US President George W. Bush sacrificed his right-hand man in the Iraq War, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as his administration scrambled on Wednesday to find its feet after a bruising election defeat that brought the Democrats to power in Congress.
Only days after saying Rumsfeld would stay until the end of the Bush administration in 2009, the president accepted the resignation of the man who had become synonymous with the Iraq War, the broader "war on terror" and the neo-conservative project to pacify the Middle East. Former CIA director Robert Gates will be the new defense secretary, Bush said.
Bush admitted that his party had received "a thumping" in Tuesday's elections. Democrats won the House of Representatives with a net gain of about 30 seats.
"I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made" in Iraq, he said at a news conference at the White House. "Yet I also believe most Americans -- and leaders here in Washington from both political parties -- understand we cannot accept defeat."
The future of the Senate remained uncertain on Wednesday. The Democrats controlled 50 seats, after a tight race in Montana was declared in their favor. The Republicans controlled 49.
The last Senate seat, in Virginia, was still undecided as poll workers counted absentee and provisional ballots watched by lawyers. Democratic candidate James Webb held a narrow lead over Republican incumbent George Allen.
The election broke the Republican monopoly of power in Washington which has lasted for most of Bush's presidency, apart from an 18-month spell when the Democrats held a one-vote majority in the Senate. The Democrats have not held the House for 12 years.
Bush pledged to work together with the Democrats in Congress, and is due to have lunch today with House speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco congresswoman who, when sworn in, will be second in line in presidential succession after Vice President Dick Cheney.
A few days before Tuesday's vote Pelosi described the president as "incompetent," "dangerous" and "in denial." Bush said he accepted that such language was all part of the campaigning and pointed out he had been in tough contests before.
"This isn't my first rodeo," he said.
Pelosi also promised to try to bring "civility and bipartisanship" to Washington, but said the Democratic gains on Tuesday reflected a deep desire among Americans for change, particularly in Iraq.
"It will give a fresh start to finding a solution to Iraq, rather than staying the course," Pelosi said.
It was unclear yesterday how much of a change of course in Iraq Rumsfeld's departure indicated. Bush has said he was open to the suggestions of a bipartisan panel, the Iraq Study Group, of which Gates is a member, which is due to make recommendations in a few weeks.
Bush said that he, like the Democrats, wanted the troops to come home, but he wanted them "to come home to victory."
Daniel Goure, a Pentagon adviser and a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Washington, said the choice of Gates suggested that Bush was not prepared to make a significant change of direction.
"The more things change the more they remain the same," Goure said. "Bob Gates is the second to last person I would expect to be chosen. He has no military experience but the point is he will not cross the president and vice-president."
Days before Tuesday's vote, Bush denied any plans to dispense with Rumsfeld, saying he was doing "a fantastic job." Yesterday he argued he had not wanted "to inject such a major decision into the last days of the campaign."
He said he had made the decision "after a series of thoughtful conversations" with Rumsfeld, and a meeting with Gates at his Crawford ranch on Sunday.
Rumsfeld had offered his resignation before, in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in 2003, but the president turned it down. At yesterday's press conference, Bush was asked whether he had full confidence in Cheney and whether the vice president would stay on.
"Yes he does, yes he will," the president replied.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past