Isn’t waiting till moments after the election like saying that they knew that Rumsfield was a problem, but that the winning the election was more important than the welfare of our troops, and the success of this war?

Waiting until after the election was astute. An olive branch if you will.

“The timing is interesting. It would have been better politically to cut him loose well before the election. And just a week or so ago Bush said he expected Rumsfeld to stay through the end of the administration.”

I just wrote about exactly this. It seems that Bush had already decided to change out Rumsfeld. He just chose not to tell voters before the election.

Not politically astute (imho).

Normally I’d say someone who could actually implement the reform efforts that Rumsfeld botched, except that Rumsfeld has messed that up enough that there’s really no time or momentum left to achieve it.

At this point, I’d say “someone who doesn’t bring an ideological inflexibility to the fighting in Iraq.”

Bush has nominated Robert Gates, an ex-CIA chief, continuing his practice of bring in old Reagan and Bush the Elder hands. He’s part of the Iraq Study Group, so that’s a good sign.

He’s currently the President of Texas A&M University.

Who do you think should be Rumsfeld’s replacement?

The timing is interesting. It would have been better politically to cut him loose well before the election. And just a week or so ago Bush said he expected Rumsfeld to stay through the end of the administration.