IMO, he was gone either way. The results of the election have little to nothing to do with it.
The timing is related to the elections though. Even most of the GOP wanted him gone, but firing him before the elections would have been seen as an admission of being completely wrong. So they had to wait till after the elections to can him.
So while it was election related, it wasn't election result related IMO. That stuff will wait till at least the senate is decided.
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. I'd rather see him in jail, and who knows maybe I'll still get lucky.
I think if the chips had stayed up, the president would have kept him on until the end of his term. Bush shows a touching loyalty which, coupled with his inability to recognize or admit his own faults or those of people he has chosed, would have kept Rumsfeld employed indefinitely. I think, as one friend has said, they just knew, once it was clear the election was lost, that Rumsfeld would be spending every day of the next two years in front of Congressional committees if he stayed.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 06:38 pm (UTC)The timing is related to the elections though. Even most of the GOP wanted him gone, but firing him before the elections would have been seen as an admission of being completely wrong. So they had to wait till after the elections to can him.
So while it was election related, it wasn't election result related IMO. That stuff will wait till at least the senate is decided.
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. I'd rather see him in jail, and who knows maybe I'll still get lucky.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 11:28 pm (UTC)My wife just reminded me that Rumsfeld is (was?) scheduled to give a lecture here (Kansas State University) tomorrow.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 07:53 pm (UTC)Religious beliefs irrelevant, that's the appropriate sound(s) to make at this point, I would say. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 08:33 pm (UTC)