Bush's bad timing? What if he'd fired Rumsfeld on Friday?

Early on my friends and I debated if Bush was evil or stupid. Certainly he looks more an more like a puppet.

Jackie your analogy about changing QB's without changing the plays was dead on. I really wonder if Bush understands Rummy was just a symptom of their disease of denial.

i agree. bush lied about rumsfeld's status, but he thinks he did it for a good reason. it is unknown how people would have voted if they had known.

but i thought there was a trainwreck coming up when bush and rumsfeld sat down with the generals because bush was probably hearing stuff he'd never heard from rumsfeld. and i knew that the conservatives were getting very uncomfortable with rumsfeld.

no one wanted to carry water for rumsfeld anymore.

i'm hoping the new guy will be just fine.

Gosh and Golly! I sure hope that poor old Rummy doesn't die of a broken heart NOT!

Gates's name isn't Rumsfeld, but he's another of Poppi's team.

I'm not at all convinced that dropping Rumsfeld last week would have helped very much. It would have made Bush appear cravem (to those who don't know he is that). This way he appears to be responding to the will of the people (a whole lot of Republican politicoes included).

The damage that Bush/Rumsfeld relying on bombing with low troop-level occupation was done in 2003 and can never be undone. I don't think Iraq ever made much sense as a country and that it might as well split sooner rather than later.

What I really think is that Bush should have fired Cheney and himself. I recall many Republicans urging Clinton to resign for his petty obfuscations of his tawdry sex life; Bush & Co. have committed real crimes and tarnished the US image for at least a generation with its catastrophically stupid and counterproductive use of torture.

If you believe as I do that the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" was a terrible mistake, go sign this Amnesty International Petition.
This is the piece of garbage that Bush just signed that suspends human rights and allows torture of anyone Bush doesn't like.

You know I myself this bush should be put out tell us all one this ( WHAT HAS HE DONE FOR US )? Look at what he is doing to this country look at what he is doing to our familys. It is hard to feed our familys anymore because of him. You people that voted him back in should be here takeing care of us an our family you just had to have him back in office.....
We are now working our butts off right now to make sure our kids have a good christmas....
If you watch the news take a good look at what is happening when the oil went up what happen all them people from his town that is in on the oil got new cars new homes what do we have we have nothing the people that voted him back in office should hold there heads down in shame I know I would.....
Where was he when we was being attacked he was in hideing where he is anytime something goes wrong an for some reason he is always on vac.
I just think we should get him out of the white house he is taking us down deeper an deeper..
Go back an look at his collage he was the lowest in his class an now you all got him running our country an letting him kill of our kids over in Iraq....
Myself I think he should be over there with our guys in the front line see how far he makes it let them shot at him let him give his life for our country you know that ant going to happen we all are makeing him richer an richer why we sit back an try to feed our family now all of you that voted him him you sit an think to yourself why did we do something so ( DUMB ).

I think he didn't tell the truth last week because he was waiting to see the results of the election before making a decision. If the republicans had won, he probably would not have replaced Rumsfeld.

"Those" people aren't probably reading this Betty. I certainly didn't vote for him. You obviously deserve to have to work hard, I mean what are you contributing? You aren't some rich person who can give his campaign money, nor are you connected with his family, nor can you give him another job he can f up when he's out of office. C'mon, everybody knows only the rich deserve to get richer.

R.E -- you are correct about Gate's former confirmation hearing; it was indeed contentious. But, hell, we're talking about the Iran/contra era, and Bush has indicted war criminals from that fiasco serving in his administration.

What the hearings for Gates will provide, is an opportunity for the Democrats to ask tough questions regarding the lead up and failed ongoing policies that are Iraq, without having to pound on personalities and look like they are just administering "payback." There is enough questions to keep the hearings lively, as well as get to the facts of the matter, if they handle this right.

And Paul--- As for Bush's cabinet and advisors, you are correct. He has had these "yes" men and women around fro decades. It is the only way they've kept his awful secrets of incompetence, petulance and arrogance under wraps.

But as for using Daddy Bush's people....you are way off track. "w" has had some weird psycho Daddy crap going on for most of his life. It's quite the love/hate relationship. He seems to want to prove that he won't make the same mistakes as Bush Sr., and instead, sets himself up to do just that!

He did include Cheney (well, Cheney included himself), and Rumsfeld was brought in by Cheney, into his cabinet; as well as Condi and Powell, from Daddy Bush's time.

But Daddy Bush didn't really see eye to eye with Cheney, and thought Rumsfeld was an odd (old) choice. Bush Sr. has also admitted that Condi, as Secretary of State has proved lacking.

As for the ones I referred to as new blood...Baker, Gates and some others....this is really a big deal for Bush Jr. These are men who have been quite open in their disgust in the handling and bungling of the Iraq war. They are part of the Scowcroft, Powell, Hadley, Rice pragmatists from the Bush 41 era.

And Bush 43's senior advisors regarding Iraq, Cheney & Rove, made it clear early on that Scowcroft and his ilk were not to be part of the advisory team. No pragmatists...they would have rained on the neo-cons death march!

Jackie,

I think the Neocons wanted to wait until after the election results to see if they would retain control. If they did, Rummy would stay and they would continue to ram through their agenda as they have been doing, if they lost (which they did) then they would allow 'ol Rummy to resign, get with the old bipartisan rhetoric and it's another thumb in the Dem's eye. However I see it as a lose lose situation for me, (the election that is) in that I don't agree with the Dem's amnesty for illegal immigrants position, gay marriage and raising taxes (which is surely to come) vs. the Cons unfettered spending, lack of concern for domestic issues such as education, healthcare and it's shortsightedness in Iraq. Yeah, as it seems I have nothing for which to vote.

DP -- I'm sorry you feel that way. I was just thinking about people like you last night. I have been floating on a cloud of euphoria, giddy with thoughts of positive possibilities, and how wonderful it will be to have checks and balances as we put America first.

I know there are hard-core Republicans who may feel lost, angered, scared, shocked, numb -- all the things we Democrats felt after the 2000 election, and then even more drastically, after the 2004 elections.

I wouldn't wish those feelings of doom and gloom on anybody! And for all my supposed "rhetoric" regarding the dangers of this Presidency, his neo-con ties, and his policies; and the way they became a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts, I guess if I were you I'd feel the same.

I hope you, and other moderates who may not have voted for the Democrats; will stand back and give the Democratic agenda a chance. There is far too much riding on these wins, for the Democrats to alienate middle ground ppl like you. The Democratic agenda has nothing to do with gay marriage, amnesty for illegal immigrants or raising taxes on you or me (unless you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the US).

Most moderate Democrats don't believe in "gay marriage" -- but may support civil unions for long-term partners in times of catastrophic illness, death or family emergencies. But that is not even a top agenda item.

As for "amnesty" we probably don't see eye to eye on this issue. But the Dems are much closer to Bush's plan on this; though most Dems want a far greater effort in addressing the big business interests who benefit the most from the immigrant labor. Bush and his type don't really care about the immigrants. He doesn't want to piss off his big business supporters and contributors who continue to hire the illegals, while paying low wages and depressing wages throughout many regions of the country. It hurts all workers. This needs to be addressed, and the Democrats will push for it.

And as far as higher taxes..that is just a GOP talking point. The Democrats do plan on increasing and simplifying tax breaks for college and fixing the alternative minimum tax that threatens millions of middle-income families with higher taxes.

The Dems want to ease the burden on the middle class and poor, whose disposable income during the past six years, has gone down. The cost of housing has skyrocketed, and average wages are stagnant. The average tax break for middle income families under the Bush tax cuts was about $50 a year; yet healthcare costs rose 40% over the past 4 years, and college tuition rose by 70%. People who make more than a million dollars a year, experienced tax breaks worth an average of more than $50,000. And families making $10 million or above, received anywhere from $500,000 to $750,000 in tax breaks.

It isn't fair that a family with 5 kids has less tax relief than major corporations, energy companies, and employers who send American jobs abroad (they receive tax rebates)!

I know we Democrats want a chance to win the Presidency in 2008, and I feel that just as absolute power corrupted the GOP, it may do so to the Dems if they retain total control of Congress and win the white house in 2008. Therefore, it is really in the best interests of both parties to watch over each other, while working towards compromise on issues that most Americans find important.

The voters made it clear by overwhelmingly voting for Democrats, that they want change, action and oversight. Give the new members and majority party a chance. The GOP party, and major media have painted Democrats with the same broad brush for years; but they were wrong, and now we can prove it.

Believe me, there is far too much at stake domestically, economically, and globally, for anyone to make any rash policy decisions. Every step the Democrats take is being scrutinized by a global audience, as well as the American voters who are anxiously awaiting for change.

I think Rumsfeld's head was on the chopping block regardless of the outcome of the election. If the Republicans still maintained the Congress it wasn't going to be without a sacrifice. Prominent Neocons have already been speaking out against the Bush Administration and felt that Rumsfeld needed to step down. If Bush had turned his back on Rumsfeld before the election, he knew that he would be criticized for being a "flip-flopper" which the fear of being called that is entriely Republican engineered. Maybe that can explain why he won't change strategy. Wow, how utterly schoolyard. Code of the Schoolyard: if you're a Republican you can never change your mind. What a sad sad observation I just made. Obviously it's not true to patriotic conservatives who care about their country more than "being right in the first place".

"Melvin Goodman, a former CIA division chief for Soviet affairs, testified that Gates politicized the intelligence on Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. 'Gates' role in this activity was to corrupt the process and the ethics of intelligence on all of these issues,' Goodman said."

I just read an interview with this Melvin Goodman who apparrently has been following Gates' career very closely since Iran/Contra. He sees Gates' role in the Bush Administration as a way to curb dissent from within the Intelligence Community and the DOD. Apparently someone who can spin intelligence is very useful to the Bush Administration. Bush is trying to get him confirmed before the new Congress convenes in January. Goodman described Bush's actions as "circling the wagons".

Like I stated previously, Gates's hands aren't clean. But he will be confirmed, even if it is by the new congress. This will provide them a superior opportunity to start digging into the Iraq fiasco, without having to be the bad guys by initiating an investigation (plenty of time for that later)!

And Gates is a world class spinner. BUT -- He is no fan of Bush Jr., Cheney or Rumsfeld. He is a true pragmatist, and has no use for the neo-con agenda.

He has been part of the bipartisan Iraq study group....so he at least knows as much as they do. Unfortunately, Iraq is such a quagmire, even they are having difficulty coming up with a strategy with the least tragic consequences. It isn't a matter of coming up with a winning strategy; so much as picking the "least worst" scenario.

I'm not a Gate's fan -- never was. But when compared to what we've had over the past 5 1/2 years....he'a star.

Jackie ,

I certainly hope you're right. I see a stall tactics and vetos of all kinds on the horizon when it comes to crucial bills from now till 2008. The Iraq bills will come due soon and I truly expect them to do what they've always done. Raise taxes on the middle class.