Why did Rumsfeld resign?
827209
becuase the first thing the new democratic house and senate would have done would have been to fire him. i think\n1. to beat them to it\n2. to make bush look better...like he wants to work with the house and senate
877703
It's called falling on your sword.  People have been complaining about Rumsfeld and the aimless way the war in Iraq has been conducted.  He should have been fired in 2004.  After the Republican's monumental loss last night, Bush had to make a show that he finally gets it.  Yeah, they said Rumsfeld resigned, but he was asked to resign to make it look like Bush is making a fresh start.
813744
You pretty much said it all... if he would have gotten rid of Rumsfeld, and never ever gone into Iraq without finishing in Afghanistan first.. well, maybe there would be some left who believed in him.  But he is a stubborn spoiled child and he brought that to the Whitehouse.. I AM THE DECIDER, I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS WHATS GOOD FOR AMERICA AND YOU WILL ALL DAMN WELL DO AS I SAY..'CAUSE I'M THE PRESIDENT.. maybe one of these days he will learn he is not God.
171980
He never wanted the job.  He simply wanted to show the country that we didn't only have to choose Democrat or Republican nominees and ideologies.  He also had a plan that would have balanced the budget along with ways to fix a number of other problems.  He had these plans written down in black and white and explained them well.  This is why he would have won if he hadn't jumped out.  However, he jumped out because he didn't want the job.  The reason he got back in was because he got frustrated that even still, neither republican nor democrat were moving past the politics to actually try and fix things.  He thought he could make our country a better place and felt then that it was his duty to try.  Our country could have been in a much better place than it is in today.
918730
Democrats victorious in both houses, Rumsfeld resigns.  You were saying?
376949
I believe that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld needs to resign. While in office, his vision for the military simply does not jibe with reality. His concept of "transformation" means cutting down troop levels, purchasing a ton of gold plated fly boy toys, and letting the military-industrial complex (and private military companies) get hold of the taxpayers' hard earned money.\n\nThe perception of Rumsfeld is that with superior technology, America can defeat any opponent, unconventional and conventional. This is evident in the emphasis on technology as opposed to doctrine and training. However, as Col. Boyd (who developed the concept of OODA) once said, "People, ideas, hardware, in that order!" One must remember that in Vietnam, we had superior technology, but we could not entirely eliminate the NVA and VC after how many years of combat (though the VC was decimated after the Tet Offensive). In Korea, the Chinese were able to surprise the UN & US and drive them back, after managing to conceal their entire divisions from the UN/US air patrols. Americans must realize that technology may be a force multiplier, but cannot be relied on too much to fight wars. History has proven time and time again that excellent strategy, training, and quality warriors will always turn the tide of the war while technology helps (and hinders as well). One must also look at Iraq and see what is the major killer of our warriors. IEDs. These IEDs are relatively inexpensive, and are able to defeat our hundred thousand dollar uparmored HUMVEEs and even our million dollar M1A2 Abrams tank. RPGs can take down our helicopters. Why is it that the enemy can find a low cost and effective solution and we cannot? And about the Army's planned brigade combat teams... it guts maneuvering elements (and counts the reconnaisance battalion as a maneuvering element) while enlarging headquarters. Being flexible is important, but this BCT concept on the surface seems to make it more flexible, but in reality makes it less flexible. With less maneuvering elements and a bloated headquarters, it becomes more slower and inefficient.\n\nNot to mention, his performance for the invasion of Iraq was unacceptable. Despite the warnings and objections from the professional generals (about troop levels, post-war planning, etc), he decided to go ahead anyways. Now we are stuck fighting an insurgency in an effort to stabilize Iraq.
916573
Bob Ney resigned because he is going to jail in a bribery scandal. Did the liberals bribe him? I think not! The military has not liked Rumsfeld's leadership, decisions or general attitude for years
736098
After serving our country, he served under our current president, then he got sick from swallowing so much B.S. and then having to spit it back out to the American people he got even sicker. His integrity finally got the better of his conscience and he must have told his fearless leader he couldn't do it any longer, or either Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Rove realized he wasn't going to continue lying for then and ditched him.\n\nI only regret that this man chose to be so foolish at to serve this administration his first time around in politics. I bet they smashed the crap out of his idea of what serving America through politics meant and he probably also realized they were killing any possibilities of any future political aspirations he may have.
785397
First, he didn't fire him, he resigned.\n\nWhy didn't that happen before the elections...  My guess would be the White House didn't want his resignation to effect the election.  Not that it did them a whole lot of good anyway.
770535
Rummy should have been replaced at least two years ago.  I don't hate Rumsfeld.  I think he'd be a great grandfather, but he wasn't a good secretary of defense.
866778
that is why he resigned.\nif the demos had a chance to fire him it would mean bush would have to adnit he was wrong. \nright now the bush camp can spin this to make bush look good,\nwanting to work with demos, wanting a change in iraq, etc
922916
Murtha exposed facts that people don't like to accept.\nWhen Rumsfeld resigned there was a sigh of relief heard within ten mile radius of PENTAGON.\nDubya Lied.\nRumsfeld Lied.\nMurtha threw out some unpleasant truths.
754855
lol @ title of question.\n\nI think the timing means that Rumsfeld was an election casualty in a year when support for the Iraq war was a driving issue.  \n\nHe was "behind it" so, getting rid of him "should" fix our iraq "problem", right?  Who's with me?\n\nAnybody?  \n\nHello?\n\nCome on!
12255
His promotion to Major General was likely a war-time promotion, which by definition reverts to the lower level once his position in charge of the division was eliminated. He would have to be a general of some sort to be able to give orders to every member of the division. He was ostensibly removed because of his age, but I'm sure the fact that the division failed its readiness test didn't help anything.
982007
Rumsfield resigned not because of the election but because of editorials that appeared in the military newspapers which indicated that the military leadership had lost all confidence in him.\n\nIf you had been paying attention you would have caught on to the fact that the decision to replace Rumsfield (long overdue) was made prior to the elections.
844735
I can tell you I'm pleased. This allows a new, fresh face to take over and we can see how his leadership is, and Rumsfeld was no good leader. He mismanaged troop numbers before the war. The generals said they needed at least 400,000 troops to fight, and he gave them about 100 some-on thousand. He denied many well experienced people's requests and that harmed him. He did not give the military vehicles aduquate armor, and not much has still been done about that. He always argued with people and actually seemed like he had quite a temper at times. Many generals who oppose Rumsfeld say they wish that Colon Powell was Secretary Of Defense still, because of his good military experience, compared to Rumsfeld's poor experience. The War in Afghanistan was Powell's responsibility, and as far as I know, it went a lot better than the Iraq War is going. Hopefully the war will go better without him.
697058
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html\n\nIts not so much Bush's speech but his back-peddling answers to the questions that followed that makes one doubt his honesty and integrity.\n\nThe war and Rumsfeld issues were part and parcel of the election.  Nobody can deny that.  I would understand a decision to keep quiet the acceptance of the resignation of a key player just prior to an important election.\n\nBut, on the same hand - that being the avoidance of riling the masses and votes being cast out of anger and/or fear -, the President should not have made any statements to the effect that terrorists win, America loses if Dems gain power in Congress.  Truth doesn't run both ways, only lies and deception.\n\nRumsfeld has stated frequently that he has tendered his resignation in the past, but Bush refused to accept it.  Only now, Bush talks of "fresh perspective".  Balderdash.\n\nThis wasn't a presidential election, Bush had no votes to lose.  But, his base is now opening their eyes.  I sure hope their awakening is due to their respect of their constituents/former constituents and not just self-preservation.\n\nI hope these next two years don't leave George lame.\n\nI would rather have the two branches working together instead of fighting each other.