Rumsfeld steps down

[gwd-scouter 11]

Nov 8, 1:51 PM EST

 

Bush says Rumsfeld is stepping down

 

By DAVID ESPO and LIZ SIDOTI

Associated Press Writers

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary on Wednesday, one day after midterm elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican losses.

 

President Bush said he would nominate Robert Gates, a former CIA director, to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

 

Asked whether his announcement signaled a new direction in the war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops, Bush said, "Well, there's certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon."

 

Bush lavished praise on Rumsfeld, who has spent six stormy years at his post. The president disclosed he met with Gates last Sunday, two days before the elections in which Democrats swept to control of the House and possibly the Senate.

 

 

 

 

Last week, as he campaigned to save the Republican majority, Bush declared that Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon through the end of his term.

 

Rumsfeld, 74, was in his second tour of duty as defense chief. He first held the job a generation ago, when he was appointed by President Ford.

 

Whatever confidence Bush retained in Rumsfeld, the Cabinet officer's support in Congress had eroded significantly. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the House speaker-in-waiting, said at her first postelection news conference that Bush should replace the top civilian leadership at the Pentagon.

 

And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had intervened in the past to shore up Rumsfeld, issued a statement saying, "Washington must now work together in a bipartisan way - Republicans and Democrats - to outline the path to success in Iraq."

 

Buy AP Photo Reprints

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pentagon offered no date for Rumsfeld's departure.

 

Gates, 63, has served as the president of Texas A&M University since August 2002, and as the university's interim dean of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service from 1999 to 2001.

 

The school is home to the presidential library of Bush's father. Gates is a close friend of the Bush family, and particularly the first President Bush.

 

He served as deputy national security adviser from 1989 to 1991 and then as CIA director during the first Iraq war, from 1991 until 1993.

 

Gates joined the CIA in 1966 and is the only agency employee to rise from an entry level job to the 7th floor director's office. He served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter century, under six presidents.

 

Bush has considered Gates for jobs before, including in 2005 when he was searching for a candidate to be the nation's first national intelligence director.

 

His nomination must be confirmed by the Senate.

 

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who is expected to chair the House Armed Services Committee next year, said Rumsfeld's resignation "presents an important opportunity for our country to begin a new policy direction in Iraq and in the war on terrorism."

 

He encouraged the Bush administration to take advantage of the fresh start.

 

2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

 

 

[Trevorum 24]

2,839 US deaths and 44,779 US "non-mortal casualties" later.

[GernBlansten 10]

Looks like GHWB is finally able to give some advice to his son. I'm glad he's taking it. Too bad it took 6 years and an election to make it happen.

[scoutingagain 20]

I suspect Rumsfeld may not have relished the idea of spending the next 2 years sitting in front of House Committees chaired by Democrats answering questions.

 

I find it amusing that today the Republicans are now talking about bi-partisan government. But hopefully the Democrats do just that.

 

SA

[Gonzo1 10]

It seems that if a republican suggests legislation, it's right wing, extreme, staunchly conservative.

If a democrat proposes legislation, is bi-partisan.

 

Yeah, right!

[packsaddle 753]

As much as I sympathize with the thoughts of Trevorum and others, I must share Gonzo1's skepticism at this time.

There is nothing I have heard or read that the Democrats have offered in the way of innovation. And for now at least, words about bipartisanship just fall flat. We heard those words in 2000 to no effect. The message that was sent in this most recent election was to both parties, not just the administration. If the Democrats don't heed the message, their tenure will be short. I'll wait for them to put their actions where their mouths are. Let's see some real teamwork for a change and save our congratulations for positive results.

 

As for Rumsfeld, let him wither to oblivion in a bitter autumn of his own making. He can spend time writing his memoirs, trying to change history and the way he will be viewed.

[Hunt 11]

What irked me about Bush's speech accepting Rumsfeld's resignation was his statement that he had planned to replace Rumsfeld, win or lose. Can't the guy stop lying for five minutes?

 

As far as bipartisanship, I think the Democrats will do whatever they think is most likely to help them take back the White House in 2008. If they decide to do that they need to look reasonable, bipartisan, etc., that's what they'll do. If they think it would be better to drag all the Republican scandals out and to force Bush to veto a bunch of legislation, that's what they'll do.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Hunt, I read your post and this thought ran through my head:

 

"... Government of the People, by the People and for the People..."

 

So the part about "for the people" is pretty much out the window although I can sympathize that the window has been overutlized for quite a while.

 

Well, as Marvin Lee Aday would say, 2 out of 3 ain't bad

[scoutingagain 20]

"There is nothing I have heard or read that the Democrats have offered in the way of innovation."

 

This is true. In fact it's testimony just how poorly the electorate thought of the policies of GWB. We voted for the party that had no plan rather than stay with the leadership we had. The Democrats, if they're smart will not make the mistake of thinking this election was about a great move to left. If anything both parties should take home the message, the swing voters they need to win elections are firmly planted pragmatically in the middle of the political spectrum and if they want to win elections, maybe they should start pandering to them instead of the extremists in both parties.

 

Which is why I think the Democrats will do exactly what Hunt said and do what they need to do to win the Presidency in 2008. In that sense they will be governing "for the people"

because no major decision will be made without testing it on focus groups and watching public opinion polls.

 

 

SA

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

We still have a Republican majority in both houses for the next two years in spite of the elections.

 

Nothing on the horizon, Sir.

 

B.A.U.

 

fb

 

[Lisabob 13]

FB???

 

Current balance of power looks like this:

 

Senate 51 Dems, 49 Reps

House 229 Dems, 196 Reps with 10 seats still undecided

 

My source for these #s was http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/ if you want to check it out.

 

Also what does B.A.U. stand for?

 

 

[Gonzo1 10]

Lisa,

I'm not sure CNN has it right this time.

 

I think it's more like this

49 Dem

49 Rep

2 Ind Jim Jeffords retired and Sanders, another Independent won, Sanders and Joe Lieberman are Independent, not democrat. They may vot with them, but they are not democrats, at least not anymore.

 

You can check http://jeffords.senate.gov/ which states that Jeffords is Independent.

 

You can also check http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/index.html for the results.

 

[GernBlansten 10]

Sanders is a socialist. No kidding. That's his own declaration. Assured he will vote with the dems and will caucus with them. He did so as a congressman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

"He is one of very few self-described democratic socialists elected to federal office in the United States in recent times; he is also the first socialist to serve in the U.S. Senate."

 

Lieberman already said he will caucus with the dems. In fact, I expect him to be brought back into the party and his seniority honored with a nice committee position. They will kiss and make up. Remember, it wasn't the DNC that rejected him, it was his constituents in the primary. The party had no choice but to run Lamont. Had Lamont not been self financed, he wouldn't have won the primary.

 

Dems have the majority in the Senate and will control all committees and rules. Payback can be a !#$!#@

[Hunt 11]

"Lieberman already said he will caucus with the dems. In fact, I expect him to be brought back into the party and his seniority honored with a nice committee position."

 

I think this has already happened or is about to happen.

[BrentAllen 10]

From The Boston Globe:

 

"Lieberman refuses to close door on switching parties

November 12, 2006

 

HARTFORD, Conn. --Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.

 

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.

 

"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said. "And I must say -- and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut -- nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,' and I appreciate that."

 

A spokeswoman for Lieberman would not elaborate when contacted by The Associated Press.

 

Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in the Democratic primary in August. Lieberman was elected to a fourth term last Tuesday as an independent, and said Sunday his political affiliation will be as an "Independent Democrat."

 

The Democrats won control of the Senate with 51 seats. Lieberman and newly elected Bernie Sanders of Vermont are the Senate's only Independents.

 

A switch to the Republicans would bring the Senate to a 50-50 division, giving Republican Vice President Dick Cheney opportunities to break tie votes.

 

Jeffords' decision to quit the GOP and become an independent tipped the balance of an evenly divided Senate, handing control to the Democrats with a one-vote margin."

 

My guess is Lieberman is milking this for all it is worth - and I can't say I blame him. He has the Dems over a barrel, and can probably get just about anything he wants. These opportunities don't present themselves often, or if at all. Cash them in when you can.