Et Tu Brutus?

It seems like everyone has turned on Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, including long-time supporter President Bush. However, I have to question the logic of what seems a like a punitive move by the adminstration.

Lets be frank, Rumsfeld was not the most well-liked figure. It's fairly obvious that Bush asked for his resignation, this was not Rumsfeld's idea. But why didn't Bush ask for his resignation before the elections? A resignation by Rumsfeld prior the elections might be seen as an acknowledgement by the adminstration that there are problems in Iraq, and that the adminstration wants to resolve them. Many voters cited the Iraq war as a major reason for their displeasure with the Republicans.

Why fire Rumsfeld after the damage has been done? Bush may have been seen as "changing the course" but I think many Americans would take this as a welcome sign of an adminstration that wants to correct its shortcommings. Instead, President Bush staunchly supported Rumsfeld, while people's displeasure with him and the war in Iraq mounted, culminating in last night's defeat.

Would the Repulicans have benefitted from ousting Rumsfeld prior to the elections? Comment below.

Tags: Rumsfeld, Bush, Election