I'm of two minds on Rumsfeld being fired (yeah, he's "quitting", whatever). Is this really a result of the election or just another lame effort by Bush to divert attention from his own deeds? Rumsfeld has been going down in flames for a long time now in the realm of public opinion, but Bush has continued to stand by him. It seems a particularly craven act to blame your Secretary of Defense for a stunning mid-term election defeat. Bush waited until the results were in before making the change and you have to wonder what the line was to keep Rumsfeld; no change, minor majority, Senate only majority, etc...
I would also love to hear Rove's spin on all of this. The last time I heard his smug responses was on NPR a couple of weeks ago. Rove was telling NPR that he apparently had access to the secret squirrel polling data and it was very favorable for the Republicans to the point that they would keep the majority. I wonder if he still has a job or will he also be "stepping down" soon?
The end of the free world via election machines may not have come to pass, but I'm really curious how the reports of election problems will pan out.
Note to Democrats: Yes, it has been years where you have suffered the embarrassment of being tagged as unable to deal with tough issues, especially in the last few months ("Softer" on Terrorists, Cut and Run Party, and so on), on topics such as national security in general and Iraq/Afghanistan specifically. But hey, buck up little camper, now comes the fun part. You have a stellar opportunity to do something, anything to get us back on track. And by that, I mean accountability for our military and intelligence agency actions, addressing global threats (real and perceived), creation of plans with specific, measurable and practical goals to address Iraq and Afghanistan (I mean for fuck's sake, has anybody seen a real plan beyond anagrams of "We Win and the Terrorists Lose"?) and preservation of our personal and private rights. Good luck we are all counting on you. (P.S. Don't fuck it up).
I think Rumsfeld would have been out no matter what the outcome of the election. The uniformed military leaders had had enough of him, and even our bone-headed administration knew they needed to make a change.
One interesting idea, however, was that the administration wanted him out of the way so that he did not have to spend time testifying to a Democratic congress. Perhaps Bush was concerned about what he would have to say.
Posted by: Tom | Wednesday, November 08, 2006 at 07:19 PM