Did the military media take down Rumdum?

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

Suspecting that Bush would not have made a change in the SecDef until later in the year...and realizing he probably didn't plan such a move in anticipation of a sweep of both houses (which won't take effect until January anyway)...and wondering why, if he intended to throw a bone to his wavering hawks in the electorate, he wouldn't have made the announcement BEFORE the election...I got to thinking.

Here's the timeline as we know it:

1. On Thursday, Bush answers a reporter's question by stating unequivocally that he's keeping Rumdum. (If he were planning to dump Rummy on Wed., it's likely he'd have found a better way to crawfish that question instead of denying it flatly.)

2. On or about that same day, word is leaked that all four military newspapers will have Monday editorials calling for Rummy's dismissal. This is an unheard-of coordinated public attack on the Secy of Defense. The editors state that they're speaking for the uniformed troops who aren't allowed to speak out on such matters. (Chances are, they were speaking mainly for the brass.) Bush realizes he'll have a running gun-battle with the military for the remainder of his term, unless he dumps the Rumdum.

3. On Sunday, Bush meets with Gates and asks him to take the job. (If he had been planning this for any length of time, he'd hardly wait until the final frantic days of a hard-fought election to make this arrangement.)

4. On Monday, the stories break, creating ripples but apparently not affecting the election except perhaps among military families in the U.S. (overseas troops had already voted absentee earlier).

5. Election is Tuesday. Bush wins the votes of "Stay the course" looney-birds.

6. On Wednesday, Bush announces Rummy's dismissal. When the Rumdum is interviewed, it's plain he'd had no intentions of resigning, and gives weak, apparently ad libbed, explanations for the change of command.

My conclusion: This was a last-minute decision, designed to placate the military brass. It may have been discussed from time to time with Rumdum, but had not been in the cards for the near future, and would much more likely have been played as Rummy's "gracious stepdown to calm the waters."

A wild-card fact: The Hamilton-Baker Commission (of which Gates was a member, by the way) will be announcing its recommendations on Iraq next week. Chances are, they will criticize Rummy, but mainly they're likely to offer some ways for Bush to extricate himself from his Iraq mess with some shreds of dignity remaining. In any case, Bush must have known FOR SOME TIME what those recommendations will be, so--again--if he intended to dump Rummy on the strength of them, he'd have long ago arranged for a successor. Furthermore, he would probably have got rid of Rummy prior to the election so he'd appear "responsive to the public," and would also have a nice p.r. jump on the Commission's report when it's announced.

Whaddya think? I'm certain there's more to Rummy's abrupt dismissal than meets the eye. Maybe another analyst here could fine-tune this picture, or come up with a more persuasive one.

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

1. *kick, to draw some discussion*

It fell down the page fast with all the excitement, and I was hoping for feedback.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Sounds about right......so I say yes, the military brass had enough....

and Bush was facing at virtual military coup!

Thank God that the patriots who care about the soldiers finally took action. Guess they got tired of having sand kicked in their eyes. I'm sure that Boener's comment that it was the Generals' fault didn't really endear them to the Bush cabal's non existent strategy that they more likely regard as the Iraq mess that has totally dessimated their military corp.

[GetTheRightVote]

3. all military media sources came out against him right before election

I believe that speaks for itself, they wanted Rummy out for sure.

:kick:

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

12. The military brass timed it for maximum effect

It probably got us one or two house seats.

It may have been the difference between Allen and Webb in VA.

IMO, the officer corps wanted some kind of leash put on BushCo and a Democratically controlled congress was their best option.

Oh yeah, I'm sure they wanted Rummy gone.

Hold your nose and read Woodward's Denial for the details on how Rummy shit on the uniformed military at every opportunity. It was eye opening for me. Rummy was arrogant and wrong on Iraq.

[blondeatlast]

4. Excellent analysis and I think you are spot on. I also think that

Rove/Neocon Inc. were fully expecting to win both Houses and were quite shocked last night when they lost the House.

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

7. Yeah, if they'd foreseen a big loss, they'd have acted

before the election, I think. But if they had just finalized the deal with Gates on Sunday, their only chance for such action would've been Monday. So why wait till Wednesday?? And that brings me to: If you're gonna do it after the election, why not wait until next week, or later?

Weird, huh? Bush would never want to reverse such an unequivocal endorsement a few days later. So what really happened? It gets curiouser and curiouser!

[Auntie Bush]

5. My only comment is that I think bush announced Rummy's

"retirement" when he did because he wanted to deflect the bad news of the day away from his loss to Rummy. Coward! He couldn't take the heat so he set Rummy up to do that for him. Another one of his change the subject tactics. The man is a stupid, heartless, irresponsible, deluded cowardly piece of sh*t.

Not quite the comment you were interested in but it's good for a kick.

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

6. Hee hee! A bit of interesting insight, too.

It has occurred to me that whatever the reason for such an abrupt move, he might well decide to make it on the same day he'd be taking the heat about a failed election. He might do that on the theory that the best way to remove a bandage is to yank it off all at once. A bad election today, followed by the dismissal of the SecDef a week or two later, would keep bad news in the press constantly.

I can't help thinking there's a lot more to this story, though. His "We've been discussing this for a long time" just doesn't add up. And his selection of a guy who served on the Hamilton-Baker Commission doesn't look like a coincidence. I just can't fit all the pieces together. One or two seem to be missing.

[blondeatlast]

9. Wikipedia entry is right up to date--and very interesting...

Declined appointment as Director of National Intelligence

Gates said in a 2005 discussion with the university's Academy for Future International Leaders that he had tentatively decided to accept the DNI position out of a sense of duty and had written an email that would be sent to students during the press conference to announce his decision, explaining that he was leaving to serve the U.S. once again. Gates, however, took the weekend to consider what his final decision should be, and ultimately decided that he was unwilling to return to Washington, D.C. in any capacity simply because he "had nothing to look forward to in D.C. and plenty to look forward to at A&M."

All emphasis mine.

That phrasing "nothing to look forward to in D. C." in "ANY CAPACITY" just jumps out at me--where's his hesitancy now?

My thoughts--he is terrified that he may be asked to explain his Iran-Contra dealings in far more detail. We must resurrect the phrase "Iran-Contra" as a talking point and make sure the press uses it often and loudly.

I'm old enough to remember those days and I don't want anyone involved forgetting it.

[blondeatlast]

8. True that--he'll do anything to deflect bad news away from him

including stabbing his friends.

After reading "State of Denial" I thought there was no way W would get rid of Rummy, but God forbid any negative news should reflect on W--so down with his allies.

You are so right--W is a disloyal, backstabbing coward.

[savemefromdumbya]

11. The media looked relieved they didn't have to report about the election so much

the Rumsfeld thing softened the blow for them

[Doctor Panacea]

17. Yes

That is exactly what I thought, too. It was a way of raining on the Democratic parade.

And after the Republican loss, coming on top of the editorial in the military newspapers, the Chimp had to throw some red meat to the snarling beasts in his own party.

[blondeatlast]

10. Pre-leaving for work kick--I want to read more on my 15 minute lunch!

Let's hear you7r insights, wisdom, and all the dirt you can find on this sleazeball Gates, DU!

:kick:

[yellerpup]

13. The military newspapers seemd to be speaking for the military as well

as to them. Gave me hope that if Chimpy did try to order the National Guard to turn out against American citizens that our troops would not blindly mow us down just because he said so. I doubt that the miitary wants to launch a surprise attack on Iran (especially if it was ordered behind the Congress' back and without the knowledge or consent of US citizens). Maybe I sound a little :tinfoilhat: tinfoil-hattish, but I don't trust them. I pretty sure the military doesn't either. I think your strategy tracks perfectly.

[JohnnyLib2]

14. From near Ft. Knox --

Loyal retired Army folks are pretty circumspect around here. I've been startled to hear 4 different men, from 4 different (retired) ranks, speak out bitterly against Rumsfeld and about "this damned war" -- all since Sunday. Two were quick to say that they "support the forces, but...."

So yes, I think the editorials freed some to speak out. Iraq, of course, is causing terrible ambivalence in good people.

[leftyladyfrommo]

15. I read that it was Baker who took down Rumsfeld.

I guess they call him the Velvet Hammer. He was not going to spend his time and effort and have Rumsfeld there in the way.

[Auntie Bush]

16. Yeah, I bet Baker had an agreement with bush* to get rid

of Rummy before accepted the assignment to study the Iraq war. If that is true...then Bush...and probably Rummy have known he was leaving for a long time. Bush just didn't want any political repercussions. Soooo,the bastard lied right to our faces again. He seems to think he can lie any time he feels it helps him politically as long as he can explain why he lied. Seems to me that he said something a long time ago that Clinton lied to the American people and he'd never do that. That was his first lie...it's habitual.