[snugs]

IMHO Rumsfeld would have remained if the Republicans had not lost control.

I believe the main reason he had to go was that both he and the President believed that the next 2 years he would spend the majority of his time in front of congressional hearing after another. He may well still do so but not as the current Secretary of Defense.

He could not have run his department and fulfilled overseas visits including NATO meetings with all of this going on at home.

And lastly get off your President's back and support like your fellow Republicans should have in congress and then the result last Tuesday would have probably been different. They caused the public to see the Republican party as fragmented and therefore did not give them confidence to vote for a Republican candidate coupled with the media portraying Republicans as radical right wingers.

[kabar]

And lastly get off your President's back and support like your fellow Republicans should have in congress and then the result last Tuesday would have probably been different. They caused the public to see the Republican party as fragmented and therefore did not give them confidence to vote for a Republican candidate coupled with the media portraying Republicans as radical right wingers.

Loyalty is a two-way street. Bush supported comprehensie immigration reform, i.e., amnesty, legalization of status, and a pathway to citizenship, despite the fact that the overwhelming number of Reps in Congress were against it. Now, he will sign a bill from a Dem controlled Congress passing it, including a guest worker program.

[Bernard]

IMHO Rumsfeld would have remained if the Republicans had not lost control.

Interesting wording - it could refer to the election results, or the behavior that led to the election results. And, I did support the President prior to the election. I cannot support his actions concerning Mr. Rumsfeld, and if I had known about this little deal before the election, I would have criticized then too.