would election day results have been different if bush and rove would have fired rumsfeld a month ago or so?

Question

many military and republicans were fed up with rumfelds handling of the iraq war and may have voted accordingly, the results may been quite different if rumsfeld had resigned a month or two before, instead of the day after election day.. just my opinion...what do you think?? that may just have cost the republican party the election.

Answer 1

I think they might have been able to pick up one or two of those close Senate races that they had lost.

Bad political move.

Answer 2

I am Australian and therefore could not vote to place the blame on 1 man rumsfeld who is just being used as a scape goat .We are alies with the US there but our leaders in the government and armed forces are a little smarter than we get credit for .Example in the hotspots we send better trained and equiped men than your navy seals "experts at everthing warfare" in the not so hot spots we send well trained full time soldiers ,for peace keeping we use Army reserves these are men and women who have regular day jobs and train with the army once a week and 1or2 fortnight camps full time tax free wages is used for their incentive they are basically like the US home guard .I certainly dont wish to put the men and women of your armed forces down in any way without them in the past I might be speaking japanese MANY THANKS TO THEM and anyone now serving.I did 6 years fulltime army during the vietnam war so I do respect the military . Unfortunately the problem stems from the top not the men on the ground .God I pray it all ends soon for both our sakes .

Answer 3

Bush is a huge fat liar. He lied that Rumsfeld replaced into doing a very good interest even as he extremely felt that he wasn't, yet he extremely did experience he replaced into doing a tremendous interest because Rummie did not care what percentage lives were lost or how the U. S. could were there contained in the first position. He purely saved the Pentagon funds going to make his warfare contracting friends wealthy and Bush is familiar with that. the crew is amazingly egocentric and doesn't care about American people. forget the previous and help attempt to fix issues. What are your thoughts?!

Answer 4

Yes and No. If he had fired Rummy would have had its + and -'s so it would have evened out. IF HE HAD FIRED ROVE, it would have gone a long way. It would have shown he wanted to move to the middle and admit that he was not King George but President George Bush. Big difference and it didn't happen, but at least Rumsfeld got the message. Prideful people don't have problems, everyone else around them does.

Answer 5

The problem is that you can't win a war by being Politically Correct---worrying about offending the sensibilities of the enemy. Now, why was Rummy conducting the war that way as opposed to kicking the media out of Iraq and ruthlessly obliterating and humiliating the enemy into submission? The Radical Islamics see it as weakness on our part when we try to accomodate the sensibilities of those trying to blow us up, behead us, etc. Rummy's failing was listening to American Libs who get their knickers in such a twist. They set him up and he fell for it.

And we conservative Republicans probably got demoralized by his fighting a PC war. Had W and Karl taken Rummy out 3 months ago and put a George Patton in and given him a free hand to do what was necessary . . . the Dems would have been cutting and running. (It didn't help that our Moderate and Liberal and some Conservative Congressmen and Senators spent like Democrats).

Answer 6

no, it had gone on so long that it would have made little difference. Bush would never have canned him before the election anyway, I think he was in fantasy land before the election and may have thought what he was saying (that the Republicans would hold onto the majority) was true.....wishful thinking to the end, he's very stubborn.

Answer 7

Interesting opinion ... good way to look at it.

Don't know that it would have mattered all that much, though. The votes that may have not gone to the Dems would have been all spread out over hundreds of elections regarding hundreds of candidates. Probably not likely to have affected the number of seats the Dems gained.

.

Answer 8

No because, people are tired of 2 wars and they are scare of future of economy and the National debt. So firing Rums field will not make any different since the American people already felt the war impact their lives and well being. I am not surprised to see the country voted landslide for Democrat.

Answer 9

Not likely, off year elections are historically bad the the president's party. I think Bush actually didn't do much worse than average.

Answer 10

I think they might have been a little different. and One seat would have kept the senate....that move the day after the election still blows my mind...And I am a Democrat...