I thought Bush wanted him for a couple more years. What's up with all these shocking news?
Was Rumsfeld just a scapegoat?
2006-11-08 08:43:59 · 13 answers · asked by Tiny 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Rumsfeld was fired by Bush this morning, it was evident at the press conference today. Bush is afraid of the trails that lead back to him from Rumsfelds failures in Iraq.
2006-11-08 09:00:14 · answer #1 · answered by Jenny_is_Hot 6 · 14⤊ 0⤋
Rumsfeld was constantly causght in lies and bullied the press. He didn't help any republicans in this election and they need a much friendlier face for the next big elections. There was no way he would have been able to operate respectably under the conditions that a dem house will cause. He was not willing to have his authority and place challenged, It was a smart move by the right. Next out Cheany if they want to win the next election, if they want to lose Cheany will be their choice for prez.
2006-11-08 08:53:14 · answer #2 · answered by cosmiccastaway 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You see He want to Quit During the War's First Months but he couldn't, Thanks to the Outgoing Rubber Stamp Congress of President Bush, Now since theirs a Transition of Power in Congress, President Bush doesn't want to see Rumsfeld Hurt, Knowing how Unpopular this war has been.
2006-11-10 11:28:06 · answer #3 · answered by tfoley5000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do you imagine Donald Rumsfeld is the purely one insisting we could continually uphold our Geneva convention duties? it really is an rather unusual statement. we are obligated to maintain protection of Iraq adverse to Islamist insurgents until eventually Iraq can look after itself. we are preparation more and more Iraqis to do the interest each and each month, not 'status decrease back' and observing. Rumsfeld could not renounce because he's ensuring we do what the Geneva Conventions require to boot as ensuring Iraq does not develop into this style of Islamist hell-hollow Afghanistan replaced into even as a previous administration failed in its household projects.
2016-11-28 22:31:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rumsfeld was a lightning rod. It didn't matter what kind of job he did, good or bad. When Bush was not being attacked, it was Rumsfeld.
Perhaps the administration wants to start fresh and simultaneously remove some of the steam from Dems' balloon.
2006-11-08 08:45:46 · answer #5 · answered by C = JD 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Because he said he would consider it a reprimand from the people if the Democrats won either the house or Senate (or both like it's looking like) and that he would resign to take responsibility. At least that's what I've pieced together so far.
2006-11-08 08:47:13 · answer #6 · answered by Chris J 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Too much controversy for him i guess. It was probably orchistrated by the Bush administration to make it look like they are going in a new direction.
2006-11-08 08:45:38 · answer #7 · answered by E 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He's fleeing the death squads intent on silencing him. They can't afford to have the old guy talk. Expect sudden departure to a foreign country or a sudden heart attack.
2006-11-08 08:46:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
cause the democrats were going to call for his resignation anyway, maybe they would have found something he didnt want them to find, who knows really?
he resigned cause sometimes its better to quit yourself then to have somebody fire you :)
2006-11-08 08:50:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
GOTTA GET OUT OF THE COUNTRY BEFORE HE GETS ARRESTED AND TRIED FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND TREASON. BUSH IS MAKING HIS PLANS TO EJECT AS SOON AS HIS NUMBER COMES UP
2006-11-08 08:47:56 · answer #10 · answered by Unfrozen Caveman 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋