Jiminy. I go to lunch — actually leave the computer for two hours — and everything changes. Like Rumsfeld:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the controversial face of U.S. war policy, quit on Wednesday after Democrats rode Americans’ anger over Iraq to victory in Tuesday’s congressional elections.
Just days after declaring his strong support for Rumsfeld, President George W. Bush said he agreed with his top war manager that it was time for a new perspective.
Obviously, events are moving following yesterday’s elections… and already people are shrieking that Rumsfeld’s resignation is the first sign of these terrible Democrats. But is it actually due to the congressional change?
Ummmm… no. Apparently not — or at least, Bush says otherwise. Here’s a transcript from Think Progress (who also has the video):
REPORTER: Last week you told us Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now, and how much does it have to do with the election results?
BUSH: You and Hunt and Keil came into the Oval Office and asked me to question one week before the campaign. Basically, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? The reason why is I did not want to make a major decision in the final days of the campaign. The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you that answer. The truth of the matter is as well, that is one reason I gave the answer. The other reason why is I had not had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet. I had not had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet at that point. I had been talking with Don Rumsfeld over a period of time about fresh perspectives. He likes to call it fresh eyes.
Wow. So this was in the works already, and Bush was just waiting until after the campaign? That’s nuts! It couldn’t have been more obvious that people everywhere were asking for signs of flexibility from the White House.
James Joyner writes:
He essentially told a reporter that he had lied last week when asked if Rummy would be going “because that was the only way to get you on to the next question.” Quite bizarre.
Even worse, the suggestion he didn’t want to make this announcement earlier because there was an election coming up. Hello! Major changes in course are something that one might want to mention to voters–especially voters who think the present course is a bad one. I’m simply baffled.
I’m not even part of the GOP, James, and I’m baffled too. I think that if I were a Repubican, though, I’d be more than baffled. I’d be ticked off.
* * * * *
More here from Captain Ed:
However, the timing of this move seems ludicrous. Just two weeks ago, Bush riled up the electorate by pledging unwavering support for Rumsfeld for the next two years. I’m sure that a number of Republican politicians who find themselves out of a job wonder why this decision didn’t get made two months ago, and why Bush had to issue that unhelpful statement in the midst of the midterm struggles.
What’s baffling about it? Any other answer leads directly to a media/blog free-for-all.
Ticked off? Conservatives should save that for Allen and Burns, the stiffs who lost the majority in the Senate.
The condition of getting rid of Rumsfeld is that he would need to also be able to announce who he was going to replace him with. He had been talking to Gates for a week before the election, but he can’t just give a name for a replacement if the guy doesn’t want the job. Remember Gates was offered a different job last year and turned it down so he could have told Bush he needed to think on it. Might have been nice if Gates made up his mind before showdown tuesday, but oh well.