When It's All Said and Done

Well, I guess the nation is supposed to be headed in a new direction, now. I'm thinking Nancy Pelosi is just experiencing some sort of euphoric power rush. This nation is headed in the exact same direction it was headed before the elections. Just to clarify, the Democrats took the house, the Senate was still up for grabs over Virginia, Donald Rumsfeld is resigning, and according to CNN, President Bush acknowledges responsibility for the election results. I'm thinking the democrats will have their hands full, as I don't really expect gridlock. President Bush seems to know how to deal with dissatisfied voters and outspoken politicians. He appears to do what he chooses and then just say, Yeah, I did it, I'm the President. My thoughts on this matter are this. While Nancy Pelosi is consumed by being the first woman speaker of the house, and the Virginia Senate race gets counted, and President Bush says, "I dun it" or "Mission Accomplished" or 'Let's Talk Texan,' I'm thinking something else is going on. What did he mean by taking responsibility for the election results? Didn't his party know how detrimental it was to be in his party, at this point? Donald Rumsfeld's resignation is just interesting. Now the president says, it's been in the works for awhile, but he didn't want to make this resignation an issue before the election. Why? Since the Iraq war was a major issue in this mid-term election, why wouldn't the Republican President allow a resignation by Mr. Rumsfeld before the elections, to garner votes for a change? Since CHANGE was every plank of every democrat's 2006 platform! What was he really thinking, since this fact either escaped him or wouldn't suit his purpose? Donald Rumsfeld has quite a history in American politics. He held this same position in President Ford's administration. He had a political position through the Reagan years and the years of George the First, H. W. I've been wondering something about his "tenure" though. If Mr. Rumsfeld was around through the Iran / Iraq conflict and then on into the first Gulf War era, why didn't somebody recommend that we move on into Baghdad in 1991? According to US history and the recent trial of Saddam Hussein, all of these atrocities had already been committed and were known to have been committed by 1988, so why didn't we do something through the first Gulf War? When Mr. Reagan answered to a shocked nation through the Iran / Contra hearings, was the focus on Oliver North just a distraction? Mr. Reagan very clearly stated that the Vice President knew about this Iran deal and Iran and Iraq were in a conflict from 1980 to 1988. So why now? Why a mockery of a trial in the new "democracy" of Iraq? Why another war? Why a resignation "the day after" because we need change, when change might have retained the party's power? Does Mr. Rumsfeld have a position on the board of some techno-power company, awaiting him, like so many of the rest of the 'resignees' of the Bush administration?

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass . . .