Rummy should have been replaced at least two years ago. I don't hate Rumsfeld. I think he'd be a great grandfather, but he wasn't a good secretary of defense.
2006-11-08 14:51:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by DavidNH 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it was obvious that he (Rumsfeld) had come under such fire from people who were not politically opposed to the president, that he (Rumsfeld) became a political liability. His firing was a way of appeasing and making (perhaps) more lenitive the Democratic tidal wave of Tuesday last. It was a way of tossing the Democrats a bone, something to show he was listening to American sentiment and listening to the Congress.
You should read Woodward's new book, State of Denial. It is a detailed endictment of Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was apparently the guy who believed the impressive American military needed to take a new approach to its warring objectives, and scale down the troops deployed in each theater for combat operations. He did this in Iraq in 2003, and the military went all the way to Baghdad in less than a month, of course, so it looked like his thinking was vindicated. (see pages 192-196) But then Rumsfeld ignored advice from knowledgeable experts in the RAND Corporation that the US ought to have 500,000 in the state-building phase of the Iraq conflict, with all the construction and security issues that had to be addressed. This was nearly three times what Rumsfeld wanted and got. And now we see the results: a catastrophe in Iraq.
Rumsfeld should have been dismissed a long time ago.
2006-11-08 14:45:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by voltaire 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is a quote from Reuters:
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the controversial face of American war policy, said he quit on Wednesday because the political climate changed after Democrats' big election win, driven by anger over Iraq.
So, no he didn't fire Rumsfeld. But that is why Rumsfeld quit.
2006-11-08 14:58:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Rumsfeld resigned to spare everybody, himself included, a lot of aggravation - he will be less likely to be called before a Democratic Congress to explain himself, the President will not have to face calls from Congress to fire him, the Congress will be busy with the confirmation hearings on Gray, etc. It's just better for this administration.
2006-11-08 14:41:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by sonyack 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The president did NOT fire Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld stepped down.
2006-11-08 14:34:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
yeah, Rummy has turned in his resignation a coupla times already. W just decided to accept it this time. Didn't have anything to do with anything. HELLO! the congress got flipped, mostly because of the lousy job someone has done managing the Iraq mess and Rumsfeld got thrown under the bus. If they were going to replace him, might as well do it while all the rest of the news is bad, no need screwing up 2 days worth of news cycle!
2006-11-08 14:32:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by jambo 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
From my understanding, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. The president didn't fire him.
2006-11-08 14:29:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Crystal 5
·
2⤊
4⤋
Because if he didn't the Democrats would have to once they are sworn in. Don Rumsfeld saves face.
2006-11-08 14:31:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Its too bazaar to figure out. It was just a week ago when he said he was going to stay. Now after the election goes bad for him Rummy's gone. I think Bush fired him in an attempt to appease the Democrats.
2006-11-08 14:32:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by Roadkill 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
He wasnt fired although the president did push him into leaving his post, but mostly is was because now that Democrats control most of the Senate and House, Bush thinks that republicans are lacking of Standard...
2006-11-08 14:31:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋