Reuters: Rumsfeld resigned the day before the election
posted at 12:46 pm on August 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Well, that settles that: NYT 1, Bob Novak 0. Bush evidently didn’t find out until the day after and wisely chose to put it in his pocket lest an Election Day bombshell lead to nutroots screeching about the ultimate November surprise forever after.
The more I think about it, the more I think the CW is wrong that the GOP would have fared better if they’d dumped Rummy a week or two before the election. That would have looked like what it was, a naked pander to anti-war sentiment that would have been sniffed at by the center as a cynical vote-grab and rejected by the GOP base as a concession to the left. If they were going to bring down the hammer, the time to do it was earlier in the year when it could be plausibly denied as an election move with enough lag time to let the base recover before the vote.
So, er, why didn’t they do that?
Exit question counterfactual: 10 p.m., the night before the election, the White House announces that Rumsfeld quit. Are you more or less motivated to vote Republican the next day?
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
I would like to think that politics wasn’t the only motivating factor.
Zetterson on August 15, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Well, follow the link to the NYT/Novak post and read the excerpt from the Times. Reportedly, Bush and Rummy were talking about him quitting for weeks before the election. Clearly Bush had it in mind. Why wait?
Allahpundit on August 15, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Here’s the problem. They shouldn’t have dumped Rumsfeld for any political motivation at all. They should have dumped Rumsfeld for the same reason he withdrew the Hariett Miers appointment. Because it was a bad hire.
Rumsfeld is responsible for the entire mess. When he left it started getting better. He should have been let go much sooner, and it would have been better for the GOP BECAUSE the war effort would have gone much better.
It wouldn’t have had anything to do with whether or not Republicans or Democrats should be in charge of Congress. The bottom line is that Rumsfeld should not have been in charge of this war.
ThackerAgency on August 15, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Less. Who is motivated by a display of weakness?
frankj on August 15, 2007 at 12:56 PM
I think I would have felt that (as you mentioned) they were pandering to the anti-war crowd. It would have made me less happy about it, but I would still have voted Republican. I’m not the kind that cuts off the nose to spite the face.
I realize that there are plenty of people that have very valid reasons for being unwilling to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’.
Personally, I subscribe to the school of thought that says “all that’s required for evil to win is for good men to do nothing” and I consider not voting to be a prime example of doing nothing. Sure, I would have felt all nice and clean at not having had to vote for anyone icky, but, I certainly don’t think letting the Democrats win just because is ever a good idea (now, if they ever float a candidate that I find decent, I’ve got no problem crossing party lines to vote for them….but, I won’t hold my breath).
Of course, all of this is a moot point as I live in Santa Monica, CA….there is no chance in Hell of my senators or local congressman being a conservative any time in the next 1000 years.
JadeNYU on August 15, 2007 at 12:56 PM
“Sir, the private believes that any answer he gives will be wrong! And the Senior Drill Instructor will beat him harder if he reverses himself, sir!”
That’s the reason that Rumsfeld was not let go weeks before the election. After the election, the President could not have been beaten more.
Here in Seattle, we just have varying shades of liberal on the ballot, so it would not have made any difference, especially since my absentee ballot was already being miscounted by the local elections folks.
rw on August 15, 2007 at 1:05 PM
So?
EduardoOTI on August 15, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Well perhaps I should explain what I meant in the first comment. I think Rummy wasn’t removed a year and a half ago because of incompetence and loyalty to a fault on the part of our President. In retrospect he should have been removed and replaced with Pattreus back then, not only for political reasons but mainly because it had been clear for some time that the strategy was failing. So politics did not have to be the only motivating factor back then.
Politics were inevitably in play in a magnified sense just a week before the elections. I think it would have looked bad to make such a change so close to the election so its understandable to me why they waited until after.
Zetterson on August 15, 2007 at 1:31 PM
The Republicans lost 06′ because of Corruption, HUGE BIG GOVERNMENT EXPANSION & lets not forget the cherry on top freekin Pedophiles allowed into the ranks.
-Demoralized the Base
-Made swing voters swing the other way (the Dems were swearing they were not going to cut off funding to the troops and Congress cannot control the military shorts money, that put to rest the “you must hold nose & vote for the war effort” thoughts)
-Reinforced the Democrat bases belief in their cause
C-Low on August 15, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Once, while testifying before the Senate some years back, Secretary Rumsfeld was berated by a typically indignant Senator Kennedy, who blamed Rumsfeld for all our failures in Iraq and demanded to know how much of the responsibility Rumsfeld was willing to bear.
Surprisingly, rather than becoming argumentative, Rumsfeld contritely replied (not exact quote): “Senator, I’ve already tendered my resignation to the President of the United States twice, but he has refused to accept my resignation.” This was, I thought, a bombshell of an admission, and despite the fact that this exchange was broadcast live on CSPAN neither the MSM and even the blogosphere have shown any interest in exploring this story further.
Rumsfeld had been willing to fall on his sword for years — long before Nov. ’06 — yet Bush stubbornly insisted that Rumsfeld should remain at the DoD. Why? And if Bush was so willing to prop up Rumsfeld all those years against the latter’s will, how does one explain the sudden turnaround this past election? How come this time when the Secretary resigned, Bush said yes?
DubiousD on August 15, 2007 at 1:48 PM
So basically, the Republicans lost because the press ignored the miss deeds of the Democrats (all treated as isolated incidents)and constantly hammered the Republications on theirs (The entire party was lambasted based on each event). Which would not have changed even if Rumsfeld had resigned a year before the election.
Zaire67 on August 15, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Oops did I say Pattreus, I meant to say Gates.
Zetterson on August 15, 2007 at 1:54 PM
That is true, but in fairness, the Republicans were the party in power at the time.
Zetterson on August 15, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Wouldn’t have made a difference….Bush lost the base with the fumble in post invasion Iraq, Criminal illegal alien amnesty, fiscal irresponsibility, Harriet Myers, supporting racist affirmative action, etc.
Rummy was the best thing that happened to the Bush administration, it’s a shame he didn’t drop out and run against Bush for the 2nd term.
Alden Pyle on August 15, 2007 at 1:57 PM
A “Rumsfeld has resigned” story would have jazzed me up about voting for Republicans.
HA. You are so beautiful as Chris Matthews would say.
Seriously, a Rumsfeld midnight announcement would not have put any more Republican voters in the polls. There was just too many nightmarish stories out there. The elections were fumbled almost as soon as the President picked up the Social Security grenade.
gabriel sutherland on August 15, 2007 at 2:12 PM
You don’t suppose it had anything to do with the enemy, the facts on the ground, etc…?
Pablo on August 15, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Because earlier in the year we were coming off a very good election in Iraq and ratification of a constitution. What happened, was the bombing of the Al Askari Mosque in Samarra and that happened in late Feb. Things went down hill in the late Spring. But there was no real consideration of getting rid of Rumsfeld before the insurgency, with a lot of help from al-Qaeda flaired up and sustained itself. Remember, the killing of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq happened in June 2006.
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Bush didn’t lose congress because of Rumsfeld! Good grief! He lost congress because he and the Republican leadership decided they didn’t need conservatives anymore and started acting from their own liberal core principles. The American people decided that they’d send a message…and they did!
sabbott on August 15, 2007 at 2:55 PM
I’m going to reserve my thoughts and feelings about Rumsfeld. History has a way of changing ones mind.
moonsbreath on August 15, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Why would this one move affect my vote? Considering I knew prior to the election that the Democrats would undermine the war effort as horribly and treasonously as they have done the past 8 months and there was nothing that would convince me to give them power in Congress.
Are people really this shortsighted and shallow that they would let this affect their vote, considering the big picture? If so, then… Wow.
Also, this is spot-on:
Exactly. Unfortunately, the American people also fell hook, line and sinker for the lies of the Democrat leadership, thinking they would actually stay true to their promises to not cut off funding from the “war on terror” and not cut-and-run from Iraq.
Michael in MI on August 15, 2007 at 4:30 PM
This might have made a difference in a close race like VA where we got melonhead Webb by a few thousand votes. A little positive spin from a Rummy resignation a week prior might have put the good guys over the top.
tommuck on August 15, 2007 at 5:07 PM
I forget where I read it but I remember reading how Rumsfeld transformed the Army and conducted the war in Iraq simultaneously. Which, according to the author was a major feat. I am not at all surprised that Rumsfeld had numerous detractors. Anytime you try to change things you have people who will fight you to the bitter end to resist change. With regards to Iraq, Gen. Franks stated that after sadam had been tossed out they expected the Iraqi’s to fill the void. That did not happen. Would it have happened would we be having this discussion now?
As for the question, I would have been a little miffed but can’t say how I would have voted.
jdkchem on August 15, 2007 at 5:12 PM
If they had fired Rumsfeld two weeks, two months or two minutes before the election I would have been less likely to vote GOP, because I would have been really
piupset…. Just as I was when they did fire him.Rumsfeld was the best SecDef EVER. Militarily, Iraq was a nearly perfect operation. It is the politicians (and State Department bureaucraps) that have failed. Had Rumsfeld been given a free hand, if he had been allowed to institute the ROE (Rules of Engagement) he wanted, Iraq would be well on the way of being settled by now.
Rumsfeld was dragging the DOD kicking and screaming into the new century, instituting policies and weapons to fight the current and the future wars, rather than wasting their time figuring out how to better fight the previous war as the Generals and Admirals usually want to do.
I’m still
piupset about replacing Rumsfeld, especially with Gates. Mark my words, we will suffer greatly in the future because of the loss of Rumsfeld’s forward thinking.LegendHasIt on August 15, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Why not wait a month after the election, at least, for the resignation so it didn’t come off as a complete doofus of a decision?
Rumsfeld should have been fired after Abu Ghraib for not having common sense and savvy of any 7-11 manager (who have video cameras everywhere in their stores, but we had none in the prison, which led to the fiasco …which thereby revitalized the jihad in Iraq and gave the Global Jihad a priceless terrorist recruiting tool for decades to come).
profitsbeard on August 15, 2007 at 6:54 PM
I was going to let that one go, but it kept nagging at me….
You REALLY think that the Secretary of Defense, trying to rebuild a Clinton decimated military, run a war on multiple fronts with undefined enemy forces, and trying to prepare for the future should be personally responsible for retrofitting an old Iraqi prison (that we were only temporarily using for detaining POWs and suspects, btw) with cameras??
That kind of stuff isn’t even the area Commanding General’s job. Some facility staff Captain or Major at most should have thought about it.
Blaming Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib is so ridiculous that I’d swear I was over at Huffpo or the DU….. I’m shocked reading it from someone who I normally respect.
LegendHasIt on August 15, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Exit question counterfactual: 10 p.m., the night before the election, the White House announces that Rumsfeld quit. Are you more or less motivated to vote Republican the next day?
The time to do it was the week or so before the election, coupled with a “now we’re going to put the Pentagon under new leadership and really do things differently and better in Iraq” type messsage. If they do it too soon before the election, people would want to see actual results in Iraq and hear actual specifics about how we’re going to do things differently.
No doubt in my mind that Bush wanted the GOP to get housed in 2006. No doubt the theory is that this improves the GOP’s chances of holding the White House in 2008, because everyone will see how irresponsible and vapid the Democrats are when they’re in charge of Congress. Time will tell if that theory is valid.
Lehuster on August 16, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Exit question counterfactual: 10 p.m., the night before the election, the White House announces that Rumsfeld quit. Are you more or less motivated to vote Republican the next day?
The time to do it was the week or so before the election, coupled with a “now we’re going to put the Pentagon under new leadership and really do things differently and better in Iraq” type messsage. If they do it too soon before the election, people would want to see actual results in Iraq and hear actual specifics about how we’re going to do things differently.
No doubt in my mind that Bush wanted the GOP to get housed in 2006. No doubt the theory is that this improves the GOP’s chances of holding the White House in 2008, because everyone will see how irresponsible and vapid the Democrats are when they’re in charge of Congress. Time will tell if that theory is valid.
Lehuster on August 16, 2007 at 12:28 PM