2006-11-10 00:36:08 · 12 answers · asked by Ace 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He was sacked (they call it resignation because it's less cruel) because he was the architect of the disastrously unsuccessful war in Iraq. This war, according to many exit-polls, was a principle reason for people voting Democrat.
2006-11-10 00:40:06 · answer #1 · answered by TC 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
It does beg the question, if Rumsfield had resigned a few weeks BEFORE the elections, would more Republicans have been (re)elected. Nonetheless, I think he and Bush both knew that if the Democrats controlled both Houses, they would need someone who was not such a lightning rod for criticism. In many ways Rumsfield was brilliant, but he was also caustic and hard to work with. Gates has a reputation for being very much the compromiser...whether that is a good thing, remains to be seen.
2006-11-10 08:57:36 · answer #2 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suspect Bush asked him to stay until after the election, in order to not give the impression that he in any way was displeased with Rumsfeld or that it was in reaction to the incessant idiotic cries for Rumsfeld's resignation.
Because that action would have been played up by the Democrat propagandist media as a Bush surrender, regardless of the facts.
It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the blind partisan propaganda that Rumsfeld was incompetent or that Iraq is a failure or that (!) the military wanted him out. These are just flights of fevered imagination unsupported by reality.
2006-11-10 09:01:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
None of it was definite until right before the elction. From Rummy's resignation to the new guy's acceptance of the job.
Added to that, Bush purposely waited until after the election because he knew whilny liberal pantywaists would screech that he was trying to influence the election if it happened beforehand.
2006-11-10 18:35:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
that is a good question. only last week, bush was saying rummy would be around for two more years. now, he is saying this had been in the works for some time. in all likelihood, the timing of the resignation/firing cost the repubs control of the senate. if rummy had been gone before the election, the senate might have stayed repub.
2006-11-10 08:40:20 · answer #5 · answered by grumpy 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think that Bush really is in a bubble. I believe that he mis read how frustrated moderates and dems are. He beleives his own press and it backfired on him. I am not feeling like the Dems are going to give us a earth shaking alternative. but peope are very frustrated at Rummy. Bush did not or could not hear it.
2006-11-10 18:41:35 · answer #6 · answered by copestir 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he is incompetent, and that incompetence handed Congress over to the Democrats. The insistence that a small number of troops were needed to maintain order in Iraq and the belief that the insurgence was 'just a few deadenders' belongs to Rumsfeld alone, and he has clung to it despite all evidence to the contrary.
The top two issues that people voted on were Iraq and corruption. Hastert resigned his leadership position over his failure to rein in corruption in his own ranks.
The Republicans viewed these two as weaknesses for their own party, and removed them.
2006-11-10 08:40:46 · answer #7 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
He resigned because the military called for his resignation and they are pretty powerful.
2006-11-10 08:39:53 · answer #8 · answered by elaeblue 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It was failures like him that contributed to the republican losses Tuesday.
That was a huge factor for sure.
2006-11-10 08:39:10 · answer #9 · answered by dstr 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He should have shot himself in the head instead.
2006-11-10 08:39:08 · answer #10 · answered by Dr Dee 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋