Rumsfeld was a highly divisive figure. It's likely that a democratic legislature would have found a way to force him out of office. Rather than open himself up for that kind of fight (and, by extension, open the white house up to the fight), he resigned.
I disagree with the prior poster saying leaving earlier would have hurt the Republican party. I think leaving earlier would have helped the GOP. A lot of people, not just Democrats, wanted Rumsfeld gone. If he had left prior to elections, it would have shown a white house willingness to adapt and respond to criticism -- something that it's thus far been fairly slow and unwilling to do.
2006-11-09 17:17:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by question_ahoy 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
i doubt he " decided" to resign.. he is Bush's scapegoat.. not that he doesn't deserve it.. but Bush figures by giving Rumsfeld to the wolves it will make him look better.. it doesn't.. just shows him up for a liar again... He claims this was in the works all along but he didn't want to say anything about it so as not to affect the election.. Was he nuts..Firing Rumsfeld may have gotten the Republicans a few more votes. Better still.. Bush should have resigned.... the Repugs would have won for sure...
2006-11-10 01:45:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Debra H 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Rumsfeld and Bush did not want Rumsfeld forced to testify before Congress about the War in Iraq. It well be easier to hide the realities with Rummy in retirement.
2006-11-10 01:18:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by zclifton2 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Rummy Knows Whats Going To Happen Next
First And Foremost :
The Dems Are Going To Demand Troop Withdrawal From Iraq
Something That Rummy Is Dead Against
Then They Are Going To Impeach The Bush Crime Family
At Which Point Cheney Will Resign
(Fearing The Reopening Of The 9 -11 Commission)
House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi
Will Become The First Female US President
That Will Soften The Blow And Ensure Hillary In 08
2006-11-10 01:22:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
He did not resign, of course. GW Bush decided that the Democratic sweep on Tuesday was so extreme that he had to give them something to cool them down a bit. He decided to throw them a bone named Rumsfeld.
When you get to be a big shot like a member of the president's cabinet you get a lot of perks. One of them is that when they decide to replace you they like to give you a wink and tell you you'll be "resigning" in a day or two.
The rest of us ordinary folk just get fired.
2006-11-10 01:28:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by voltaire 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I have the following few sentences to your question as orginally said by the right persons!
Donald Rumfeld said during 2002, "there are thing we know that we know. There are known unknowns....Things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things that we don't know we don't know..."
One middle-easten neutral expert disclosed on listening to the above, " Rumsfeld is the symbol of stupidity and unilateralism -
Efforts by American politicians to hide their failure is no longer working"
2006-11-10 01:32:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by SESHADRI K 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It was because his own men gave him a vote of no confidence and his generals ask him to step down! cant run a war if your men will not let you! He was also like tit's on a hog had no intrinsic value what so ever to the military or the people of either Iraq or the u.s.! IMAGINE:a republican saying all this whats the world coming to?...lol
2006-11-10 03:22:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by no one here gets out alive 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If he had left any earlier, he would have hurt the republican party. With all the recent hits that the republican party had taken (child molestation, corruption, etc), he probably just stuck it out until after the vote.
2006-11-10 01:17:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by robtheman 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
He knew he hadn't been effective for months; this was the chance to leave
2006-11-10 01:16:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
some of the news had said that bush asked him to.
2006-11-10 01:20:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋