by Wolfmoon Lady » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:59 pm
Yes, I've seen speculations about Lieberman replacing Rumsfeld since last year. Lieberman was just on Face the Nation <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/20/politics/main1913999.shtml" target="top">calling for Rumsfeld's resignation</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->. Ultimately, Lieberman might be making noise about removing Rumsfeld to appeal to the as-yet-undecided CT Dem voters, by appearing to distance himself from BushCo.<br><br>OTOH, Bush needs to shake things up in order to make it seem like he's actually doing something in Iraq. Replacing Rumsfeld with Lieberman would be a strategic, seemingly bi-partisan move for BushCo. I'd say Harry Reid and other establishment Dems are hedging their bets IN CASE this happens. <br><br>FWIW, here are Andrew Sullivan's and WAPO's opinions on this subject:<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/the_lieberman_q.html" target="top">The Lieberman Question</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br>Andrew Sullivan<br>02 Aug 2006 11:03 a<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>My guess is that [Lieberman] still lobbying hard to replace Rumsfeld later this year and, by all accounts, probably will. Any replacement for Rumsfeld can only help us win this war, and Lieberman's ethical compass, unlike Rumsfeld's, would perhaps mitigate some of the depravity enabled by Captain Queeg.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301238.html" target="top">Replace Rumsfeld</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br>By David Ignatius<br>Friday, April 14, 2006; Page A17<br>Washington Post<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Rumsfeld should resign because the Bush administration is losing the war on the home front.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won't be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force, reduced to squabbling with the secretary of state about whether "tactical errors" were made in the war's conduct.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>The Bush administration has rightly been insisting that the Iraqis put unity first and that in forming a permanent government they remove ineffectual and divisive leaders and replace them with people who can pull the country together. The administration should heed its own advice. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>America needs leadership that can speak to the whole country, not just the people who already agree with the president.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Rumsfeld's replacement should be someone who can help restore a bipartisan consensus for a sensible Iraq policy. One obvious candidate would be the centrist Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Another would be a centrist Republican with military experience, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel or Sen. John McCain. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The administration would have to swallow its pride to take any of them on board, but that's the point: Without bold moves from the White House, support for the war will continue to slip away.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>