FNC just confirmed, and the AP has reported that Donald Rumsfeld has stepped down as Sec. of Defense. Needless to say, this is HUGE. Link


What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?
Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way? [with tongue firmly planted in cheek ]
What are the ramification of this?

CP

A day late and a dollar short. If Bush had accepted his resignation earlier (assuming Rumsfeld is telling the truth that he tried to resign twice), maybe his party wouldn't be in quite as bad shape.

And what happened to "stay the course"??

Best news od the day for me

What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?

I think it says they’re more than a wee bit worried.

Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way?

I hate to say it, but DUH. I can’t think of any other reason for the timing. Both sides of the political aisle have been screaming for Rummy to step down, but he and Bush have stubbornly remained firm in their stance. As late as yesterday, Bush said that he supported Rumsfeld and had no plans to replace him. Suddenly, today, after an election that saw many incumbent Republicans go down in flames, and House (and possibly Senate) control going to Democrats, Rummy steps down? Even the dimmest bulb would have to say it’s more than a coincidence.

What are the ramification of this?

I haven’t had time to process – it has come as a major shock. Bush NEVER ousts his buddies. This is so unprecedented, I’ll have to defer on this until later.

First, it means Dick Cheney should be nervous since Bush gave him and Rumsfeld the dreaded "vote of confidence" last week. Dick might want to run down to the post office and get some change of address forms.

But seriously, it means that there are a lot of generals and officers and Pentagon folks who are happy as hell right now. Rumsfeld's arrogance and incompetence has cost America thousands of lives, billions of dollars and massive damage to our standing in the world.

Second---ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Of course, Rummy is getting dumped because of the whipping the GOP took yesterday. If he dropped Donny-boy a week or so before the election he might have narrowed the party's losses. Far too little. Way too late.

Third, let's wait and see what it means. Robert Gates is a career CIA guy so he's not exactly a breath of fresh air. Then again, Rumsfeld had become such a liability to the Bush Administration that he had to fall on his sword. Right now, it looks like the White House is on the run.

What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?

That they are the last to acknowledge that it has been a fiasco from the outset.

Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way?

The results? No. The decision was made days ago - at least. Bush even mentioned discussing it with Rumsfeld last Sunday and Bob Gates had obviously been approached, though we don't know how long ago. This is not something that took anyone in the Bush administration by surprise. The pre-election polling doubtless influenced the timing of the announcement, though.

What are the ramification of this?

The White House will coopt tomorrow's headlines - as was intended. I don't see Gates as being a very promising choice, so I expect this is largely cosmetic. And one of the primary purposes of cosmetics is to cover up - and there's no better man for that job than Robert Michael Gates.

As Wertz suggested, I'm certain Adminstration officials were holding out until after the election to announce Rumsfelds withdrawl. If anything, the GOP probably thought that withholding the departure was a good tactic on their part: staying the course and all that.

Oops, pardon. I will ad some more substance to my pleasure to this announcement.

I have always supported bush as well as his administration but the one that I absolutely thought was brain dead, was ole Rummy. I base 100% of the chaos in Iraq on his shoulders and agreed with our soldiers about their displeasure of his inability to function as secretary of defence.

What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?

I don't think it changes much, other than having a competent person to handle the day to day operations of our military.

Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way?

The Armytimes article released was pretty much the nail in the Rumsfeld coffin, so no, the elections contributed nothing IMHO.

What are the ramification of this?

It is a strategy to once again, remove the Democratic win out of the media and place the spotlight back onto the republicans. Granted, it might have helped some districts if Bush had made the announcement days earlier.

What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?

As others have said, this has obviously been in the works. They did not come up with this between last night and this morning. As I have said elsewhere, I think Rumsfeld has only lasted this long because of the difficulties that will surround (or would have surrounded) the near certainty of a filibuster. Now, with Democrats likely in control, the Republicans actually have a better chance of getting a replacement through (as odd as that might seem).

Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way? [with tongue firmly planted in cheek ]

Not really. Since the decision had been made, only the timing of the announcement is election related. The Republicans wanted to stress their stay the course in Iraq stratagem and it seems to have backfired.

What are the ramifications of this?

Rumsfeld was a whipping boy. The guy doesn't run the war on the ground, he is an administrator. He did coordinate strategy, but not tactics. If anyone has a better strategy, I'd like to hear it.

The damage he did cause was reducing the number of troops available, something that is not going to be corrected any time soon.

We'll soon have an idea of how much rancor there still is in Washington. Gates will either be accepted by the Democrats or dragged through the mud. We'll see how the hearings play out to give us an indication of the atmosphere of next year's Congressional session.

What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?

Perhaps some of you noticed Bush dropping Jim Baker's name this morning. Rumsfield's resignation is the final nail in the coffin of the AEI neocon vision of Iraq, and the confirmation of the Baker Institute's (and the oil industry's) vision. If you study the goals of those two groups, you'll see a drastic difference in how they want to deal with Iraq's oil industry. The neocons wanted to sell off the fields, totally privatize the oil industry in Iraq, with the long term goal of breaking OPEC and the Saudi's reign of the world's oil market. Baker (the lawyer who not only has a desk at the White House, but whose law firm is defending the house of Saud from the 9/11 victims' lawsuits to find out who they were funding) and the big oil companies are opposed vehemently to this plan, and their voice has gained increasing sway in the White House. You might think that this seems contradictory, but it isn't. OPEC's price fixing has meant record profits for the industry, and the last thing they want is to see OPEC brought down.

When you put that on top of the fact that the people of this nation, and indeed the military leaders on the ground all feel that Rumsfield's prosecution of the war has been incompetent, it was time for him to go. My guess is that this has been in the works for a while.

Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way? [with tongue firmly planted in cheek ]

No. I concur with Amlord, the timing of the announcement was related to the election.

What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?

I don’t think it changes the overall strategy, stay until Iraq can defend for themselves, but I believe what the President said in his press conference: we need fresh eyes on the problem. For years this has been a classic strategy for almost any issues, political or private, that a fresh perspective can often proved a break through.

Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way? [with tongue firmly planted in cheek ]

Again I believe what the President said in his press conference that basically if he made the move prior to the election and as Commander in Chief, it could have signaled to the troops that he was acting on behalf of pollsters and not in their best interest.

What are the ramification of this?

Operational ramifications: fresh ideas and perspectives may be the solution to the problem, especially since most considered Rummy the problem.

Political ramifications: this could be seen and extending the olive branch across the aisle.

What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?
Absolutely nothing! It only speaks about Bushiness, its spin style, and (please forgive me, but I cannot lie in such an "open forum", the lack of "TRUE GRIT" in "We the people"-land!) because:

a. We let him/them do IT until with "they" could only viably proceed with IT as repackaged "new-ness". Gates is just another of the same and a known problem in his own right. He's a very good "good-old-boy" from the "brush country template of Bushland", and I'm enuf of a Texian to tell you that ain't in the real TEXAS I know, except what maybe still lives in the Air National Guard, where Bushiness first came to light, the Tex-oil "high-society", and other Bushwhacker enclaves, that even Texians don't yet perceive well, etc.)".

b. We are still not doing enuf to "get it right" (as seen by the root-mean-square "average street American", if he/she were to be given the "whole truth", and were asked the "right" (oops! I mean "correct") questions about her/his real wants and opinions.

c. The "biggy" for me: How does the Commander-in-Chief of the Military have any non-military personage in the "chain of command" between himself and the Chairman of, or all of, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and US still claim to be true to the US Constitution? (I know the creation history of the DoD, Sec Def., CIA, NSA, and the Truman et al style of things, of that era, circa 1947-9, etc., as presented by the various actors "within the system", but their/these "opinions" of those in the system ain't "street truth"!

d. That "We the...." don't finish this list and "fix all the items". All it takes is a bit of "TRUE GRIT"!

Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way? [with tongue firmly planted in cheek ]
Absolutely! It sent a clear message that "old veneer" Bushiness needed a "new veneer" and that the new crafting of such was an immediate need. I don't think any other "actionalble in this present system" message made it through though!

What are the ramification of this?
Absolutely nothing to any "meaningful" change of goals, direction, means, or methods of our present gov't. (And I'm afraid I mean anywhere, not just in Iraq-policy, or DoD, or anti-science, or busted reporting, etc., but everywhere!)

ps. I recommend readers check the related post of a few days ago in War on Terrorism's forum.

Yes, that hangover was worth it. today is such a great day, the defeat of the bush party draws near and peace may once again come over the land. It looks as if Frodo actually made it.

What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?

They never had one, and now this will probably come to light along with all kinds of other things.

Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way? [with tongue firmly planted in cheek ]

Oh yes sir.

What are the ramification of this?

Hopefully the start of a better day for humanity in general.

What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?

I think it signals an end to the "everything is rosy" rhetoric that has dominated the Administration's approach to the war.

Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way? [with tongue firmly planted in cheek ]

I think the election process may have had a little to do with it, but not the results. I think it was becoming clear to the administration that they were going to have to do something with Rumsfeld. The increasing support for Democratic candidates over Republican incumbents and dissatisfaction with the war being a major reason for that change certainly had to play a role in the decision.

What are the ramification of this?

I'm really liking what I hear about Robert Gates – though I still need to do more reading. I'm hoping that this will result in a better approach to the war and a realistic light at the end of the tunnel.

It will be interesting to see if Gates and Cheney butt heads.

I agree with Wertz's (and a few others) assessement of the timing. This announcement is a reverse of the Friday afternoon "bad news" announcement. It is an attempt to steal the public's attention from the Democrat's successful election.


As far as the possible ramifications:
My first reaction was that the White House is unloading its sacrificial lamb for the coming onslaught of committees, hearings and subpoenas. Just as Tenet had to take the fall for the WMD debacle they will need a whipping boy for anything that might be dragged out into the light on this war. It would be beneficial, I think, for any huge mistakes to be tagged onto Rummy's lapel with the understanding that "we had the foresight to get rid of him six months ago".

What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?

It says the Bush is helluva lot smarter than they give him credit for. What a great political move to dull the edge of Pelosi's sword. They can't investigate someone who has retired.
Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way? [with tongue firmly planted in cheek ]

Yes, indirectly. I think Bush and Rummy made the decision a while back that if they lost the house, Rummy would resign. It's obvious since Bush couldn't possibly find a replacement overnight.
What are the ramification of this?
As I said, it blunts Pelosi's sword. It takes away the prime target of any Iraq investigation. She's probably *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

oh my god this isnt huge... hes a useless politician that knows as much as our president. He quit after all these years and people are thinking he is courageous enough to admit that he did a bad job. Hes just an old guy that will lose his job anyway so instead of going down with the "bush Administration" he is rather taking the more "manly route" and acting like he is fessing up
I say he needs to ask for atleast some amount of forgiveness from the american people and to wake up and spell the roses

By the way, im sorry if im off topic... i just dont think that what CNN said today is anything but a bunch of bull about him being a good person to leave this way, GO

I think rummys ego would not let him allow for some investigation into his actions while holding such a position. I think also that Bush was keeping him around while he served a purpose to the bush party. I think soon as the dems did get enough power to fight the bush party rummy quickly became more of a problem then a benefit to that party, so as a good henchman would do he basically killed himself off, sort of like Hitler but hey. The bush party has manifested itself as it truly was, a cancerous parasite, I feel sort of sorry for the gop right now because of such, I mean Montana even went democratic.

Its also funny that with so many other things if not just about everything out of bushs mouth he instantly did a flip flop to make it look as is this was all the works and everything is fine, but not even that long ago it was that rave of rummy doing great work and not having to go anywhere while bush held office. I think the corruption and lies have become such a norm that people don’t even notice enough really to make it surface, I am glad though that the dems have some power now, its Americas only outlet to combat such an evil really. Lets just hope the dems don’t pull the same off, I think with the idea of wanting to win a president slot though they may not. Being a man of little faith I will have to wait and see though, I am sure they will have some plan at least, and at least that will be better then where we currently sit.

In the end I may come to love bush in some warped fashion. Only for so long though, the generations within scope of this may not make such a mistake to elect such people again.

On a side note, this was such good news I actually lost control of myself and broke out in dance. I am so happy rummys gone, truly.

I don't think the fact that he has retired has somehow makes him immune to investigation. He was in charge at that time; he'll get investigated for this role at that time. Ken Lay didn't get a free pass from being investigated when he resigned from Enron - oh wait - he kinda did.

Rummy is definitely a sacrificial lamb. And Karl Rove is still behind the curtain, doing what he does so well.

.

Incompetent? Was he fighting the war alone? Would the congress go to full time WAR footing as some generals requested?? Of course not. Rumsfeld will be seen as the man who did the most for military modernization in the last 20 years. He got stuck with a tough war, bad intel, and a public not up for the fight.

What does this say about the Administration's stance on the War in Iraq?

They never had an actual stance. Not an authentic one. Everything has been an attempt of explaining preceeding mistakes. We invaded for WMD's based upon weak and circumstantial evidence. When the threat never materialized we pretended like it was undertaken in a war against global terrorism...in which Iraq played a negligible role. Bush gave an ultimatum to Saddam and sons pre-war. Leave or Iraq will face dire consequences. The idea was not attack and rebuild. Had nothing to do with a global fight. Bush would not have invaded in his own decree if Saddam would have left. The build up and the ultimatum proves this was not a step in a greater war of terrorism. That it was an isolated war and that the administration never viewed it in conjunction with ending global terrorism and if they would have tried, the experts would have pointed out the obvious. That a secular totalitarian dictator hailing from the smallest cultural group of his nation would not associate with or invite a power struggle by dealing with global islamic theocratic factions. He watched what religion had done to his Shia neighbor Iran. Saddam knew what he needed to do to keep power and powwowing with global islamic terrorist groups is not part of it. Iraq was perhaps the last middle eastern nation that would associate with global islamic terrorists. He was afraid of Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi. Bin Laden regarded Saddam as an infidel. The 9/11 commission has stated that no meaningful contacts between Saddam and AL Qaeda existed.

Rumsfeld kept trying to downsize the size of the US military in the opening stages of the conflict because nobody considered the idea of rebuiliding or creating a "model of democracy". That was later adopted when it became apparent we were there for no reason. Rumsfeld never viewed it as simply a theater and staging ground in a global fight either....which is why he wanted to cut the size of our total armed forces in the opening stages.

Basically, the administration has adopted this policy midstream/after the fact and have been helped by the non secure Iraqi borders that have allowed actual jihadist cells (that were not in Iraq pre-war) to cross the border for a chance to satisfy their dream in killing an American.

The policy is essentially. We are here. The reason we came is bust...lets try to salvage what we have done without further angering the electorate and making the loss of human life meaningless.

That has been the policy.

Do you think the election results influenced this decision in any way?

Obviously. Bush has refused his resignation umpteen times. Bush values loyalty over results and accomplishment. That may work well when being the head of a family but not head of the United States. The republicans are losing the electorate and they looked around for a sacrificial lamb and old unpopular Rumsfeld (who wanted to go anyway) was an easy choice.

What are the ramification of this?

The election of a democratic congress will have a greater impact on Iraq then replacing someone who held little control anyway. He had lost respect with many generals. A fresh face...no matter who, is better than Rumsfeld. Bush realizes that he no longer has carte blanche and that he must compromise and become more pragmatic in regards to Iraq. A phased withdrawl will be the new method. It took Saddam with only 15% of the population on his side only 250k troops to maintain this nation. Say the Shia majority can do it with 500k. You take out 30K US troops for every solid 100K Iraq produces. take how long it takes to train 100K and schedule a timeline for withdrawl to Kuwait. Stop building and occupying permanent bases which is what stokes so much animosity in the Arab world in the first place.

The ramification is that the situation will see improvement.