Rummy out, Joementum in?

December 8, 2005

According to the New York Daily News’ Thomas DeFrank, there might be a very interesting shake-up at the Pentagon within the next month or so.

White House officials are telling associates they expect Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to quit early next year, once a new government is formed in Iraq, sources said yesterday.

Rumsfeld’s deputy, Gordon England, is the inside contender to replace him, but there’s also speculation that Sen. Joe Lieberman — a Democrat who ran against Bush-Cheney in the 2000 election — might become top guy at the Pentagon. […]

The Daily News has learned that the White House considered Lieberman for the UN ambassador’s job last year before giving the post to John Bolton, a Bush adviser said.

“He thought about it for a week or so and finally said no,” the adviser recalled.

It’s hard to know where to start with these rumors, but in the end, talk about Lieberman replacing Rumsfeld continues to shift from baseless speculation to genuine possibility.

And what’s behind the delay in forcing Rumsfeld out the door?

A source close to the White House said Rumsfeld wanted out a year ago, after Bush’s reelection, but neither he nor President Bush wanted his departure to appear to have been forced.

“They didn’t want to give the critics the satisfaction that their piling on was what got rid of him,” a Bush adviser said.

Yes, the president is apparently willing to keep an incompetent Secretary of Defense around, during a war, just to spite his critics. It seems hard to believe that Bush would allow Rumsfeld to run the Pentagon for more than a year just to save face … oh wait, that’s not hard to believe at all.

Leiberman sucks! kick him out of the democratic party

  • I imagine it is to much to expect that Lieberman will be grilled at his confirmation hearing on some of the nonsense he has bought into on Iraq, and that instead it will be an old boy lovefest.

  • Rummy out has to be good. But Lieberman? Only if he has not desire to be elected to office ever again.

    I have had my problems with Lieberman but for him to take it would just be stupid.

  • Hasn’t Rumsfeld tried to resign before only to have his resignation denied by Bush?

    Also, I’m guessing the GOP love to have Lieberman along for the votes, but when it comes to filling a cabinet position, I’m betting several will have greivances to air.

    Mabye Lieberman officially switches parties early in the year?

  • Why would anyone want the job of Secretary of Defense now? Especially a Democrat? They’ll make a pinata out of him.

  • This could be an astute move for the Administration. In the short term, it allows them to appear bipartisan, and it allows Rumsfeld to leave without being fired. In the long term, Lieberman will make a suitable scapegoat if required.

  • Say Lieberman takes the job. He will surely be have little effect on the way the war is being prosecuted vs. Rumsfeld’s approach. And come ’08 he’s out… And I mean out of Washington for good…

    Let him have it.

  • What are the replacement rules in CT? Does the governor get to make the replacement pick? Or is there an election? If the former, isn’t the governor a republican? This could be a doubly shitty move if it occurs. Anyone know?

  • bubba, I read earlier in the week that the repub governor would appoint the replacement. Would Lieberman be so disloyal to the party and, particularly, his democratic constituents who elected him? And what are his qualifications anyway?

  • smiley, that’s what I thought–from hearing that back in the 2000 election. And I am sure your first question is rhetorical….

  • Lieberman is up for reelection in 2006, right? If so, his replacement, picked by a GOP governor, would be easier to beat in 2006 than Lieberman would. This may be a good thing. We get rid of Lieberman in the Senate with a solid chance of replacing him with an actual liberal.

  • I just reread the comments, including my own, and realized that my post didn’t quite come out sounding kosher.

    So allow me to add a line or two:

    Hiring a Jewish man to prosecute the war in Arabia right now would not be savvy. The world is too much on a hard edge. Such a choice would be nearly as insensate as chosing the evangelical General Boykin.

    Yes I realize I am discriminating.

    But if I inherited this presidency today I would in fact discriminate in this manner.

    And yes this is an interesting moral dilemma.
    At least it is for those of us who are neither Christian, Muslim, or Jew.

  • Smiley,

    I’ll also assume your first question is rhetorical as well.

    He does have the most impeccable qualifications for the Defense post, at least as far as this administration is concerned: He’s proven to be a willing and loyal shill for Bush. Nothing else matters.

  • Actually, my question was not meant to be rhetorical. However, I can certainly see why it seemed so. I just don’t see what’s in it for him, unless he thinks he could get a position in a subsequent republican administration. He has a good chance to spend the rest of his career in the Senate (though Wieker might have something to say about that). Why throw it all away for 3 years as SECDEF (unless he sees the writing on the wall vis a vis Wieker)? He views himself a moral man. I’ll bet he says he can’t do it if asked because of his responsibility to his constituents.

  • Bush doesn’t consider Rumsfeld incompetent so saying that Bush kept an incompetent SecDef just to spite his critics is just silly.

    The Lieberman speculation is also pretty far-fetched. What’s in it for Bush to elevate a Dem to SecDef? Nothing, that’s what. It only improves Lieberman’s profile for 2008 if he wants to run for president again. Why would a Republican give a Dem a boost like that? It doesn’t make any sense.

  • Those of you saying that it wouldn’t be a wise thing to have a Jew prosecuting the war on Iraq I remind you that Rumsfeld is a Jew. Neo-cons are typically Jewish.

    • Comments are closed.