Donald Rumsfeld Is Stepping Down

Who says elections don't change anything?

On the day after Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and, by all indications, the Senate, word comes that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is going to leave the position he has held since the Bush administration took office in 2001.

Just a week ago, Bush said he wanted Rumsfeld and the Vice President to serve out the last two years of the second term.

The voters said different.

They elected Democrats who made Rumsfeld the poster boy for many of the Administration's failures in Iraq. And those Republicans who survived in close races often joined Democrats in calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

The question now is whether Rumsfeld's exit will mean anything. He carried out policies favored by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Has the President decided simply to get rid of one man with a bad reputation, or is he thinking about changing course now that the American people have made clear their position?

The answer is likely to come in the confirmation hearings for the man Bush is proposing as a replacement for Rumsfeld: former CIA director Robert Gates. The Gates confirmation hearings should be the most significant that the Senate has held in a long time. The fact that Gates is a member of the bipartisan committee that is studying the Iraq War -- a committee headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former US Representative Lee Hamilton -- could make him a transition figure if the committee comes in with a recommendation of a policy shift.

But don't bet the farm on that happening quickly.

Bush defended his Iraq policies at an early-afternoon press conference. The President made conciliatory noises, but he indicated that, while "the elections have changed many things in Washington," he did not sound like he was preparing an exit strategy.

The Democrats, with their more recent experience of popular sentiment, ought to be doing so.

Comments (45)

1. BALLOT QUESTIONS Referendum against Iraq war gaining ground By Brian MacQuarrie, Globe Staff | November 8, 2006

   From the Berkshires to parts of Boston yesterday, voters in more than one-third of Massachusetts' cities and towns delivered a resounding protest against the Iraq war.

   With 52 percent of the votes counted in the 36 House districts where an anti war question appeared, voters instructed their state representatives, 147,202 to 99,140, to approve a resolution calling on President Bush and Congress to end the war immediately and bring the troops home.

   The nonbinding question, which appeared on the ballot in all or part of 139 municipalities, was one of the nation's most ambitious antiwar referendums considered yesterday, said Paul Shannon, statewide coordinator of the ballot effort for the American Friends Service Committee.

   "I'm just absolutely thrilled that so many people are starting to see through the lies about this war," he said. "You see people pushing from the ground floor up, putting pressure on the top. There is a real groundswell that is insisting that the government change its policy absolutely, radically."

   The numbers around the state buttressed that sentiment. In Holyoke, voters in the Fifth Hampden District approved the question, 5,354 to 2,830. With 10 of 12 precincts tallied in the Fifth Middlesex District, which extends to Natick, Sherborn and Millis, voters opted for an immediate end to the war, 7,363 to 5,040.

   In the returns released late last night, only six communities where the issue was on the ballot -- Dover, East Longmeadow, Holland, Hubbardston, Montgomery, and Princeton -- had voted against the referendum.

   Tony Palomba, who worked on the referendum effort in Watertown, said volunteers who held signs at the town's eight polling stations received "a lot of thumbs-up and a lot of nods."

   "The referendum for us was one effort in a series of efforts over the last 3 1/2 years to end the war, and it seemed like a very timely thing," said Palomba, who is president of Watertown Citizens for Environmental Safety. "This vote allows people to send a message."

   Governor Mitt Romney's office has criticized the initiative as premature and impractical. "To pull out troops precipitously now would lead to a humanitarian disaster in Iraq," the governor's spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, had said.

   Irene Getman of Waltham, whose grandson is serving with the Army in Baghdad, lobbied for the referendum outside the Carter Street polling station despite a sore throat. "I think we've been there too long, we've lost too many boys, and it just keeps getting worse and worse," Getman said.

   In Waltham, voters in the 10th Middlesex District signaled their opposition to the war, 9,374 to 4,734.

   "This is just one day in a larger, bigger picture of a grass-roots effort," said Barbara Chalfonte of Easthampton, who coordinated the referendum effort in Western Massachusetts. "Here's a direct measure of the way people feel about the war in Iraq."

   Shannon said the measure's supporters "would immediately find out how soon we can possibly introduce a measure into the state Legislature."

   Elsewhere in the nation, communities in Wisconsin and Illinois also had anti war measures on the ballot, Shannon said.

   Posted by Fitzgerald at 11/08/2006 @ 1:02pm

2. Doin one heck of a job Rummy!

   Posted by Bulbtop at 11/08/2006 @ 1:10pm

3. Wait a minute....

   I thought "Joe Lieberman is going to step down as CT US Senator and get appointed DefSec so that Governor Rell can appoint a Republican to replace him"!?!?!?!?

   I know it's going to happen....cuz some lib blogger told me so!

   Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 1:12pm

4. Bush seems to be doing even more smirking and winking than usual during this press conference.

   Mask - you predicted a three or four seat majority in the House for Dems? How did that prediction work out?

   Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 1:16pm

5. Posted by URMYGYRO 11/08/2006 @ 1:16pm

   Still with "Speaker Nancy".

   (and given a few conservative Dems...maybe not off THAT much!)

   Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 1:20pm

6. Of course, that Lieberman-sec of defense would only make sense if the senate would be tied --- which it appears regardless of Allen's effort it won't be.

   Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 1:21pm

7. you got your wish. what are you gonna do with it?

   Posted by FREIHEIT 11/08/2006 @ 1:02pm

   1) step on the brake

   2) steer back onto the road

   It ain't gonna be real glamorous.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 11/08/2006 @ 1:23pm

8. Bush is sooooo relieved that now there's going to be somebody else to blame.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 11/08/2006 @ 1:24pm

9. Bush 41 HAS GOT TO BE BEHIND THIS NOMINATION.

   GHW Bush is actually the ACTING PRESIDENT.

   READ THIS:

   Robert Gates is a career Soviet analyst and former Deputy Director of the CIA who was wrong about what CIA analyst Harold Ford described as `the central analytic target of the past few years: the probable fortunes of the USSR and the Soviet European bloc.' And I believe that the committee report points out one possible reason why the CIA failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. According to testimony, Mr. Gates was busy pursuing hypotheses and making unsubstantiated arguments attempting to show Soviet expansion in the Third World, instead of looking for or paying attention to facts that pointed in the opposite direction. Why? Why, as Mentor Moynihan has pointed out, was the CIA able to tell Presidents everything about the Soviet Union except the fact that it was falling apart?

   Mr. Gates was also wrong about the Soviet threat to Iran in 1985. The 1985 Special National Intelligence Estimate on Iran stressed possible Soviet inroads into Iran. Gates admits that the analysis was an anomaly. It was a clear departure from previous analyses and almost immediately proven wrong by subsequent events. Gates was involved in preparing that analysis. According to Hal Ford, whose testimony the nominee never refuted, Gates leaned heavily on the Iran Estimate, in effect, `insisting on his own views and discouraging dissent.' What was the result? The 1985 estimate was skewed and contributed to the biggest foreign policy debacle of the Reagan administration, the sale of arms to Iran.

   http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/s911107-gates.htm

   Bush 41 is still fighting the last 2 wars, and calling on his CIA insiders and co-conspirators to run this country.

   .

   Posted by plunger at 11/08/2006 @ 1:25pm

10. Mask - Can't admit you make a wrong prediction, huh?

    Of course Pelosi would be the Speaker - whether there was a three seat majority or 25 seat majority. Everyone predicted, well in advance of the election, that the House would go to the Dems. Speaker Pelosi was an easy prediction.

    And what do you mean by "a few conservative Dems...maybe not off THAT much!"? You think the "few conservative Dems" will vote with republicans?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 1:26pm

11. At the press conference, Bush acknowledged that he and his have taken a - his word - "thumping"...

    He went on, giggling with the reporters, to say "That's a nice way of saying, well, you know...", then moved on to the next question.

    Let me help.

    "Complete repudiation"

    "Clear rejection"

    "Good old fashioned passionate ass-whupping"

    :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/08/2006 @ 1:27pm

12. Bush is sooooo relieved that now there's going to be somebody else to blame.

    Posted by MYPARADIGM 11/08/2006 @ 1:24pm

    I think it's probably mostly nervousness and posturing, but I do concur. He's practically giddy during this press conference.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 1:28pm

13. Posted by URMYGYRO 11/08/2006 @ 1:26pm

    I'm sorry,URMY...it's "your day".....Yes, I was wrong, it wasn't by 2-3 seats, it was a 28 seat pick up or 13 more than needed.

    I'm sorry I didn't predict higher than that and...uh....then been right about my numerical prediction and still said "Speaker Nancy".

    And no, those conservative Dems won't vote with the Republicans....it won't get that far (it never does). Congress doesn't work that way. You hold the vote AFTER you're assured of winning it.

    But just as a Democratic Congress (with I might add, a Democratic President) didn't get "universal health care" passed in 1993-1994.....that "massive majority" that Speaker Nancy enjoys...might be slimmer than she or you think!

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 1:38pm

14. "Good old fashioned passionate ass-whupping"

    :)

    Posted by NEW DAWN 11/08/2006 @ 1:27pm

    You forgot:

    "The Democrats ARE who we THOUGHT they were! You wanna crown 'em, then crown their ass! But the ARE who we THOUGHT they were!"

    Some of you won't get that. Look for Dennis Green on YouTube.

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 1:39pm

15. Posted by MYPARADIGM 11/08/2006 @ 1:24pm

    Posted by URMYGYRO 11/08/2006 @ 1:28pm

    Any chance these two things ("somebody to blame" and "giddiness") could be related?

    Think about it? Before when things were failing...they had NOBODY to blame. GOP Congress was giving them everything they wanted or supporting it.

    Even easier with a Dem House AND Dem Senate. A Dem House alone would have the "underdog" status versus a Repub WH and Repub Senate.

    Now it's "The President standing firm against a Democratic LIB-UH-RUL Congress run amuck!".

    "Can't work...Bush too unpopular!"?...maybe. But Reagan didn't have Limbaugh, Hannity, or Fox News...and look how he fared.

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 1:43pm

16. or "they" are

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 1:44pm

17. I guess we all know now who was going to have to fall on their sword for this one.

    Posted by edwriter at 11/08/2006 @ 1:49pm

18. "Can't work...Bush too unpopular!"?...maybe. But Reagan didn't have Limbaugh, Hannity, or Fox News...and look how he fared.

    Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 1:43pm

    OK, I'm a conservative, and don't think Bush is the worst prez ever, but let's not put him in the same sentence with Reagan.

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 1:50pm

19. Yeah, let's hear him say a sentence first.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 11/08/2006 @ 1:54pm

20. I expect Rumsfeld to be subpoena'd, since he has been thrown by the Bush team as bait to distract any wolves while they make a getaway. However, this may not be a good thing, because if Rumsfeld takes the fall for the mess that is Iraq, the rest of the White House gets off free. Rumsfeld is out. Cheney is the next target.

    Posted by ZERO 11/08/2006 @ 1:59pm

    You're dead-on; Rummy is an absolute sacrificial lamb. They may as well paint "IRAQ" on his casket.

    Cheney... pretty aggressive target, don't you think?

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 2:02pm

21. .

    Robert Gates served as assistant to the Director of the CIA in 1981 and as Deputy Director for Intelligence for 1982 to 1986. In that capacity he helped develop options in dealing with the Iran-Iraq war, which eventually involved into a secret intelligence liaison relationship with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Gates was in charge of the directorate that prepared the intelligence information that was passed on to Iraq. He testified that he was also an active participant in the operation during 1986. The secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq was not only a highly questionable and possibly illegal operation, but also may have jeopardized American lives and our national interests. The photo reconnaissance, highly sensitive electronic eavesdropping and narrative texts provided to Saddam, may not only have helped him in Iraq's war against Iran but also in the recent gulf war. Saddam Hussein may have discovered the value of underground land lines as opposed to radio communications after he was give our intelligence information. That made it more difficult for the allied coalition to get quick and accurate intelligence during the gulf war. Further, after the Persian Gulf war, our intelligence community was surprised at the extent of Iraq's nuclear program. One reason Saddam may have hidden his nuclear program so effectively from detection was because of his knowledge of our satellite photos. What also concerns me about that operation is that we spend millions of dollars keeping secrets from the Soviets and then we give it to Saddam who sells them to the Soviets. In short, the coddling of Saddam was a mistake of the first order.

    Mr. President, I've stated a very simple case for rejecting the nomination of Robert Gates to be Director of the CIA. The fact that he was wrong on major issues which in some instances led to foreign policy debacles. I haven't addressed concerns about the allegations of his politicization of intelligence analysis, his apparently poor managerial style or still unanswered questions about his role in the Iran-Contra affair. Regarding the Iran-Contra affair, I should mention that I was quite disturbed to hear testimony that portrayed Robert Gates as someone concerned about Agency's role and not sufficiently concerned about pursuing possible illegal Government activities. In his opening statement before the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Gates said that he should have taken more seriously `the possibility of impropriety or possible wrongdoing in the Government and pursued this possibility more aggressively.' I agree.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/s911107-gates.htm

    .

    Posted by plunger at 11/08/2006 @ 2:03pm

22. You're dead-on; Rummy is an absolute sacrificial lamb.

    Posted by TKACG 11/08/2006 @ 2:02pm

    Self-sacrificing even, maybe?

    Conyers obeys the Blogosphere and goes for "impeachment due to leading us into an illegal war"...and Rummy takes the blame (himself, a la Ollie North "I thought it was a good idea") and the investigation stops with him.

    just a thought

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 2:10pm

23. just a thought

    Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 2:10pm

    Reasonable...

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 2:11pm

24. Posted by TKACG 11/08/2006 @ 1:39pm

    Still not funny. Sorry, TK, but I just don't get the humor there.

    Want a funny Youtube vid? Try my "KKKlowns - An Anti-Racism Comedy" instead.

    Guaranteed giggles.

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/08/2006 @ 2:14pm

25. Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/08/2006 @ 2:11pm

    Ahh, your delusional rants are now more marginalized than ever, and ain't it sweet? Didn't you already post this tripe on other threads, dippy? Get a new line.

    Two words sure to make you ill, Rio - Madam Speaker. Hee hee hee.

    Ah, schadenfreude.

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/08/2006 @ 2:16pm

26. Nancy Pelosi is the next speaker of the House, and now this? LVLIBERTY1 must be absent due to a stroke....

    Posted by nathanhale at 11/08/2006 @ 2:17pm

27. Posted by NEW DAWN 11/08/2006 @ 2:14pm

    Denny's tirade came after a humiliating loss...

    Then again, if I have to explain it, the funny meter goes way down.

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 2:19pm

28. Strokes are for pussies, Nathan - Liberty's been all the way dead, beaten the Devil who tried to kill him, and lived to tell about it.

    He'll be back.

    ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/08/2006 @ 2:20pm

29. Posted by TKACG 11/08/2006 @ 2:19pm

    (I was just joshin' ya and pimping my own vid, TK - it's all good, and you're right - loser meltdowns are almost always funny!)

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/08/2006 @ 2:21pm

30. Posted by ZERO 11/08/2006 @ 2:14pm

    Opporunity doesn't knock often. If I were wearing blue I'd jump on it.

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 2:21pm

31. Posted by ZERO 11/08/2006 @ 2:22pm

    Interesting. I haven't heard many Dems say this out loud.

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 2:27pm

32. Iraq seemed to be the central issue of the midterms. I don't pretend to have researched this much, but I haven't heard a Demo plan for the Iraq thing yet.

    Any Demos out there care to educate this hamster?

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 2:29pm

33. Guess what? I just found this great new source for news and predictions. It's called ... RADIO MASK! Problem is the reception is not so good, since it seems to be broadcasting from a basement someplace, maybe in DC. A great deal of white noise, static and all, but let's listen in here ...

    (fuzz fuzz) Hear me, bloggers! This is Generalissimo MASK, this is my communique to the people ... (fuzz fuzz) and I predict that, in the next week (fuzz fuzz) ... and then the blogsphere will (fuzz fuzz) ... about ... (fuzz)... Recall my prediction: Ned Lamont, Nostradamas, and Jean Dixon all agree with me (fuzz fuzz) ... (fuzz) and I have found this document with John Conyers' name on it! He must have left it here some time ago ...(fuzz fuzz) I will bring it upstairs from this basement to John Conyers, if I am able to get-(fuzz fuzz) ... Hmm, interesting, this door is locked ... (Fuzz fuzz fuzz) ... knock, knock, I want to come upstairs, I have something for John Con-(fuzz fuzz)....

    Oh well. I guess being a basement and all, its hard to generate a good signal. But this is really exciting to know that RADIO MASK is down there in the basement, generating news, views ... and predictions !!!

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 11/08/2006 @ 2:33pm

34. Rummy gone? you heard it here first, if you pardon my immodesty

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/08/2006 @ 2:34pm

35. Rummy gone? you heard it here first, if you pardon my immodesty. Cheney's next. followed, or preceded by Rice.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/08/2006 @ 2:35pm

36. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/08/2006 @ 2:35pm

    Rice? Really? She seems smart enough to keep stuff from sticking to her...

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 2:47pm

37. I suspect we'll hear a lot about a "path to citizenship for undocumented workers" for a spell, while they all get their act together. What else do they agree on? Will Mr. Compassionate Conservative sign a minimum wage hike?

    Posted by MyParadigm at 11/08/2006 @ 2:47pm

38. So is this yet another lie by Bush that Rumy would be there till the end of his term? Why did Bush say this if not true?

    Posted by BlueTexan at 11/08/2006 @ 2:56pm

39. I'm sure Charlie has plenty more "suggestions" where that came from. Next to number one, he's my favorite prick.

    Frei, it's pretty cool that you're showing up today. Lonely day. But I have to know ... did you steal P-Lo from me, or is it just too obvious?

    Posted by MyParadigm at 11/08/2006 @ 2:58pm

40. Um... FREIHEIT:

    The case could be made quite easily that it is the responsibility of companies to provide appropriate compensation to their employees. If you have ever taken the time to read a corporate charter, as I do almost daily (owing to my work), a corporate charter is granted contingent upon that corporation acting in the interests of that particular state. If that corporation fails to do so, the charter can be revoked. The only problem is, the foxes in our country are the ones guarding the henhouse.

    Posted by jorcheim at 11/08/2006 @ 3:00pm

41. It is the right of society to reallocate wealth according to the optimum good of said society.

    Posted by jorcheim at 11/08/2006 @ 3:02pm

42. Genius maybe, but apparently not smart enough to think of a good reason why there should be a minium wage, without resorting to Bible verses and vague theories about the limits of laissez faire economics. Okay, I admit it, it's soft socialism. There, I said it, that's it for the year.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 11/08/2006 @ 3:11pm

43. It's funny.....Rio Loco sounds a lot like Colbert's last rant on Indecision 2006 last night (get thee to Comedy Central to view). The only thing is...Colbert was being sarcastic about the WingNut "Prophets of Doom" chant, while our buddy Rio is "biblically serious!"

    Bwah-ha-ha

    Yup...now Constitution is gonna be trampled by terrorist clones that were created by homosexual doctors in a stem cell research lab. Doctors who sterilize their instruments over burning American flags. The evil tax-n-spend Dems will use the money to buy electric cars for NPR and teach evolution to illegal immigrants. And we'll all be high...whooo-hoo!

    Dude....step into the clear blue water of reality and take a big long drink...its so much more refreshing than that red Kool-aid!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/08/2006 @ 3:15pm

44. Posted by JORCHEIM 11/08/2006 @ 3:02pm

    Better watch out Jor...sounding awful "socialist." The big black SUVs with red-capped drivers will roll up and.....oops, wait. The drivers are out of work now, huh? Never mind.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/08/2006 @ 3:17pm

45. Interesting take from a Dem... or at least a guy who claims to be a Dem.

    Excerpt below. The rest is here - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/the_only_issue_this_el ection_d.html

    -----------------------------------

    "Americans Won't Stay"

    How do the Islamicist tyrants answer the obvious success and growing appeal of Bush's democracy program [in the Middle East]?

    They kill people, of course.

    But they also tell the story, over and over: "America will never stick it out. We'll keep killing Americans till they give up and go away, and then you will answer to us!"

    Until they believe that the Islamofascists are never coming into power, many people will remain afraid to commit themselves to democracy.

    Under those circumstances, the remarkable thing is how courageously the Shiites of the south have embraced democracy, and how many of them are beginning to trust that we mean what they say.

    But against Bush's promises and the actions of our brave and decent soldiers, the tyrants can set the behavior of Bush's political opponents, who are doing their best to promote the propaganda of the tyrants. Every Congressman who says "We must set a timetable for departure" is providing ammunition to the tyrants in their campaign of terror.

    Because even more than they fear terrorist bombs, the pro-democracy forces within Iraq and Afghanistan fear American withdrawal. Every speech threatening withdrawal is a bomb going off in Baghdad, killing, not people, but the will to resist the tyrants.

    Bin Laden predicted it. The Democratic Party in America is following his script exactly

    -------------------------------------------

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 3:24pm