Rumsfeld's departure is long overdue (I just finished Bob Woodward's "State of Denial" which is in large part about the failure of Rumsfeld). Many inside and outside the administration have been lobbying for him to go for months. Andy Card worked hard while he was chief of staff to get Rumsfeld ousted (instead, Card himself quit). Condi Rice can't stand him - her sadness over the Republicans' mid-term losses must be tempered by her great relief that Rumsfeld is finally going. This should make her job a lot easier.

If you want to know more about Robert Gates...read his book "From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War" which is about ten years old. Gates worked for Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I at the National Security Council and the CIA. In his book, Gates is charitable enough to credit Jimmy Carter with starting the CIA's covert war against the USSR in Afghanistan and the 1980s military buildup. In his book he seems like quite a reasonable guy. He probably worked with Condi Rice at the National Security Council under Bush I before going back to CIA, so they probably already have a relationship. Condi probably had a hand in picking him. It's great that the SecDef and the Secretary of State will finally get along instead of being basically polite enemies.

His alleged knowledge of Iran-Contra nonwithstanding, Gates already has a relationship with some on the Democratic side probably due to his years working for Carter, so Gates will likely not have the same thorny issues with the new Democratic Congress that Rumsfeld had. Good thing - Gates will need every advantage he can get to tackle the mess in Iraq.

FYI, Gates lived in Washington State for a while as I recall - he might even be from there, although in recent years he has been president of Texas A&M University.

Andrew

I am on page 150 or so of this book -- just got it 3 days ago. Take everything you know about the Bush admn, especially Rumsfeld and multiply it by 10 -- its that bad. WPE!

on the other hand -- when bush was on tv today introducing gates, although he was very subdued, he looked somewhat presidential -- poise, matter-of-fact, no major gaffes and flubs . . . intersesting, huh?

It's interesting to speculate what would have happened yesterday in the mid-term elections if Bush had followed Andy Card's advice and canned Rumsfeld after the 2004 election. Democrats would have lost a lightning rod of criticism and it's quite possible Iraq would be better off today than it is now. And while the Republicans may still have lost the House, it's seems likely they could have held onto the Senate.

Here's a quote from National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley from the last page of the book (sorry to ruin it for you Skep!): "I've got to help this president get through what is going to be a really rugged three years. And if the Democrats take over the House and the Senate it's going to be unbelievable after 2006." This was written a few months ago. Uh oh!

Andrew

If only Rumsfeld had left Garner in place, he (rumsfeld) might have gone down as the best DEFSEC ever.

(If you wanna know what the heck I'm talking about, you gotta read the book. oh, and andrew, if the book ended on page 150 where I'm at, I'd still be blown away with Woodward's book, so its like, what, there's more?!!)

(ps: who thinks there ISN'T gonna be a movie about Rumsfeld someday?)

Garner was a good guy but still probably not the right guy for the job. Not that Bremer was either. In fact, no one would have succeeded under those exact circumstances. The real problem was the complete lack of Phase IV (post-war) prep, based on the stupid assumption that Chalabi would come in and simply re-form a new Democratic government in Iraq and the American troops could largely leave by the end of the summer of '03.

If you want to read a great companion book to "State of Denial," read "Fiasco" by Thomas Franks. It explains the failure of the war from the military's perspective. It's astounding how the military was so slow to adapt to the idea of an insurgency, refusing to learn from the lessons of Vietnam and other guerilla wars without re-learning from them. But a lot of that came from...Rumsfeld.

Andrew

I would bet anyone a cheap dime that there will be a big fight to keep Gates from getting the job.

"I would bet anyone a cheap dime that there will be a big fight to keep Gates from getting the job."

Not necessarily. He served as CIA director for five Presidents, including Carter. He saw Vietnam and the escalation, and ending, of the Cold War on his watch.

Sen. Harry Reid has made it clear that he won't be rubber-stamped into office, that Reid has questions about the Iran-Contra dealings ... though it is negligible how much, if anything, Gates had to do with that.

Gates was confirmed to be DCI of CIA by a Democratic Senate in 1991, several years after Iran-Contra; since he hasn't done much of great controversy since leaving the CIA, I can't imagine why he would not be confirmed now. No doubt Gates will be grilled by the Senate but that doesn't mean his confirmation would be a big problem.

Andrew

**ANY** Cabinet nominee Bush brings forward is going to get grilled. Right now Dubya could probably nominate Al Gore for Secretary of the Interior and he'd get grilled by the Senate.

Wouldn't any appointee by Bush have to be a liberal now?

Grilled, sure, but probably confirmed. The biggest knock against Gates is that he has been out of government a long time. When he was appointed to be DCI in 1991, he had been in the CIA on and off for years. Running the Pentagon especially with Iraq and Afghanistan going on is going to require someone extraordinary. Then again...if not Gates, then who?

Andrew

Actually Bush could save his presidency by dumping cheney (or messing with the pacemaker software) and bringing in Al Gore for VP and enact some engery saving ideas. Its not like Bush has another election to worry about.

By doing so, he could pull a George Wallace -- a former racists who is now in the history books as a influential leader admitting to his errors and became an agent for change and attempted to undo the damage he caused.

I listened to a lot of right-wing talk radio today, just to enjoy hearing them trying to spin out of this. Surprisingly, they all seemed to have the same talking points: Bush was now going to try to bolster his approval ratings by abandoning his principles and supporting "liberal" programs and causes. I think they're all wrong. Bush is just not like that. And he has used hopeful-sounding rhetoric before without backing it up with action. He's never taken serious action to try to bolster his approval ratings.

Instead, I think Bush will stubornly stick it out for two more years without cooperating with the Democratic Congress much. After all, even with a Republican Congress he got very little accomplished in the last two years. The only highlights for him would be the two conservative Supreme Court justices that he got in. Obviously that's not going to happen again.

By the way: Bush can't fire Cheney, who according to the Constitution was elected by the Electoral College in 2004 just like he was. Bush could ask Cheney to resign but if Cheney tells him to go fuck himself, there's not much Bush could do about it. Only if impeached by the House and removed by the Senate could Cheney be effectively fired.

Andrew

"if Cheney tells him to go fuck himself"

You know, I can picture Cheney doing just that!