George W. Bush, Sep 20, 2001:

Either you are with us, or you are withl the terrorists.

Doing a bit of Kremlinology I come to the conclusion that Rumsfeld will be fired as soon as somebody else is found to take the job.

It took more than a year to find anyone willing to take the job of Secretary of Treasury John W. Snow, so it may well take a while a find a replacement for Rumsfeld.

But the case here is much more urgent than the Snow replacement ever was.

Rumsfeld is a political liability for the current administration AND he now did get into the way of the neocon’s plans.

Those Republican politicians who will have to fight to get reelected need him to leave immediately. The neocon warmongers need him to get out of the way in time for the next cakewalk. But those two timelines differ and that ensures a conflict within the administration.

Karl Rove knows that Rumsfeld is a huge problem in the path of keeping a majority in both Congress chambers. He let other people know that Rummy has to be fired and he did ask his selection for the next presidential election, McCain, to take care of the issue.

Yes, this is speculative, but follow me along the trail:

Seymore Hersh, Aug 14, 2006 in The New Yorker:

Some current and former intelligence officials who were interviewed for this article believe that Rumsfeld disagrees with Bush and Cheney about the American role in the war between Israel and Hezbollah.
[…]
A Western diplomat said that he understood that Rumsfeld did not know all the intricacies of the war plan. “He is angry and worried about his troops” in Iraq, the diplomat said.
[…]
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on August 3rd, Rumsfeld was less than enthusiastic about the war’s implications for the American troops in Iraq.

Seymore Hersh, Aug 14, 2006 on Democracy Now:

Well, what’s interesting about Rumsfeld, because for the first time — and not everybody agreed, but people that — you know, I’m long of tooth, Amy, and I’ve been around this town a long time, and obviously, since 9/11, a lot of people talk to me. And for the first time, Rummy doesn’t seem to be on board, is what I’m hearing.
[…]
Rumsfeld is very concerned about the 150,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, who are potentially in a very untenable position. There’s no question Iraq’s lost. There’s a lot of question about what we’re doing in Afghanistan. We’re sort of 0-for-2 in those two. And so, Rumsfeld was not happy about this policy, about going in in a protracted war in Southern Lebanon with Nasrallah
[…]
[T]o get back to Rumsfeld, there’s no question that Iran has enormous influence inside Iraq, dominated now by the Shia, Shia Iran, and I think Rumsfeld’s concern, I was told, is that a protracted war against Nasrallah will only cause the Iranians, in support of Hezbollah, to start squeezing our troops in Iraq.

Laura Rozen, Aug 18, 2006:

Has Bush called some people to inquire if they would be willing to replace Rumsfeld? In the past ten days?

Laura Rozen, Aug 22, 2006:

Bush has put out a quiet feeler to replace Rumsfeld in recent weeks. He was politely turned down by at least one candidate he personally called. Unknown: is this one of many candidates Bush has sounded out?

Laura Rozen, Aug 22, 2006:

Reading the transcript of President Bush’s press conference yesterday, which was heavily focused on promoting staying in Iraq, even while acknowledging the strain to the American psyche of the task, it’s interesting who he does not once mention. […] But he does not once mention Rumsfeld or refer to him. Is that a random omission, or notable, that he doesn’t once mention the cabinet secretary charged with running the war when talking about the war?

McCain, Aug 21, 2006 Bloomberg via LA Times:

McCain repeated his criticism of President Bush for using too few troops in Iraq and his lack of confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Yet McCain said he remained confident of Bush’s ability to handle the Iraq war and called for a greater U.S. military commitment, rather than a troop withdrawal, in the face of warnings that Iraq could be sliding toward civil war. "We cannot lose this," McCain said. "It will cause chaos in Iraq and in the region."

McCain, Aug 20, 2006 in Meet The Press

SEN. McCAIN:  [..] I’ve had strong differences with Secretary Rumsfeld on this issue and other aspects of the war. The, the, the standing down of the Army, rather than hiring them. The, the failure to do a series of measures which were important as part of our effort to control Iraq.
[…]
MR. GREGORY: Do you think Secretary Rumsfeld should keep his job?

SEN. McCAIN: That’s up to the president of the United States. The president picks his team and the president—as long as the president has confidence in him, then he’ll keep that team.

MR. GREGORY: Even at this stage of the war, you think, you still stick to that position that it’s up to the president?

SEN. McCAIN: Because elections have consequences. The president has the right to pick his team. I’ve been asked a number of times if I had confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld and the answer is no.

MR. GREGORY: But you still think he should stay in place if the president wants him.

SEN. McCAIN: I think the president should pick his team and I will support the president’s selections.

Journalist John Harwood Aug 21, 2006 in Meet The Press

MR. HARWOOD: And, David, that’s where the domestic politics is going to go in the near term. I talked to a top Democrat strategist yesterday who said, “What we’re going to do in the fall is try to focus on accountability questions on Rumsfeld, try to look at some way of pressuring the administration and Republicans in Congress on Rumsfeld.” And when that happens, you will have a moment when Republican candidates may have to choose, are they going to stick with the administration or are they going to try to go along with Democrats on some resolution, for example, calling for the president to replace Rumsfeld as a way of showing daylight between themselves and the Bush administration.

This looks like Rummy finally did get a bit of a lesson from his Generals and does now does see the consequences of risking the troops in Iraq. But as more he is developing some kind of lobotomized conscience the less valuable he gets for the next round of bombing the Middle East into something New.

This while he is the perfect negative figure the democrats can use that does not have a preeminent positive presidential aura.

The neocons would prefer Lieberman as a candidate for Rumsfelds position. But Lieberman first has to win or lose the election in Connecticut  before he is available.

That is too long a wait for those republican candidates who have to win their race on the same date.

So this may well turn out to be a struggle between the neocons, Cheney essentially, and the more political minded, i.e. Rove. That is going to be a quite interesting fight.

So who will be Rumsfeld replacement and when will that change of command be announced?