BS: Cheney To Resign Soon

Subject: BS: Cheney To Resign Soon
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 07:18 AM

Several Mudcatters have already suggested that Cheney should resign. Fascinating column in the Wall St Journal 16 Feb 2006--by Peggy Noonan--on that idea.

I don't have overmuch respect for Peggy Noonan, with her credentials as #1 Reagan hagiographer. But what she says here makes sense to me. Curious to know what you think.

The logic goes: Bush realizes that his entire "legacy", if he has one, is bound up with Iraq. Cheney has said he will not run in 2008. Cheney is already a lightning rod for the Left--"hate" is not too strong a term. His negatives are sky-high. Now he adds imcompetence to them--through the "hunting" debacle. A sitting vice president has a lot of clout with Republicans if he chooses to run for president. It's unclear if all of the potential Republican candidates for president in 2008 would pursue Bush's Iraq course. Bush would like to assure that the one picked does in fact do this.

If Cheney now, or very soon resigns, a VP who supports Bush's Iraq policy could possibly be found--without Cheney's other negatives. If that person is VP for over 2 years, he has possibly the inside track for the nomination--possibly avoiding a lot of internecine warfare before the nomination-- which is embittering and very expensive, in all sorts of ways---look what happened to the Democrats in 2004 when Kerry and Dean fought it out.

Problems--of course there are.

Top problem, I'd say, is that there may well not be much of Bush's Iraq "policy" to salvage--sooner rather than later. Not even the Kurds and Shiites are getting along--the Kurds are insisting that the Article 136 of the constitution the one dealing with oil-rich Kirkuk be carried out. This means a census there, followed by a referendum on whether it should be part of Kurdistan. "The Kurdish Coalition has no demands except those which are known by everyone regarding the need to implement Article 136 of the constitution...concerning Kirkuk"--a statement released by Talabani's office said.

The Shiites don't like this. And the Sunnis, of course, are insisting on vast changes to the constitution. Prospect of change to the constitution was what enticed them into voting in large numbers in December, as I noted then. If they don't get their amendments, they may well start supporting the insurgency in greater numbers.

The second large problem is--who would this strong figure be in the Republican party-who would unite the others behind his (or her?) candidacy, without mightily annoying those who didn't get the nod? Noonan doesn't deal with specific names.

But removing Cheney from the scene, soon, would make this scenario at least remotely possible.

Thoughts?