If everything is going so will in Iraq.
Is Bush stupid? A traitor? Or no longer able to put a positive spin on a negative event?
What was the reason?
2006-12-06 15:36:18 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
You'll get a lot of responses asserting that Rumsfeld is a "moron", "idiot", "stupid", etc. These are only demonstrating their own moronity, idiocy, and stupidity -- Input: Rumsfeld; Output: Moron -- see how the program works? Of course years of public education produces this lack of capacity for objective thought and logical discernment. Their arguments serve only to impune one's intelligence, character, or social standing.
The reason is posturing to satisfy a disgruntled conservative base. Many conservatives are disillusioned with the way Iraq is being handled. This disillusionment is not because they disagree with the strategic vision associated with replacing Sadam, but because they see a situation where a low-grade civil war is sustained unnecessarily to generate need for increased Federal spending and, consequently, increased contracts for rebuilding. Also, conservatives are boiling mad over the negligent management of the U.S. border.
All this translates into the need deliver some raw meat to the wolves and Rumsfeld was prime for the block.
2006-12-06 16:12:12 · answer #1 · answered by K. A. Harvey 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush needed a scapegoat for his failed policies, right after he voted for Rumsfeld, he voted against him!This is the way the cons turn on each other, notice how they are disavowing their participation of the Iraq war. Rumsfeld conveniently leaks a memorandum pursuing every alternate policy that anyone ever mentioned, Richard Perle says that he was against the whole thing. They have no principles, they will say and do anything that fits their agenda. Now they are all scrambling for post government jobs, and the sad part is; they'll get them. The think tanks that are funded by the right wing zealots will harbor them until they have another chance to steal an election. A chickenhawk can't change his feathers.
2006-12-06 15:51:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
The election Results. Bush could no longer afford to have Rumsfeld in the White House- Rumsfeld was a political plague. Bush couldn't allow him around, he would ave given Dems a way to discredit him in new ways- namely, casting a voe of no confidence in Rumsfeld an possibly impeaching him.
2006-12-06 15:41:42 · answer #3 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He didn't get fired he quit. And no nothing is going well in Iraq and yes bush is stupid a traitor and was never able to put a positive spin on ****
2006-12-06 16:17:30 · answer #4 · answered by alexmojo2 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm not sure he did! I think Rumsfeld took the bad rap for many of his bosses' mistakes, and when he had enough and sent his memo ready to reveal how bad the situation in Iraq really is, Bush didn't have a choice but to let him go.
I'm happy he is gone, but I think the wrong guy left first. . . .too bad we'll have to wait 2 more years for his former boss to leave!
2006-12-06 15:49:04 · answer #5 · answered by newcalalily 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush didn't fire Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld resigned because he was a moron and couldn't do his job.
2006-12-06 15:38:37 · answer #6 · answered by VoDkA 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm pretty sure that if it were for political reasons, it would have happened 6 months before the election. Some of us think it should have.
2006-12-06 16:50:54 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋