Return to PS FAQs

Might Donald Rumsfeld or George Tenet resign? What about Wolfowitz at the World Bank? Karl Rove? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales?

Also see Abu Ghraib and Torture '05-'06

As of mid-November 2003 high level resignations did not appear likely.  It is not President Bush's style to, in essence, admit mistakes.  Depending on the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Tenet could become the fall guy for the missing WMD.

However, if the war deaths continue to mount and the President did worse in the polls, a resignation would become more likely.  Some Democratic candidates for President have called for the resignation of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others. 

On December 19, the leading story on the Washington Post's Iraq special was Dana Priests' story of newly declared documents showing Rumsfeld going to Baghdad in 1984 (also see History FAQ #1).  Trips in December '83 and March '84 were to "ease the strain created by a U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons" against Iran.  This trip led to the resumption of diplomatic ties.  Rumsfeld was the special envoy for President Reagan.  Though the U.S. had declared it was neutral during the Iran-Iraq war, Reagan and Bush Sr. "sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemical and deadly biological agents", Priest reported.

In late January 2004 the story of David Kay's resignation stayed in the headlines.  Kay has concluded, as the chief U.S. weapons inspector for nine months, that Iraq did not have WMD prior to the war.  Since he blamed the intelligence, and not the administration for misrepresenting the intelligence, one wondered at the time if Tenet might become the fall guy.

It took six months, but on June 3, 2004, CIA Chief Tenet resigned.  Did he become the fall guy?  The President praised him; Tenet stated that his resignation was for personal reasons. Tenet had held the job since 1997, during the Clinton administration.

The bold Times headline highlighted "Three Harsh Reports on Agency Due" as having some or a large part in the timing of the resignation.  The Senate Intelligence Committee 400-page classified report is "a detailed account of mistakes and miscalculations by American intelligent agencies on" WMD.  An unclassified version is due to be made public later in June. Others describe is as "a broad indictment of the CIA's performance on Iraq."  Tenet has insisted that "it is too soon to say" whether the CIA made prewar assessment mistakes. At Georgetown University, Tenet said rather obliquely, "When the facts on Iraq are all in, we will be neither completely right nor completely wrong."  He reminded Georgetown that the CIA had never portrayed Iraq as "an imminent threat" to the U.S..."No one told us what to say or how to say it."

Republican Pat Roberts (KS) believes intelligence agencies were still "in denial." 

Former CIA chief Stansfield Turner feels he is being "pushed out...The President feels he has to have someone to blame."  House minority leader Pelosi hoped the resignation should not be "the only response" to the intelligence failures.

Former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack felt the US should go to war.  After the war began and no WMD were found, he changed his mind.  Asked about Tenet's resignation, Pollack responded, "I certainly think that George got worse than he deserved.  There was a real effort on the part of a number of people within the administration to make it look as if the CIA was solely responsible for the mistakes leading up to both 9/11 and Iraq. 

Tenet was back in the news with his book of 2007 and then with an August declassification of a CIA report. The missteps prior to 9/11 were so great than Tenet should have been reprimanded.

A Medal of Honor was bestowed upon Tenet in December 2004, along with Paul Bremer and Tommy Franks.  The President spoke of his pride in their fine service.  Reaction and criticism was widespread, including columnist Derrick Jackson.  Added Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), "I don't think [he] served the president or the nation well."   For more on Jackson's views, see "Op-Ed Views".

Tenet was back in the news in early May, 2007, with his new book and book tour. One reaction, speaking of Tenet's "mixed legacy" came from conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer in "Rewriting History." Writes the Post columnist, "Tenet presents himself as a pathetic victim and scapegoat of an administration that was hellbent on going to war, slam tunk or not." "Slam dunk" is a reference to how Tenet judged the certainty of WMD.

Robert Sheer was critical of the Tenet legacy in "After Thousands Have Died, Tenet Comes Clean."
Richard Perle penned a Post op-ed in May 11, "How the CIA Failed America." Perle was a leading neocon promoting the war.
Dick Cheney responded to Tenet's book by suggesting that Tenet's views of events leading to the war was not accurate.
Paul Bremer got into the debate a few days later with his Post op-ed piece, "What We Got Right in Iraq."

Also see P.S. WMD FAQ section.

In terms of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld made a surprise visit to Iraq on February 23 and talked about future troop totals. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62204-2004Feb22?language=printer

The May 2004 prison torture scandal put more pressure on the Secretary of Defense, as Bush, for the first time, reprimanded him in private.  Rumsfeld held a press conference in the week after the 60 Minutes photos were released.  Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, one in favor of the war to help spread democracy, came out on May 6 calling for the firing of Rumsfeld.  John Kerry had suggested such a move for a few months. Also see "Are Iraqis Better Off?" for more on the prison scandal. and see "Abu Ghraib" FAQ.

Much of the U.S. watched on the Friday morning of May 7, 2004 as Donald Rumsfeld was called before Congress to answer some tough questions.  The Speaker of the House, John Kerry, and others had called for his firing or resignation. As of May 9, no Republicans had directly called for his resignation. President Bush emphasized his strong confidence in his Defense Secretary on May 10.

At The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh's detailed article was entitled "Torture at Abu Ghraib."  Hirsh examines the brutalize and wonders, "How far up does the responsibility go?"  He concludes that key military intelligence officers may have actively encouraged acts of abuse and humiliation, according to the New York Times.
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040510fa_fact

Hersh's second investigative piece raised even more damning questions.  "The Gray Zone", posted on May 15, alleges that Special Access Program (SAP) was approved by Rumsfeld and assisted by his deputy Cambone.  Gen. Miller's August trip to from Guantanamo to Iraq led to a recommendation to turn over Abu Ghraib to military intelligence. This led to the sexual humiliation which could have been used for blackmail against the prisoners. Will these allegations lead to Rumsfeld's resignation? Read more about Rumsfeld's future.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

After Bush's 2004 re-election, many of the cabinet resigned, including Colin Powell.  However, in early December the President officially decided to keep Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. The Secretary was trying to counter Red Cross charges that actions at Guantanamo by U.S. forces were "tantamount to torture."

We learned a few weeks after the President's second inauguration that Rumsfeld had twice offered to resign but the President had rejected the offer. 

In mid-December more Democrats called for his resignation after we were reminded how poorly some of the troops are equipped.  In reaction to a question from a soldier about scavenger for metal to make Humvees safer, the Secretary responded, "You go to war with the army you've got, not the army you want."  Also see "Troops" PS FAQ section.

GOP leaders began to join the chorus of those detractors.  The "sharpest jab", according to a front-page Chicago Tribune article, came from former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS).  Others included John McCain and Susan Collins. McCain expressed "no confidence" in the Secretary but stopped short of calling for his resignation.  McCain also called for 80,00 more troops in Iraq. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said he had "no confidence in Rumsfeld's leadership" and Bush supporter General Norman Schwarzkopf criticized Rumsfeld.    

William Kristol of the conservative Weekly Standard authored a piece in the Washington Post entitled "The Defense Secretary We Have."   Kristol was willing to leave aside that fact that Gen. Tommy Franks "had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for [the] task--and that this civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available."

Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003.  And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11."  He added, "All defense secretaries in wartime have, needles to say, made misjudgments.  Some have stubbornly persisted in the misjudgments.  But have any so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck?":  Kristol concluded that the soldiers "deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A132-2004Dec14?language=printer

Some Democrats did not criticize Mr. Rumsfeld.  For instance, Carl Levin surmised that "If I thought a change at the top of the Pentagon would change the policy of this administration, I'd be all for it." The positive response from loyal Republicans came a few days later.  

For example, John Warner felt the Secretary "is doing a spectacular job...We're going to back the President."  

Pentagon adviser Richard Perle feels that accusations against the Secretary are "ludicrous."  Echoed the President at a rare late-December news conference, "He's done a fine job."

Rumsfeld also received criticism for not personally singing the letters to families informing them that their loved one had died.  This was to assure that the letters were quickly received, he said.  He vowed to change to policy.  A few days later Rumsfeld visited Mosul and other Iraqi cities.

President Bush felt that the election validated and ratified his policy in Iraq.  Speaking the week of his inauguration he feels that there is no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.  He urged Americans to show patience.

In summer 2005 calls for Rumsfeld's resignation became stronger again.  With the increased death in Iraq, the good news of the January election worn off, and continued torture evidence being presented, the Secretary of Defense was under fire.  Op-ed pages were filled with news of Iraq, but Bob Herbert focused on the Secretary  "How does Donald Rumsfeld survive as defense secretary?  Much of what has happened to the military on his watch has been catastrophic."  Herbert focuses on Iraq being "mishandled from the beginning" with still "no idea how to win."  The New York Times writer worries about potential recruits to the military (see Troops FAQ) and the treatment of prisoners.  "The catalog of confirmed atrocities is huge."  Herbert concludes, "The troops who do their job honestly and diligently, and who fight bravely when they have to, have been betrayed by leaders who encouraged abusive behavior and allowed atrocities to flourish.  Mr. Rumsfeld has driven the military into a ruinous quagmire, and there is no evidence at all that he's capable of finding a serviceable route out."

The next resignation discussed in the media was of Karl Rove.  For details, go to "Where are the WMD" PS FAQ and see Joseph Wilson and CIA lead.

In the fall of 2005, the nation seemed too focused on torture, Scooter Libby, and John Murtha to return to the judging of Secretary Rumsfeld. That focus changed somewhat with on op-ed piece of December 6 by Richard Cohen in "Let Rumsfeld Go"  He feels our Iraq policy would be better off if Rumsfeld were no longer Secretary of Defense. Some Republican Senators, including John McCain, has long expressed little confidence in Rumsfeld. 

In February 2006,  a Washington Post editorial suggested that Rumsfeld should have already stepped down as Secretary of Defense. 

A possible Rumsfeld resignation stayed in the news in March, at a rare Bush press conference.  Bush acknowledged that tactics in Iraq had to be adjusted but said of resignation, "Listen, every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy."

A late-March report from The Guardian suggested that Rumsfeld was being "singled out" for the "deepening crisis" in Iraq.  

In early April, Secretary of State Rice admitted that there have been "thousands" of "tactical errors" by the US in Iraq.  One assumes she is partially referring to Secretary Rumsfeld. 

In "The war against Rumsfeld", the Chicago Tribune lead editorial of April 19 defended the embattled Defense Secretary and reminded readers that the US had "a referendum a year and a half ago on whether the administration should stay or go and decided it should stay...Rumsfeld should go--if he has lost the confidence of the president or of his own commanders.  There is no evidence on the first count; little if any evidence on the second."

The third general who wants Rumsfeld out is Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who retired in 2002.  He also urged active-duty officers to speak out now if they had doubts about the war.  "I now regret that i did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a county whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--Al Qaeda."  Newbold only decided to go public after "the encouragement of some still in position of military leadership.  The retired Generals feels that "a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake " because it would hurt US credibility in future conflicts.

Among those calling for Rumsfeld to leave in April 2006, in addition to Gen. Paul Eaton, were General Anthony Zinni, former leading of the US Central Command in the late 1990s.  Zinni feels the Secretary of Defense should be held accountable for tactical mistakes.

As of mid-April six former generals called for Rumsfeld resignation.  Maybe the joke of the week should be, "How many former Generals does it take to get Rumsfeld to resign?  The subject was more openly discussed on op-ed pages, including David Ignatius' Post piece on Good Friday. 

In late April Colin Powell told British TV that he made a pre-war push for more troops.  Rumsfeld has said that Generals, including Franks, determined the number, which had been agreed on by he and Bush.  However, Rumsfeld omits the fact that he had been pushing for fewer troops that the Generals originally recommended. 

In early May Rumsfeld was back in the news when he was confronted by protestors at a speech.  He was also directly questioned by former CIA official Ray McGovern.  McGovern asked why Rumsfeld had insisted on "bulletproof evidence" linking Saddam to Al Qaeda.  "Was that a lie, Mr. Rumsfeld, or was that manufactured somewhere else?  Because all of my CIA colleagues disputed that, and so did the 9/11 commission.  Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary."  The Secretary replied, "I haven't lied, I did not lie then."

On the subject of Saddam's WMD, reminding Rumsfeld that he knew where the WMD were:  "We know where they are.  They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."  The Secretary suggested to McGovern that he was only referring to "suspected sites."  

In response to accusations that he lied about prewar intelligence, Rumsfeld replied, "That charge is frequently leveled against the president for one reason or another, and it is so wrong, so unfair and so destructive of a free system where people need to trust each other and government."

Also see "Where are the WMD?"  and "Was the War Inevitable?" FAQs.

On May 11, USA Today broke the story of further NSA spying on the phone records of tens of millions of Americans.  This came within days of the President nominating the NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, being nominated for head of the CIA.  

In June 2006, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi added to the growing chorus on Rumsfeld. "He is the architect behind a failed policy in Iraq. Rumsfeld must go. In calling for his resignation, we should say that this is George Bush's war."

The chorus continued, in ebbs and flows, into the fall of 2006. Vietnam author Stanley Karnow asked in his Post op-ed if Rumsfeld was worse than Robert McNamara.

Rumsfeld was roasted by former Bush supporter, investigative reporter Bob Woodward. In his 2006 State of Denial, Woodward describes the Secretary, according to the Times book reviewer as "utterly contemptuous of other human beings...an obsessive micromanger" who "takes such a pummeling that he eventually becomes a strangely sympathetic character." When Rumsfeld uses a "fruit bowl" metaphor to describe "the administration's varying methodologies for measuring insurgent attacks, Woodward writes: 'I was speechless. Even with the loosest and most careless use of language and analogy, I did not understand how the secretary of defense would compare insurgent attakcs to a 'fruit bowl', a metaphor that stripped them of all urgency and emotion.'"

In the days before the November 7 elections, military newspapers called for Rumsfeld to resign. From a strongly worded editorial in the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Times, and Air Force Times: "Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary it will be the troops who bear its brunt...Donald Rumsfeld must go."

The day after the November 7 elections, Rumsfeld resigned. We aren't sure whether the President "urged" him to resign. The President said they came to "an understanding" about a new direction. Some Pentagon observers are confident that Rumsfeld was fired. Columnist Maureen Dowd hypothesizes that he was "dumped, not because of incompetence but for political expediancy" after the election.

Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, was to replace him at Defense. Gates has criticized the President in the past on Iraq. He vowed to seek advise from moderate Republicans. At his confrimation hearings, Gates worried that failure could ignite "a regional conflgration" It was "too soon to tell," whether the invasion had been a wise decision. For more on Gates, see "US Politics Since November 2006" and his Iraq Study Group.

Reaction to the Rumsfeld resignation shared to election results as the top story of mid-November. David Ignatius' commentary in the Post analyzed his leadership style and relations with Generals.

Reaction from Rumsfeld himself after his resignation, while he had not yet been replaced, was that the war was the right thing to do. However, it "has not been going well enough or fast enough."

It turns out that contrary to the President's public assurances that he would keep on his embattled Defense Secretary, there were plans underway for months to oust him. On source, quoted in Newsweek, believed that Rumsfeld was kept on past the election and not replaced until after Dec. 29 so that he could become the longest serving secretary ever, surpassing McNamara's record of 85 months.

Rumsfeld quotables were re-printed after his resignation. Many are found in other pages of this web site. -- For example, in November 2001: "The idea that you could appease [the terrorists] by stopping doing what we're doing....is just utter nonsense. It's just--it's kind lf like feeding an alligator, hoping it eats you last." -- The next month: "We do know of certain knowledge that [Osama bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."

--February 2002: "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns; the ones we don't know we don't know."
--A month before the war began: "And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
--Just after the war began: "I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."
--In response to a question from troops complaining about equipment: "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have."
-- Finally, at his resignation: "This little-understood, unfamiliar war, the first war of the 21st Centruy--it is not well-known, it was not well-understood, it is complex for people to comprehend."

Rumsfeld's quote about going to war "with the Army you have" led the Times lead editorial of Nov. 19 to speak of "The Army We Need" in an historical manner. "Mr. Rumsfeld didn't like the lessons the Army drew from Vietnam--that politicians should not send American troops to fight a war of choice unless they went in with overwhelming force, a clearly defined purpose and strong domestic backing. He didn't like the Clintonian notion of using the US military to secure and rebuild broken states. And when circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq called for just the things Mr. Rumsfeld didn't like, he refused to adapt, letting the Army , and American interests, pay the price for his arrogance."

The most controversial Defense Secretary since McNamara during Vietnam, as the both conceive of a war then left to others. Abu Ghraib may haunt Rumsfeld for years to come. However, Pentagon assistant Douglas Feith defends Rumsfeld. Feith set up an independent intelligence within the Pentagon, to operative separately from the CIA and give information directly to the White House. His Nov. 12 Post op-ed opens, "Much of what you know about Donald Rumsfeld is wrong." After working intimately with him for four years, Feith is sad that his resignation has become "a casualty of our toxic political climate." Rumsfeld did not ignore advice of military leaders, and did no "push single-mindedly for war in Iraq." He cares for the facts, even if negative. "Bad news never gets better with time," he used to tell those at the Pentagon. "On Iraq, Rumsfeld helped President Bush analyze the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Given Hussein's history--starting war; using chemical weapon against foreign and domestic enemies; and training, financing an otherwise supporting various terrorist--Rumsfeld helped make the case that leaving him in power entailed significant risks." But the Secretary, adds Feith also "warned about the dangers of war--including the perils of a post-Hussein power vacuum" which were "most comprehensive than anything I saw form the CIA, State, or elsewhere. Though we knew that the risks involved in ousting Hussein were high, it hardly means that Bush made the wrong decision to invade. I believe he made the correct call; we had grounds to worry about the threats Hussein posed."

Cheney, who was hired by Rumsfeld during the Ford administration, and a close ally during the Bush administration, had complements as well, declaring that "Don Rumsfeld is the finest secretary of defends the nation has ever had.

Frank Rich sees more changes needed than Rumsfeld. In his weekly Week in Review in the Sunday Times (12/3/06) Rich writes, "Mr. Bush seems to think that the only decision he had to make [after the election] was replacing Don Rumsfeld and the mission of changing course would be accomplished."

For more on the plans to go to war, see the pre-war FAQ "WMD and Al Qaeda"

Rumsfeld's troubles didn't end with his resignation. In the week after he made the announcement, 12 detainees sued the Defense Secretary over abuse. The case, in German courts, involves Abu Ghraib commander Janis Karpinski, offering to testify. (For more on Karpinski, see Abu Ghraib '04). Other defendants charged with war crimes include Justice attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee, General Richardo Sanchez, and Attorney General Gonzalez. The 12 detainees, 11 of whom are Iraqi, assert, according to the Times were subjected to "beatings, sleep deprivation, withholding of food and sexual humiliation." They were eventually released without being charged.

Two days before his resignation Rumsfeld had issued a secret memo, leaked to the Times for its Sunday paper (and TV talk shows) of December 3. Surprisingly, Rumsfeld suggested not staying the course, but offered a score of options and "major adjustments." Our current policies are "not working well enough or fast enough." For more on the memo, see "Will US Troops Come Home?" FAQ

Rumsfeld bid farewell to employees at the Pentagon and secretly flew to military bases in Iraq to say goodbye to the troops. "We feel great urgency to protect the American people from another 9/11 or a 9/11 times tow or three. At the same time, we need to have the patience to see this task through to success. The consequences of failure are unacceptable."

At the Pentagon, he said, "We have invested a whale of a lot in the Afghan situation and the Iraqi situation. And to pull out precipitously and inject that instability into the situation there, in the country and that region, I believe would be a terrible mistake." The outgoing Defense Secretary added, "Today, it should be clear that not only is weakness provocative, but the perception of weakness on our part can be proactive as well...A conclusion by our enemies that the US lacks the will or the resolve to carry out missions that demand sacrifice and demand patience is every bit as dangerous as in imbalance of conventional military power." Perhaps his last quoted words for weeks to come were, "It may well be comforting to some to consider graceful exits from the agonies and, indeed, the ugliness of combat. But the enemy thinks differently."

Maureen Dowd bid farewell to Rumsfeld in "Farewell, Dense Prince" (12/16/06). She looks at the send-off ceremonies describes above and wonders the send-off for one who "hadn't sabotaged the Army, Iraq, global security, our chance to get Osama, our moral credibility, the deficit, and American military confidence.

"One of the worst Secretaries of Defense in history," claimed Sen. John McCain in February of 2007.

"He wasn't a good manager", adds Andrew Cockburn, British journalist. Cockburn's book Rumsfeld is subtitled, His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy. In the March 25 Times Sunday book review the book describes how Rumsfeld "well aware of the contentious relations between the two Bushes, played to the younger man's insecurity, reassuring him that he was imminently suited to be president...Rumsfeld used his father-figure relationship with Bush to rule, rather than simply run, the Pentagon." The Secretary was "an inveterate schemer, skilled at evading responsibility for his decisions."

Another leading pro-war neocon, Paul Wolfowitz resigned as head of the World Bank in spring 2007. The May 18 headline "ended a long fight." This was proceeded by weeks of criticism and speculation about his providing a special favortism job and pay to his girlfriend and not communicating in an open way. The Bank publicly accepted his claim that his mistakes were made in good faith.

Another shoe fell off the foot of the administration in August 2007, when Rove announced his resignation. Karl Rove was the President's closest political adviser since before he was Governor of Texas. Rove still may be forced to testify before Congress.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned on August 27, 2007.

One of many reactions to Gonzolez came from conservative Jonah Goldberg in his Tribune column. "As with Rumsfeld, the Democrats didn't really want Gonzales to leave; they wanted to pull on him like a thread to further unravel the Bush presidency."

There were attempts to arrest Rumsfeld when he visited France in October 2007. The case was brought by groups against torture. About five other countries have attempted to arrest the former Secretary of Defense.