home

NY Times: Bush Began Planning to Dump Rumsfeld During Summer

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:16:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The New York Times reports on how and when Bush decided to get rid of Donald Rumsfeld.

President Bush was moving by late summer toward removing Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary, people inside and outside the White House said Thursday. Weeks before Election Day, the essential question still open was when, not if, to make the move.

Mr. Bush ultimately postponed action until after the election in part because of concern that to remove Mr. Rumsfeld earlier could be interpreted by critics as political opportunism or as ratifying their criticism of the White House war plan in the heart of the campaign, those people said.

< Harry Reid and Mojo | India Hires Eunuchs as Tax Collectors >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NY Times: Bush Began Planning to Dump Rumsfeld During Summer | 9 comments (9 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Jingle Bells.... Spinning shills.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Key on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:16:07 PM EST
    Dishing out the crap,
    Hoping they will sway;
    I'm on the floor rolling,
    Laughing all the way;

    Listening to their spin;
    Watching in their plight;
    What fun it is for me to see
    I'll sleep so well tonight.

    Chorus:
    Spinning shills, Spinning shills
    Spinning all the way;
    O what fun it is to chide them
    as they spin away, HEY!

    ....

    Cheney gets punked by Poppy's crew (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:06:38 AM EST
    It will be fun watching Cheney commenting on this new tack in the coming weeks. Then again, he'll probably stay deep in the bunker til January '09.

    He'll have to leave the bunker soon (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:45:27 AM EST
    because Deadeye is going to have to clean out Rangel's new office.*

    That's when we hit him with the subpoenas.
    -
    *Ooh.  That's gotta hurt.

    Parent

    Re: Cheney (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:15:56 AM EST
    I'm not counting him out. Remember this? He's been around too long, has  his tentacles in deep, and has a deep and strong network of "Cheneyites" built who are loyal, probably one near the scale of Poppy's. H.W. managed to get rid of Rumsfeld, Libby's gone but Cheney still has most of his backers, and he has already commented. At least on the core of their post election intentions. It will be interesting though to see if he was confidant in what he says or if it was false bravado, and I think that Cheney & Poppy have some common goals:

    "We've got the basic strategy right." He added, "It may not be popular with the public--it doesn't matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right."



    Parent
    His bunker is the WH (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:29:47 AM EST
    And he is back it appears, just not saying anything. Wonkette has this, with a picture of Cheney at the WH  apparently taken yesterday.

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:24:14 PM EST
    Rumsfeld getting canned is about as clear a sign there could be that Cheney is either 1.) no longer in charge of Iraq policy or 2.) changing course big time.

    I vote for 1.) above.

    Parent

    Because they (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:39:25 AM EST
    waited until the election, it became a no-win situation of their own making.

    But instead of deflecting any questions last week, Bush just out and out lied to the country. He does this so casually, either oblivious to, or dismissive of, the consequences. Maybe it's the Effexor. But I have already concluded that such critical thinking is beyond his capabilities. It's so obvious when I watch him. He struggles just to form complete sentences, much less make a point. Then he lights up when he completes a thought. For just and instant, you can detect that "I'm so proud of myself" look on his face. This is quickly replaced by the frustratoin of having to continue the discussion. More struggling. Make a gesture. The din of camera shutters crescendos momentarily.

    I do a fair amount of lecturing and have given many talks myself. I have been attending professional conferences for over 20 years. I've been watching political news conferences for even longer. I've heard some great presentations and suffered through boring lectures. Bush is so hard for me to watch because, and it's just my opinion, he is the most unprepared, unskilled and uninformed speaker I have ever had to listen to.

    I mean the guy is just painful to watch, especially when he's off script.

    Mendacity, Again (none / 0) (#6)
    by theologicus on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:14:01 AM EST
    I suspect that it was all a matter of contingencies.

    Ah, the Irony (none / 0) (#9)
    by David at Kmareka on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:56:50 AM EST
    As some have alluded here, Bush hurt himself and the Republicans by waiting too long to dismiss Rumsfeld.  Had he taken action sooner, perhaps in the weeks before the election, whatever political fallout may have resulted would likely have been offset by a sense that Bush was doing more than just abandoning the rhetoric of "stay the course," that he was making necessary changes and demonstrating some capacity for flexibility and leadership.

    While many of us on the left would not have been moved, it is possible that many in the political center and right of center might have rethought their votes of protest and supported some of the GOP candidates that they ended up turning against.  While the Democrats were likely going to win majority rule of the House no matter what, they might not have eked out a win of the Senate.  Bush's inability to recognize that acknowledging error and accepting valid criticism is a strength rather than a weakness cost his party on Election Day.  And, as a result, this deeply flawed man will no doubt continue to get in his own way and in the way of his party for the next two years.

    NY Times: Bush Began Planning to Dump Rumsfeld During Summer | 9 comments (9 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment