The Political Chase

Rumsfeld resigned before election

Republicans are infuriated.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld submitted his letter of resignation on November 6, one day prior to the 2006 mid-term elections.

The letter was dated Nov. 6, the day before voters, angered by Iraq, went to the polls and swept Republicans from power in Congress. According to a stamp on the letter, President George W. Bush saw it on election day.

Bush, however, did not announce that Rumsfeld would leave until the day after the election.

That infuriated some Republicans, who said their party might have kept more seats in Congress and perhaps kept control of the Senate if Rumsfeld had left before the election.

Bush interview with WP - Part 2

Part 2 of President Bush’s interview with The Washington Post.

The Post presses the President on his statement that the November election was not a mandate to end U.S. involvement in Iraq. Instead of answering the question, he resorts to the oft used tactic of fear-mongering and doesn’t answer the question. This approach is threadbare.

WP: But the election results seemed people wanted to bring the venture in Iraq to closure. That seemed to be the strong lesson. And what indications are there that you’re actually listening to that sentiment?

President Bush: Oh, Mike, look, I want to achieve the objective. I think the American people — I know the American people are very worried about an external threat and that they recognize that failure in Iraq would embolden that external threat.

And then, there is further confirmation the President is head strong on obtaining victory, whatever that may be.

WP: But there are a lot of people who are saying, “Let’s get out with a phased deployment over a certain period of time.”

President Bush: If they felt — if that leads to victory, it needs to be seriously considered.

Obviously Bush was caught off guard here. He steps way out into left field trying to answer the question. Too far out in left field for me.

WP: President Lincoln fired a number of his generals in the Civil War until he found Grant.

President Bush: Is that what triggered your question, looking at Abe?

WP: Why haven’t you fired any generals? And does the fact that you haven’t fired generals suggest that you are satisfied with the military strategy that they have pursued?

President Bush: We’re reviewing the strategy, because it has — the results aren’t — we haven’t achieved the results as quickly as we wanted — precisely what the secretary of defense said, by the way. And the chain-of-command issues are issues that percolate up through the Pentagon. And there is a clear chain of command that I adhere to, and I think it’s important for the commander in chief to do just that.

I’ve often talked about how it’s important to trust the judgment of the military when they’re making military plans as the key advisers to the president, as opposed to the president determining the tactics on the ground, which has happened in previous wars. And so I’m a strict adherer to the command structure.

The WP asked the President if the November election was “a repudiation of Iraq and the fact that we’re not winning in Iraq,” or was it “a judgment of your leadership in general? Tough question! They may as well have asked him when did he quit beating his wife.

Bush’s answer consists of too many passages to quote here. His response was “war is difficult,” and then actually blamed Congress for the election results. Bush said, “You’ve got a guy using earmarks to enrich himself; there was sex and all kinds of issues that sent the signal that perhaps it was time to give another group a chance to lead.”

Furthermore, he had the chutzpah to say the American people are “tired of the needless partisanship in Washington.” Needless partisanship? Who was standing in the bully pulpit saying a vote for the Democratic Party is voting for American defeat, a vote for the terrorists to win?

The WP posed various questions on multiple issues, which the President answered ad nauseam he had and would work with the Democrats to create solutions. The Post should have asked him when he planned to start working with the Democrats because he has yet to fulfill those promises.

Finally, the Post seized a great opportunity to stick their finger in Bush’s eye when the topic came to media coverage of the President.

President Bush: You’re the objective filter through which my — (Laughter.)

WP: I suspect your message gets out. (Laughter.)

President Bush: I do want to say something about the press. I hope you realize that, one, I enjoy the relationship, and two, know it is vital for my presidency. You can’t exist without me, and I can’t exist without you. And I generally respect the hard work of the press corps. I don’t necessarily generally respect every word you write, but nevertheless, I do respect the fact that you’re a hardworking group of people seeking the truth. And we’re necessary for each other. And that relationship can either be a positive relationship or a suspicious, harmful relationship. And I have worked hard to make it a positive relationship. And I think it is, generally

I do believe it is. And I bear no ill will, and I don’t think you do, either.

WP: We appreciate that, and you’ve certainly been good for business –

Bayh issues statement

Sen. Evan Bayh’s official statement is here.

Democrats may have pushed Foley scandal

From the National Journal:

“Democratic campaign operatives pushed newspapers to write about then-Rep. Mark Foley’s e-mails to teenage pages in the hope that a scandal would emerge before the midterm elections, according to a House ethics report,” the Washington Times reports. “The findings were bolstered when an aide to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Illinois Democrat, said the congressman also knew about the e-mails, which were dubbed ‘inappropriate’ by the ethics panel. Mr. Emanuel, who was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) when Mr. Foley’s sex scandal broke in late September, had denied knowledge of the Florida Republican’s e-mails.”

LA 02 William Jefferson Wins Election

I can’t believe it. Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) won reelection in spite of his trouble with the Feds. Not only did he win, he won by a substantial margin. Maybe that was $90,000 of Monopoly money the FBI found in his freezer.

My question is, how will Pelosi handle his reelection? Can she do anything other than keep him out of committees? I think may be the limit until he is found guilty.

So, crime does pay, huh.

Rep. Karen Carter opposed Jefferson.

Today’s White House Press Briefing

Certainly some of the questions and issues raised regarding Rumsfeld’s Iraq options memo are the statements George Bush made the day Rumsfeld submitted the memo. Rummy’s memo certainly did not parallel Bush’s strong campaign rhetoric. Spanning multiple locations, the President said,

“We’ve got a plan for victory, but if you listen to the debate about Iraq from the Democrats, I don’t hear there plan for victory…Oh, they’ve got some ideas. Some of them say get out right now, some of them say get out at a fixed date even though the job hasn’t been done…Harsh criticism is not a plan for victory. Second guessing is not a strategy…We have a plan for victory, and part of that plan is to make sure Republicans control the House and the Senate”. (Source: Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, Media: video, December 6, 2006)

David Gregory of NBC News, questioned Tony Snow about the contradictions in today’s White House Press briefing. Unbelievable.

[David Gregory] I have a question about the Rumsfeld memo. At the time when he was saying to the President, in this memo, that things aren’t working in Iraq, the President was saying two things publicly: One, that we’re winning in Iraq, absolutely; and he was also lashing Democrats, saying that criticism was not a plan for Iraq, and that we — the administration — have a plan for victory in Iraq. So why wasn’t the President leveling with the American people?

MR. SNOW: Actually, at the time that this came –

[David Gregory] Why wasn’t he saying publicly what top members of this administration who were running the war were saying privately?

MR. SNOW: Well, there are a couple of things. First, at that very time, he was actually saying, things are not getting well enough fast enough. That was a formulation he was using at the time. If you take a look at the Rumsfeld memo that was printed in The New York Times, what you end up having is what the President I think has made it clear that he wants, which are people thinking creatively and exhaustively about ways of getting better results in Iraq.

And this is not — other than at the very beginning, he says, clearly U.S. forces — it’s not working well enough or fast enough, what they’re doing. That is a phrase that the President had adopted and had been using. And I don’t know whether it comes from Secretary Rumsfeld or from the President. And then you have a list of options.

So I don’t think you’ve got a case where the President was saying one thing and advisors were saying another. What the President was saying is that you’ve got a sovereign government with the government of Prime Minister Maliki that is pursuing what it needs to pursue, but obviously needs to be doing so more effectively and more rapidly. And that would include security. It would include reconciliation. It would include economic measures. It would include things like the hydrocarbon law. So certainly we weren’t trying to wrap it up into a neat little bundle, because it’s a very complex situation.

Q But doesn’t it strike you that at the same time that you and others in this administration were accusing the likes of John Murtha of cutting and running by suggesting redeployment of forces to the periphery of Iraq or to nearby Kuwait, that the Secretary of Defense is suggesting similar options?

MR. SNOW: What Mr. Murtha had suggested was — he was never quite that specific, and I think I’d let him speak for himself, but I believe when he came on “Meet the Press,” he was talking about redeploying to Okinawa. What you have in here is a description of possibly having forces –

[David Gregory] But that’s not the — he talked about redeploying to Kuwait. You say you don’t want to talk more, but you’re not talking accurately.

MR. SNOW: No, here’s what he says, is, “You can withdraw forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, et cetera — and move forces to a quick reaction force status operating from within Iraq and Kuwait.” Now, it is one of many options that are described here. What it means is the administration is trying to take a look at every suggestion, as I think would be incumbent.

[David Gregory] Wait a second. You’re not really answering the question. You’re trying to parse what Murtha’s position was.

MR. SNOW: No, I’m not –

[David Gregory] Wait a second, let me just finish.

MR. SNOW: Okay.

[David Gregory] Isn’t it striking that this administration was accusing the likes of John Murtha and other Democrats who suggested course correction, including phased withdrawal, of cutting and running –

MR. SNOW: No, let me –

[David Gregory] — at the same time that the Defense Secretary was suggesting just the same option?

MR. SNOW: No.

[David Gregory] You don’t see hypocrisy there?

MR. SNOW: No, because you’re talking about apples and oranges. If you take a look at –

[David Gregory] Really?

MR. SNOW: Yes, really — because there is no suggestion in here that things be done without regard to developments on the ground. What the President has already said is, what you try to do is, obviously, we want U.S. forces to be withdrawing based on what is going on, on the ground in Iraq. And there is still a significant difference.

Now, I think what’s interesting is that we have now gone from an election season, where there was some criticism of the White House, to one in which Democrats are going to have responsibility in the House and Senate. And as they take a serious look at the business of going ahead and building up a government of Iraq, so that you have a democracy, so that the United States has the kind of victory that the President has discussed — which is an Iraq that can defend, sustain and govern itself, and can be an ally in the war on terror — I think you’re going to see people working more constructively. And a lot of the kind of rhetoric that got heated up during a political campaign, including those who had been saying some pretty tough stuff about the President. I think that’s going to give way to what we hope will be constructive efforts to get the job done.

[David Gregory] So this White House is playing it straight with the American people?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Add ice, stir, and make your own jokes.

FOX News Executive Internal Memo

Arianna Huffington is sharp and tenacious. The Huffington Post has a copy of a FOX internal memo from FOX News VP, which states, “Be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled Congress.”

So much for “We report, you decide.” Sounds more like - we decide, then we report, and you just listen.

If It Walks Like a Duck…

Hinderak and his minions are at best delusional.

One basic question emerging from the midterm election is: to what extent did the terrorists win?

Power Line: Al Qaeda: Democrats Are “Reasonable”!.

Like a Bounced Check, He’s Back

Well, it’s just hard to change those stripes isn’t it? George W. Bush, the great uniter and self-professed thumpin’ recipient, revved the rhetoric up about the administration and Congress playing nice. He had heard Americans speak and would listen; carry out the will of the people. Crumpets and tea (pasta actually) with Speaker-designate Pelosi and Rep. Hoyer yesterday and all that jazz. Playing nice lasted about 24 hours.

Following is a draft post I started yesterday while Bush, Pelosi, et al, were exchanging pleasantries, and before I knew about the resurrection of Mr. Bush’s arrogance, dictatorial demands and expectations.

Bush told reporters, he was “open to any idea or suggestion” that will help the U.S. achieve its goals in Iraq. “We’ve made history. Now we have to make progress.”

My unfinished comments – That’s an understatement, tongue-in-cheek or both? The question is, how does the President define “its.” With almost six years of blatant, intentional confrontation and denial there is arguable doubt as to whether the President can or will distinguish between “his” and “its”.

Sadly enough, I was not wrong. Nothing has changed. Before Speaker-designate Pelosi could not even drop the required smiles and cordial facade before Bush was demanding the renomination of UN Ambassador John Bolton and hammering Congress to wrap up the surveillance bill for the NSA.

The President heard absolutely nothing from the American people Tuesday. Or, if he did, he does not give a rat’s derriere. And, if we are naive enough to believe the press reports of a diminished Vice President, we deserve what we get.

In the style of Keith Olbermann – Trust and respect are earned, and you sir have earned neither.

The Democrats may have swept Congress and given Americans hope, but there will be blood shed along the way. We still have a very long two years left.

George Allen Throws in the Towel

Sen. George Allen (R-VA) will hold a press conference at 3:00 PM conceding victory to Jim Webb (D) for the outstanding Senate seat in Virginia.

That makes 51 for the Dems.

Election Analysis - Corruption Tops the List

Some scientific post-election analysis:

Animosity for the White House, the war in Iraq, and the Republican Party corruption, topped the list of voter persuasion and gave the Democrats a 53% to 45 % advantage. (Edison Media Research & Mitofsky International).

• 57% of voters gave Bush a negative job approval rating – an 11–point jump from 2004 and a 26–point jump from 2002.
• 56% of voters were not pleased with the war in Iraq.
• 55% of voters said the country was headed in the wrong direction.

Although it was perceived the election as a referendum on the Bush administration, the AP reports Republican Congressional corruption was the greatest obstacle for the GOP (Edison Media Research & Mitofsky International).

• 75% of respondents cited corruption as the deciding factor in their votes.
• 67% of respondents cited the Iraq war as the deciding factor in their votes.

Pew attributes the Democrats success to “a surge in independent voter support.”

• Independents favored Democrats 57% to 39% in 2006; in 2004 the split was 50/46 favorable to the Democrats.
• “Self-described moderates” favored Democrats 61% to 38%.

Dennis Hastert Will Step Down

Dennis Hastert will not seek reelection to the Republican leadership.

BREAKING: DEMOCRATS WIN SENATE

NBC now projects Jim Webb (Democrat) has defeated Sen. George Allen in the Virginia Senatorial race.

The Democratic Party will control both houses of Congress. This is in keeping with electoral history. No party has ever won control of the House of Representatives without also taking control of the Senate.

Is that another sigh I hear coming from the President? Who’s on the chopping block tomorrow?

Democrat Wins Montana Senate Seat

50 down and one to go! Jon Tester (Democrat) has won the Montana Senatorial race.

Bush Bumps Rumsfeld, Nominates Gates

In a press conference earlier today, President Bush announced the “resignation” of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld immediately followed by nominating Robert Gates to be Rumsfeld’s replacement. Gates has substantial intelligence experience and is a former CIA Director serving under President George H. W. Bush (41).

Literally, as early as Monday of this week - prior to the election - the President expressed substantial confidence in Rumsfeld and Veep Dick Cheney, and was emphatic both would continue their roles for the remainder of Bush’s term. Although Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the President, Bush theoretically cannot fire Cheney. As Vice President, Cheney is an elected Constitutional officer.

Bush stated the results of yesterday’s election was not the catalyst for Rumsfeld’s dismissal, but I believe it was the primary factor. Bush, admittedly or not, knew if he took a beating in the election, he had to make a change at the Pentagon, hence Bush’s advance preparation to nominate Gates. I suspect Rummy’s termination was a contingency (forced or self-directed): disastrous election results - play the Rummy card; negligible election damage - Rummy could stay (at least for awhile) and Bush’s pre-election commitments remained in force.

What has not been said, to my knowledge, is the pressure Bush may have received from Republican Senate and House leaders subsequent to the election or in his meeting with the GOP leadership this morning. Regardless of pre- or post-election, it is highly likely that Republican Congressional leaders gave Bush an ultimatum. The GOP leadership probably dropped the election results in Bush’s lap this morning and demanded Rumsfeld’s head in exchange for their support in Congress, however much is left.

I agree with the MSM pundits; Rumsfeld’s demise is significant and overdue, but swift action today came from a different president. I did not anticipate any action from Bush this soon, but upon reflection, did he have a choice?

Now, to the new administration rhetoric, which I believe I briefly referred to over the past 24 hours. In the press conference today, President Bush said multiple times how he would work with Democrats to bring about solutions for Iraq and other major national issues. Great. The President’s alarm clock finally rang after six years. President Bush has heretofore been diametrically opposed to working with Democrats, excepting Joe Lieberman. The true colors of this president only get brighter - consult with Democrats only after a meltdown of immense proportions and there is no escape hatch.

Furthermore, President Bush had the chutzpah to characterize his Democratic opponents as wanting what is best for the country; that Democrats seek a working solution for Iraq. Only 48 hours ago, they were defeatists, terrorist sympathizers, and unpatriotic.

Mr. Bush has many steps to take to bring about reconciliation. Mr. Bush has much work to do to ameliorate the gross division he alone has created in this country. Mr. Bush must take many actions to demonstrate humility and to gain trust. Notice I did not say regain trust. He cannot regain what he never had.