There are actually a number of predictions here:
* Rumsfeld ws politically radioactive and would be fired/resign (HIT).
* It would happen within two weeks (MISS - It took two months).
* Republicans could not maintain a majority with Rums...

"There you go again," as someone once said.

No one is criticizing Rumsfeld for "making mistakes," but rather, for making senseless, unnecessary mistakes & then failing to learn from them. When the looting of Baghdad occurred & Rumsfeld shrugged it off, that was the first unmistakable indication that our war was in the hands of a pure fool. Things got worse from there.

But quite seriously, pick up Fiasco, if you really want to get some idea of Rumsfeld's awfulness. (State of Denial is said to be good in that respect as well, but I've not read it, & Ricks doesn't have Woodward's baggage.) The book is especially important for understanding where we've been in Iraq, so that we can see what options we have left.

Apology accepted.

I would like to think a person could come here to learn as much as debate. That is certainly why I come here. I make no illusions that I will convert anyone to conservatism with what I post. I post to merely show that a different point of view is out there.

I don't choose when to be less informed for the convenience of my posts. Your reference to Google doesn't tell me anything but insinuates that I am less than honest. Please expand and explain if you would.

In the mean time I would like to here of a war where mistakes were not made. It seems harsh to judge Rumsfeld with a standard not achieved in history.

Like I said.

Not that you don't act well-informed enough when it suits you, as Google handily reveals.

In Nov. 2006, to wander up and spout stale talking points -- "war is tricky! can't foresee everything!" -- is, well, Rumsfeldian.

Nevertheless, apologies for my impatience.

Must disagree. The massive numbers *were* needed, for the immediate post-victory interval, until we'd put new sheriffs in charge of the army & police.

*Then* it would be time, as JJ correctly says, to get the massive numbers out of Iraq.

A small CI force would've been worse than useless the week Baghdad fell.

For the record I am not a political junkie and have work to do every day keeping my business in the black and employing 30 people. Call me old fashioned but my priorities are family, business, then the community which would include politics.

This is actually the second time you have insulted me personally which reinforces my opinion that those with nothing of value to say try to bully others.

From now on you get the same respect you give everyone else, none.

I wonder if they'll bring Shinseki back, now that he's been essentially proven correct, and Rummy's gone.

Shorter Plunk: "No, besides that."

Rumsfeld was specifically charged with winning the war in Iraq. He did not accomplish that.

Probably. Still, doing it immediately before an election might have drawn legitimate charges of politicizing the war.

If he was going to make the change, why not weeks ago?

[Latest News on Top] Reactions "The worst performance I’ve ever seen" says James Joyner of the Bush presser. "[I]t comes across eerily similar to the Saturday Night Live parodies of Bush speeches." (OTB) Austin Bay analyzes the Rumsfeld's exit a...

He makes a fair point that one doesn’t want to send the signal that he’s making major tactical decisions for political reasons. Still, the war in Iraq is the most significant public policy issue of the Bush administration.

But isn't dumping Rummy after losing both houses of Congress being done primarily for political reasons?

The fact that Bush admitted lying to reporters about the issue suggests that if the election had gone the other way, he wouldn't have sacked Rumsfeld.

It is very weird logic.