So I’m watching CNN last night and during lunch here today. I see the President’s repeated assertions that Rumsfeld is the right man for the job and he has a lot of confidence in him.
And it gets me thinking…GWB sounds a lot like a major league baseball owner expressing ‘confidence’ in his team’s manager. And that, very often, immediately precedes a firing. Kind of like, “I have complete confidence in my manager…over there…working for someone else” if you see what I mean.
Toss that association with the fact that the story on CNN early this morning was ‘Will Rumsfeld resign to prevent further embarassment to the administration’ and I’m wondering if he will make it through this particular scandal or whether he’ll be a fall guy for the prisoner abuse thing and the generally weakened standing of the administrations policies towards Iraq.
The primary reason I can think of for him to resign, other than my relative dislike for him, is to demonstrate to our detractors in the ME that we will take responsibility for our actions. What I am not sure on is if this will be seen as something good by them, too little too late, or a pathetic token gesture.
Things are just too feverish, and the President HAS to do something. He’ll stick around a little while so as to not make it seem so directly related to the scandal, but he’ll never be effective again. The baseball analogy is apt.
I’m pretty sure he won’t resign. Loyalty runs very high in the current administration. If he should resign it would (or should) rather be over post-war Iraq, rather than the abuse pictures. Or he could sacrifice himself to protect the administration.
However, I was a bit surprised about the tone in Bush’s speech last night. It surely played very well amongst his core voters on the right, but I’m not so sure that swing voters in the middle fell head over fet. Though polls show that a majority of such voters doesn’t feel Rumsfeld should resign, that doesn’t imply that they are not disturb by the prison abuse. A little more humility might have been better, but I dunno.
If Bush wants him to stay, there is no reason to ask him to resign. Something like 70% of Americans, in the most recent poll, don’t think he should resign. The scandal isn’t going to go away whether he resigns or not.
Given Bush’s unambiguous heaping of praise on Rumsfeld, it is clear that Bush intends to keep him. If, however, Rumsfeld is eventually forced to bow out to save Bush’s hide the endorsement will only serve to make the whole mess appear to be even more beyond Bush’s control.
I think the baseball analogy is quite apt, and Bush has experience at that. I suspect that the administration will wait to see if pushing a few privates and staff sargents from the sleigh will be enough. I don’t think it will, but I think they’ll gradually work their way up. “Here’s the Secretary of the Army, are you satisfied now?”
Bush would like to keep him. But if he really isn’t, as his defenders so faithfully sputter, a moron, he understands that it may be necessary. So he’s following the time-honored tradition of Cheerleading for the Beleaguered Official, because (a) the President should be protected from looking like a hard ass, and (b) the President must be protected from looking like he made a mistake appointing the guy.
This way, when and if Rumsfeld’s asked to resign, Bush can say, “Well, if that’s what you feel you have to do, I’ll respect your very patriotic decision.”
At which point Moody will puke up his entire lower intestine.
Rummy will stay. There wouldn’t be a big enough pay-off for his resignation. Would his resignation make the scandal go away? No. And then who would the press focus on? Hmmmmm…? Rummy will stay.
Bush is too stiff-necked proud to fire him now. And that will be his downfall; Rummy will drag Bush down into the abyss, and we will be thankfully rid of both of them.
That is the reason I’m happy Rummy is staying… his stench only makes Bush look worse.
Even if someone likes Rummy… the guy is doing pretty badly. Gitmo “follows the spirit of the Geneva convention” talk is hardly re-assuring to americans. One moment there is no torture… only abuse… then he apologizes but doesn’t suffer for it. Then he says its was rogue elements… the next he defends military interrogators. Nick wasn’t detained… but was detained by Iraqis… talk about bad damage control.
It is kinda hard imagining Bush letting Rummy - or anyone else - go.
Perhaps the question should be, Will there come a time when Rove and the rest of the political apparatus might demand Rumsfeld’s head for the sake of re-election?
I don’t think he’s going anywhere. After heaping such huge praise on the secretary, the president would look mighty foolish if he now let him go. It would be like admitting a mistake, you see. And as we know, he doesn’t make those. So I think Rumsfeld is staying put, at least until the election.
And even if he does not return for a second Bush term, one shouldn’t assume it’s because of incompetence. Many Cabinet members don’t return for the second administration, for a variety of reasons.
Eh, he was only the cause of torture, rape, and murder. He’ll survive. It’s not like he did anything that people really get upset about, like lying about a blowjob.
