Heckofa job, Rummy!

So, Bush took the step he should've taken at least a year ago, and he does it the day after the election - Donald Rumsfeld is fired. Of course, the Bush administration isn't spinning it that way - he decided to step down, or the two mutually agreed that a change needed to be made. Right. Rummy would have stayed until the end of Bush's presidency if it had been up to him.

The million dollar question has been all week: If Bush had done this two days before the election, would it have made a difference? My first thought is that I don't think so - it would have been resented by just as many as it would have pleased. Allow me to explain.

Bush and Rove DID try a big news event right before the election that didn't seem to work - the Saddam Hussein verdict. I think many saw it as a PR ploy to fire up the conservative base, but it wasn't enough. All the proof you need that the Saddam verdict was a stunt for votes: the entire verdict wasn't ready - Hussein didn't know why he was guilty - it wasn't supposed to be ready until Thursday - two days after the election.

No, firing Rummy a few days or even weeks before the election would not have helped, because it would have given liberals just as much ammo as it would have given conservatives. The liberals would have said, "See? Things are going horribly in Iraq, just as we've been saying, and now Bush is waking up to that." Firing Rummy a year ago might have helped Bush, but not a few days or weeks before the election.

The big controversy about the firing was that Bush, just last week, claimed that "Cheney and Rumsfeld are doing a great job" and would be retained. Maybe Bush should have said, "They are doing well as long as Republicans retain control of Congress." It's so obvious that Bush lied to the press for a number of reasons, but here's two - he admitted as much during the press conference above, and you don't announce a replacement for Secretary of Defense in just minutes. That much is clear.

What I found entertaining is Bush's explanation - that he didn't want to influence an election. Are you kidding me? I'm still, a few days after this press conference, unsure how to take his statement. Was he arrogantly implying that sacking Rumsfeld on Friday, Nov. 3 would have allowed Congress to remain in control of Republicans? As I've already stated, sacking Rumsfeld last week would have done as much harm than good, and maybe more.

I don't know much about Robert Gates, but I do know this much: 1. He will have to be confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate, and 2. Just changing defense secretaries isn't nearly enough; we need a change in policy. However, a change tone and management style at the Pentagon can't be anything other than good at this point.



MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman from Florida, had this to say about Rumsfeld - pretty poignant and poisonous, but thought provoking, too.

He really is hated, and not just by liberals and Democrats.