Why in-fighting is losing Iraq and could cost Rumsfeld his job

[Bossy Monkey]

from the (Glasgow) Sunday Herald

US casualties following the war in Iraq haven’t been limited to its troops. Washington is awash with rumours that Bush is about to launch another pre-emptive strike before the 2004 election – this time at his own national security team.
Condoleezza Rice’s appointment to head the Iraq Stabilisation Group – which takes over day-to-day control of the reconstruction of Iraq from the Pentagon – wasn’t just a promotion for the woman whom Washington insiders widely believe will succeed Colin Powell as secretary of state in a second Bush administration.

It is now virtually certain that, should Bush win the 2004 election, Donald Rumsfeld will not serve as secretary of defence. In fact there is a growing belief in Washington that Rumsfeld, whose political fortunes have plummeted in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, could even step aside before 2004.

Veteran Republicans observe that there are precious few similarities between this Bush administration and the last one, other than a gradual erosion of the groundswell of support both presidents built up after launching offensives against Iraq.

(more more more)
http://www.sundayherald.com/37404

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Rummy will go down

[Zech Marquis]

2. no, he SHOULD be

arrested and frog marched to the Hague, along with all of his buddied who came up with this shit in the first place :argh: I'd say throw'em all in the paddy wagon!

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. ____ "losing Iraq " ??? - NOT Quite Right ! ! !

. . .They never HAD Iraq !

Tearing down a bunch of pictures and statues

And one huge "Mission Accomplished" banner at a Photo-Op

Does NOT a victory make

Just My Humble Canuk Opinion

[candy331]

4. If Rumsfeld is going down then why

are they proclaiming all the so called good things that are supposedly happening in Iraq? Could this be Bush propaganda? LOL

[jrthin]

5. ConcernedCanuk, brillantly stated.

nt

[bahrbearian]

6. Replace Dumb with Dumber !

[calimary]

8. Boy, you got that right! CONdi's track record doesn't exactly

say nice things about her. She's dropped the ball seriouisly, at least three - on 9/11, the agression/invasion/occupation run-up, and the CIA stuff. She's liable to screw this up like she's screwed up everything else she's touched, so far.

[leesa]

7. We are 'losing' Iraq because we were morally and legally wrong

to invade this defenseless country and the Iraqis and the world are against us.

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. ____I agree - sort of

, , , , BUT

I'll repeat my earlier post (#3)

. . .They never HAD Iraq !

Tearing down a bunch of pictures and statues

And one huge "Mission Accomplished" banner at a Photo-Op

Does NOT a victory make

Just My Humble Canuk Opinion

[OneBlueSky]

10. hell, he's already got one foot out the door . . .

and in Halliburton's checkbook . . . if he goes, he'll just smoothly transition right back to his former employer . . . no doubt with a BIG bonus to boot . . . rough life these guys lead, huh? . . . all while doing their best to screw the rest of us . . . there oughta be a law . . . (oh wait . . . there is . . .)

[cliss]

11. So what's the next country

they're planning to blast? I'm wondering about the timing of this next military adventure, if there is one. There are 12 months until the next election. This seems like political suicide to me.

They can't possibly believe they're going to bomb another country, get the troops in (from where?), get things settled down,

UNLESS they're planning to be in the middle of a war, so we can't switch presidents.... any thoughts?

[Nottingham]

12. I agree Rumsfeld is definitely on the Hit List!

:bounce: He has practically destroyed the morale of the Army