Ha!

Did I call it or did I call it? McClellan's toast. Also, don't expect to see Karl Rove going anywhere. He's working more on "campaign issues" now? Everything in Washington is a campaign issue. He might not stay as visible but Uncle Karl is still going to be looking over George's shoulder.

"I'm the Decider"

This has had me chuckling all freakin' day long. Bush declared, "I'm the decider, and I decide what is best" when it comes to White House personnel issues. Apparently, the national news and wire services are getting a laugh out of it too, because when he spouts a Bushism on the subject of the week's news cycle, it's just too good to pass up.

On a slightly more important note, Bush has been noticeably absent from the role of "decider" with the recent shakeups in the White House staff. The new Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, recently told anyone who was going to leave the staff to do it now, so it didn't appear that they were being forced out later on. The Chief of Staff is the real center of power behind any President (or most- in this case, I think Dick Cheney's the real driving force.)

It occurs to me that the President is perfectly content to have the support personnel in the White House get shuffled around, since the guy really doesn't listen to anyone except his chief advisers anyway, and they aren't going anywhere. There has been great demand for a shakeup at the White House (primarily espoused, actually, by Republican strategists who want to see the President do a better job.) But in all likelihood, any personnel shakeups are just going to be window dressing. I think the worst we could expect would be the departure of Scott McClellan, who is almost universally despised by the White House press corps.

But since the big shots are going to keep running the show, "shakeups" are going to happen on a less-visible level. If I were a mid-level White House functionary, I would not be putting a down payment on anything bigger than a Happy Meal right about now.

The Donald

Has it occurred to anyone what a phenomenally bad job Donald Rumsfeld has to be doing, for his commanders to complain about him?

This was actually brought up in Hersh's New Yorker article that I mentioned a few days ago, buried in one paragraph maybe halfway through. The civilian leadership at the Pentagon, or OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) is pushing very hard to keep tactical nuclear weapons on the table as an option against Iran. And the military leadership in the Pentagon is institutionally opposed to this. As much as some of us on the left think that the military always wants to light off its biggest firecrackers given the chance, those with their fingers on the button (actually a series of keys) are very cautious about even talking about nuclear usage.

This is a connection that I hadn't seen until tonight, when it hit me. The Pentagon leadership is clearly unhappy with Donald Rumsfeld, who is pushing nuclear first use (a highly aggressive doctrine in the world of strategic policy) against Iran in "contingency plans." The Joint Chiefs have actually discussed a public dissent against the OSD (all deniable, of course.)

And now a chorus of Pentagon officials (all recently departed) speak out about how Donald Rumsfeld is doing a bad job? Maybe these two things aren't a coincidence. The war planning against Iran is clearly kicking into high gear, and there are serious concerns in the military about its course (and the ways it might be fought.) Maybe these anti-Rumsfeld voices might have been pushed by current Pentagon brass to try to weaken him, interfering with Rumsfeld's ability to plan a nuclear attack.

It definitely got me thinking.