost again.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

We may need the Russians to help step up if the Pelosi Democrats tie our hands. They have Islamofacist problems, too.

We may now get news that confirms that

lost Iraq...we are still in the middle of Iraq.

Anyone who claims that we have lost is not looking at the situation without any perspective.

obviously, I misspoke, please remove the not from the sentence.

I agree we haven't militarily lost in Iraq - although I'd point out that we really haven't tried all-out to win yet - but we are losing/have lost it on the domestic front. W looks more and more like he's given up on it with every passing day. It doesn't matter how winnable it might still be re: the situation on the ground over there if the public and the political leadership - even the Republican leadership - have decided to quit trying to win and come home.

the media might start showing that we have finally transfered power to the iraqi military division by division, built schools, promoted elections, given more electricity to the outer areas than they ever had, etc thanks to the genius of Nancy Pelosi and her new policies.

oh, wait a minute...

We? Lost?

Yes, I sound like William Shatner, but out of seven words, over a fourth of it is questionable.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Use those two words in the same context and you are a fool.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

If Democrats try to block Rumsfeld's successor, Bush can just say 'ok, then Rumsfeld stays on as SecDef. I tried to try something I thought would work better but Democrats are just obstructing'.

Goodwill doesn't really enter into it.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Edwin Stanton served as Secretary of War for nearly all of the Civil War. Prior to Grant the Armies of the United States had been commanded by Winfield Scott (retired Nov 1861), McClellan (Nov 61- Mar 62), and Halleck (Mar 62-Mar 64).

Halleck was arguably the North's best general but rarely given the credit he deserves.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

No SecDef had ever served the full eight years. It's a very tough job. Rumsfeld may well end up with the longest tenure as SECDEFin history before Gates is confirmed.

Rumsfeld offered his resignation twice before. There may have been other offers we haven't heard about. For all we know, Don's the one who suggested Gates.

Besides, given the fact that Valerie Plame is complaining about the selection of Gates, my confidence in this switch is increasing.

I would say that we won the Iraq war a long time ago, as Bush and Rumsfeld themselves declared. If not, I don't understand what our mission is: to stay there until the Iraqis stop fighting each other?

Also, I think the main complaint is that Rumsfeld was replaced a few hours after an election, after years of complaining about the Iraq war, and after Bush saying a few weeks ago that he wouldn't replace him.