Novak: Rumsfeld didn’t know until the day he was fired
posted at 11:09 am on November 23, 2006 by Allahpundit
That’s not what we’d been told. NYT, November 9th:
Just days after telling reporters that he would keep Mr. Rumsfeld on for the rest of his term, Mr. Bush said that the two had agreed “after a series of thoughtful conversations” that it was time for Mr. Rumsfeld, a magnet for criticism about management of the war, to go…
Several weeks ago… Mr. Bush and a few top aides began a series of secret meetings to discuss what he knew would be an explosive announcement.
Meanwhile, the president was holding heart-to-heart talks with Mr. Rumsfeld. As the longest-serving member of Mr. Bush’s cabinet, the defense secretary had always enjoyed Mr. Bush’s unconditional public support.
Now this from Bob Novak yesterday:
On the day after the election, Rumsfeld had seemed devastated — the familiar confident grin gone and his voice breaking. According to Bush Administration officials, only three or four people knew he would be fired — and Rumsfeld was not one of them.
A wide assortment of Republican notables, including some fellow administration appointees and many of Rumsfeld’s quiet critics, were nonetheless upset about his treatment. Even Vice President Dick Cheney is said to be profoundly disturbed by Rumsfeld’s treatment… [M]any others, even those less supportive of Rumsfeld, said they were “appalled” — the most common descriptive word — by the President’s performance.
Is Bush that reptilian? Well … yes, it would seem so. But there’s more to it:
It’s not that Bush is a malevolent tyrant. Rather, his administration suffers from a congenital Republican phobia over leaks to the press… [Republicans] believe the Rumsfeld removal’s falling into the 24-hour cycle was intended to crowd out continued rehashing of disastrous election returns.
I said at the time that Rumsfeld seemed a tiny bit bitter during his speech at KSU the day after he was canned. No wonder.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Et tu, Brute?
THeDRiFTeR on November 23, 2006 at 11:19 AM
It is actions like this that is rapidly moving the President from the plus column to the minus column. The long we go on, the less likely it is that President Bush will go down in history as a “great” president. All I can say now is that he is still orders of magnitude better than Algore would have been.
rmgraha on November 23, 2006 at 11:20 AM
I happen to believe that he is. Does that surprise anyone at this point?
It would have surprised me back in 2000 or 2001 but not today.
Benaiah on November 23, 2006 at 11:21 AM
AP: We really need that “Review” button. I’d swear that the post changes from the time we hit the “Submit” button until the time the post appears. It should say “The longer we go on…”
rmgraha on November 23, 2006 at 11:21 AM
If it went down as Novak describes then Bush showed a terrible lack of tact and consideration for Rumsfeld who has been incredibly loyal to and taken more arrows for the President than anyone.
Having said that, and again assuming Novak’s story is accurate, Rumsfeld could not (or should not) have been caught off guard.
That sword of Damocles was so big it was practically blocking the sun.
Rosetta on November 23, 2006 at 11:22 AM
I thought Bush was always too loyal too people. Seems he is too loyal to the wrong people.
lorien1973 on November 23, 2006 at 11:24 AM
I dont veiw it as much as Bush let Rummy down as the American people let Bush down.
We gave the Congress back to the democrats. We wanted a change at any cost.
And we have to bear the burdens of that cost. I hate the new Congress coming in but I respect the American democracy too much to throw a fit about the loss.
Until we take back the Congress we will be on the defensive. Democrats know they got power by making us the villians and they will do everything in their power to continue to do so.
We let them frame the debate and win it. We are paying the cost for that.
So I will worry less about what Bush is doing and focus all my efforts on working to counter what the democrats are doing.
We need to unite not fight.
William Amos on November 23, 2006 at 11:25 AM
One more reason Bush needs to go. He’s a dispicable liar, bordering on Clintonesque.
American troops are dying from weapons and terrorists streaming across the Syrian and Iranian borders into Iraq. Our borders are being over run here in the US. Iran is about to go nuclear on Bush’s watch.
And yet the moron is like a deer stuck in the headlights. He’s frozen, scared to take any type of action to defend our country or our troops. Time for him to go. Let’s let Cheney run things till 2008. Republicans ought to do the right thing and throw his ass out.
msplitt on November 23, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Not buyin’ it.
Kevin M on November 23, 2006 at 11:30 AM
If this is true, I am not surprised. President Bush has been a major disappointment to me the past 2 years. He lost his gum balls after the 2004 election. Where or where did our “Either you for us or against us” President disappear? He must have gone looking for the “Wanted Dead or Alive” President and all he could find was someone wanting amnesty for illegals in the USA.
Wade on November 23, 2006 at 11:32 AM
If I knew in my living room that Rumsfeld was out if the Democrats won big, I can’t help but imagine that Rumsfeld knew it. The timing was a bit abrupt, though, so maybe there was some room for surprise there.
Sadly, I think there’s some grim wisdom behind what I suspect will continue to be the President’s plan: Give the Democrats everything they demand, then, in two years, see if the American people are still happy with the product they’ve bought.
Blacklake on November 23, 2006 at 11:36 AM
I believe cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President. Rumsfeld is a big boy. That being said, I say emphatically I am a big supporter and fan of Rumsfeld.
EF on November 23, 2006 at 11:40 AM
And we are supposed to trust Novak?
Gore or Kerry would have been better? We suffer from a very myopic view of leadership. Unless we get exactly what we want we with draw our support. Grow up folks. Rummy is a big boy and he knew the score.
kopio on November 23, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Of course he didn’t know. Bush and Rove really believed (based on whatever bad numbers) they were going to keep the house and senate. Rumsfeld would still be in charge if they Dems had not taken power.
Jiggity on November 23, 2006 at 11:47 AM
Oh yeah, Bob Novack is a real insider these days. That guys so far out of the loop he thinks Armitage was a good White House source. Novack’s got no juice left. I don’t doubt someone told him this stuff, some one like Powell or Armitage or Scowcroft or Baker or Lawrence Wilkerson or some other dinosaur with even less juice than him, but this is pure crap. No way does Bush drop his Sec. Def. with a bullet to the back of his head. Rummy’s response would be entirely unpredictable. And talk about making an enemy for life! After you stuck it out with this guy through Abu Ghraib, Iraq in 2005 and 2006? And you still have two years left in your term? Bob Novack is an idiot just for believing this load, let alone printing it.
But I’m sure around here there are more than enough kooks to buy it. Jorge Arbusto rides again eh gang? The Mexican Invasion continues unabated and Jorge is busy making a permanent enemy of one of his closest, most trusted allies. Ther takin’ ar JAWDs! Im-Peech! Im-Peech! Im-Peech!
This place is goin’ down the rabbit hole fast.
The Apologist on November 23, 2006 at 11:56 AM
I’m skeptical, given that Bush is so well known and so well criticized for his loyalty. I find it difficult to believe that he would put the screws to Rummy like that in an attempt to distract from the inevitable election post mortem.
Rummy’s a sharp guy, and was well aware that the political waters he swam in were shark infested, and that replacing him as a political matter has been a possibility for quite some time. As long as he’s served Bush, I have a hard time believing that Bush would disrespect him like that.
Pablo on November 23, 2006 at 12:10 PM
We seem to be many who are quietly very worried about what’s going on within the White House lately.
Halley on November 23, 2006 at 12:22 PM
Whether Rumsfeld knew of his coming sacking, forcing him out a day after the elections is incredibly tacky and sugggests a surrender to his critics in the Democratic Party. I always believed that Bush, like Reagan, stuck by his friends even at political cost. I have certainly been proved wrong here.
Bush’s firing of Rumsfled, who was a scapegoat for Iraq problems and the disastrous largely self-inflected wounds suffered by the Republicans in the election, has definitely eroded the loyalty of base
ptolemy on November 23, 2006 at 12:22 PM
(continuation of above)
Republicans such as myself. If Bush wants to finish off any remaining support in his base, pushing “comprehensive immigration reform” will do the trick.
ptolemy on November 23, 2006 at 12:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5P6MLiKEJI
SilverStar830 on November 23, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Is this President Bush playing checkers with the New York Slime? It was at Don Rumsfeld expense. He could not tell anyone fearing the press will get ahead of his release.
Would we say Donald Rumsfeld was actually popular with the people here at home? How was his popularity with the military folks who actually do the work, stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not asking about how popular the war is and if people want to be in the military serving the country.
StuLongIsland on November 23, 2006 at 12:35 PM
IMO it was allll about Bush giving up.
IF he had continued to support Rummy, than there would have been a REAL debate about Iraq, with a spokesman the American people like, but Congress, the Left, and the Press, HATE. The continuing cycle of sound bites coming out of the “hearings” in Congress (where they have the home feild adavantage) could have been devastating to Bush’s “legacy”…. or…. could have saved it.
In the last year, Bush has NOT defended his policy in Iraq, so either he no longer beleives in it and is fianlly getting a clue, or his handlers have really miscalculated. The Americans people re-elected the “Cowboy” “Axis of Evil” calling it like it is President… not this wimp we now have in office….
IMO he threw Rummy overboard, right after saying he supported him fully…. and would keep him… I would not be suprised if Novak is correct… this decision was NOT made prior to the election, otherwise it would have been announced before the election (maybe saving it… sigh).
The more I look at it… the more I think Novak may be correct.
Romeo13 on November 23, 2006 at 12:37 PM
Puritan1648 on November 23, 2006 at 1:01 PM
…hmmm…didn’t close the tag…blame it on the triptophan….
Puritan1648 on November 23, 2006 at 1:02 PM
HAPPY THANKSGIVING, EVERYONE!!
That said, if this story is true, then Pres. Bush has sealed his “legacy” doom. If the story is not true, Novak is a duplicitous prick!
Troy Rasmussen on November 23, 2006 at 1:03 PM
That is not the point. I believe that everyone knows, and agrees, that the President should decide who he wants in his cabinet. It is the incredibly inept way that President Bush made the change that is the point. Especially seeing how the average service member supports Secretary Rumsfield (not all, of course, but a large majority).
Finding out that he was being fired (no other word for it) on the evening news, rather than directly from the President (if that is how it happened) must have been devastating.
rmgraha on November 23, 2006 at 1:40 PM
After Valeri Plame, I’m not sure I still trust Novak, or his source.
I would be more inclined to believe that after the election, Rumsfield told Bush, “With this election result, I can not continue as SecDef.”
rockhauler on November 23, 2006 at 4:00 PM
Heck, as much as I love the guy, it really doesn’t matter whether Rumsfeld knew days or even weeks before.
What really matters is that two days before the election, President Bush said very forcefully the equivalent of:
READ MY LIPS: NO NEW SecDef!
He publicly assured us that Rumsfeld was there for two more years no matter what.
The day after the election Rumsfeld is fired.
LegendHasIt on November 23, 2006 at 4:13 PM
I really don’t like this! Rummy did a fine job and I do not like the fact that they pulled the rug out from under him!
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on November 23, 2006 at 7:54 PM
Rummy does not do a DAMN THING he doesn’t want to do.
THAT is a FACT.
Sandbagged, my Aunt Fanny.
seejanemom on November 23, 2006 at 8:23 PM
After seeing the President’s response to 9/11, I said, What a great leader!
After seeing him nominate Harriet Meyers, I said, What a stupid idea!
After seeing his immigration policy, I said, What’s wrong with you?!
After this, I find myself saying, What a prick!
Wolfman on November 24, 2006 at 5:27 AM
Why didn’t the Republican party beg Rumsfeld to be the standard-bearer in 2000? He is experienced in every governmental field and was the savior of Searle. He is articulate and forceful. Just imagine him giving the presidential press conferences — the delicious putdowns of arrogant reporters!
Bush wimps out too quickly and we’re been seeing evidence of the fact that he never was a conservative.
Unless the Republican Party finds its conservative soul and choses candidates who are both articulate and courageous, our slide into the dustbowl of history is assured.
We are the generations who must secure the blessings of liberty and security to those who come behind us, just as was done for us. It will be our shame to have failed to do so.
Margaret McC on November 25, 2006 at 10:40 AM