noteworthy wrote:
I'll accept it's reasonable to think that this resignation has been under deliberation for a while now. But if it was "planned", cui bono? After the election, it reinforces the decisions of those who tipped to the Democrats this time. They think, "my vote got through to them. But why did it have to come to this?"

They knew they were going to loose and there was nothing that they could do about it. This election wasn't about Iraq and it wasn't about Rumsfeld. The exit polls indicate corruption, but it wasn't about Harry Reid's talking points either. They lost because of Katrina. Its obvious that is the reason because no one is talking it.

People want the government to protect them from threats. That was a threat that was easily avoidable if they had simply run the priorities and spent some cash. Everyone knows that Brown was not qualified for that post, and that post isn't just some random beaurocracy, its a critical part of our anti-terrorism system. People are not stupid enough to buy the spin they tried to put on that. It pulled the wool from their eyes. When Bush was standing on the ruins of the World Trade Center it didn't seem like it was his fault, but clearly someone needed to be made accountable for the ruins of New Orleans.

They could not have fired Rumsfeld early and appeared repentant and motivated their base at the same time. Their base would have been furious with them for bowing to the left, and they still would have lost, because its about Katrina and they can't undo that by firing the War Secretary, and the electorate still would have expected a reaction after the election, meaning they'd have to find someone else to fire.

RE: Rumsfeld quits after Democrats ride Iraq to win - washingtonpost.com