Can you imagine the "father to son talk" he received today?
2006-11-08 22:30:39 · 8 answers · asked by wfounlim 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I have the same question? He should taken Rumsfield's first resignation MONTHS ago! In stead of waiting for Demo's to take control of house
2006-11-09 02:52:45 · answer #1 · answered by beaner 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read an article a while back that showed some of the quotations from Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Bush's Chief of Staff. It looked like Bush's Chief of Staff wanted to get rid of Rumsfeld a long time ago and replace him with someone like James Baker. However Karl Rove and Dick Cheney didn't want him to because they felt that replacing Rumsfeld would lead to investigations into the Iraq War when they went for approval for the new Secretary of Defense.
If that is the case, it only makes sense that Bush would get rid of Rumsfeld right after the Republicans lost both the House and the Senate in the election. If the Republicans had retained control of both houses like Bush was hoping they would then Rumsfeld wouldn't be leaving I suspect. However, since they lost Bush needs to replace him ASAP because he only has a couple of months before many of his Republican congressman lose their seats in congress. He stands a much better chance of having less investigations into the Iraq War and against his administration if he replaces Rumsfeld now than if he waits till the Democrats take their seats in Congress. Also, if he gets rid of Rumsfeld, it might take some of the heat off his administration because he could make the claim that he did get rid of Rumsfeld and was trying to change the way things are going in Iraq. And if things came down to it, by getting rid of Rumsfeld he can use Rumsfeld as a scape goat, especially since Rumsfeld would not be directly tied to the administration after being let go.
Also it could be seen as a gesture of good will to the new Democratic controlled Congress.
The main thing I think is that the Bush administration is hiding a lot of stuff regarding the Iraq War and they don't want it known at almost any cost. If it were known, I think we'd see one of the biggest downfalls of a presidency since Watergate and the Nixon administration. I think evidence has already shown that there were a ton of blunders regarding how the Iraq War has been handled and there is even the possibility that some of the intelligence for going there in the first place was falsified.
I'm not saying that the Bush administration gave direct orders to falsify intelligence, but Bush did tell them to find him evidence to go into Iraq instead of just saying show me the intelligence so we can decide if we should go into Iraq or not. When you tell people to find you evidence to go in. That puts more and more pressure the further down the chain you go. Till finally one boss may tell his subordinate, "I don't care how you get it. Make it up if you have to." And so the subordinalte does.
2006-11-08 23:00:12 · answer #2 · answered by devilishblueyes 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush saw which way the country voted. The Democrats regain control. He felt the masses have spoken through the vote. Stay the course is no longer popular. He has to find new direction or the republicans wont stand a chance in the next presidential election. A course of action which will force the Iraqies to speed up the conrol of their own destiny is needed and fast.
2006-11-08 22:44:55 · answer #3 · answered by Robt Z 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's what all the Republicans who lost are wondering. They might have had something to work with on the campaign trails by convincing the voters that Bush was, as he's claiming, taking the war in a new direction. This election was a giant thumbs down for George Bush from the voters.
2006-11-08 22:57:16 · answer #4 · answered by Debra D 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In fact the reply for this cant be given. As that is Mr. Bush's decision. But probably he was waiting so that Mr. Rumsfield to collect more and more bad name earn more hatred.
2006-11-08 22:45:15 · answer #5 · answered by MY Regards to All 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because of the shift in power. The American President doesn't have the power Bush thought he had until the election. He could even be brought up on impeachment proceeding now if the Democrats chose.
2006-11-08 22:35:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i dont think Bush wanted Rumsfeld to resign. its just now that Democrats have the power in Congress they would force him out sooner or later, so better to resign
2006-11-08 22:40:15 · answer #7 · answered by tma 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suppose that he undestand only now that this Rumsfied was to optimist and so give him bad advices
2006-11-09 00:41:50 · answer #8 · answered by maussy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋