Most political efforts try to maintain the status quo, to re-balance, and continue. Even a change of personnel is not the same thing as a change of policy, still less a change of social system of exploitation.
However the BBC reports this morning that the Army Times, widely available on the bases, is complaining that US soldiers are saying why should they take the blame if people at the top do not resign? The Guardian reports that senior US military are expressing lack of confidence in Rumsfeld. And the BBC reports that George Bush has said he will personally view the sadistic pornographic images. I doubt if he has the strength of personality and psychological insight to sit through all this without being profoundly disturbed. This may just be the moment when if Rumsfeld loyally places his resignation on the table Bush runs out of reasons to persuade him not to. So why should Rumsfeld lay his resignation loyally on the table? Particularly perhaps if this crisis has set up reverberations among the neo-cons, and someone like Wolfowitz decides it is in their interests to go rather than to hang on for worse catastrophes eg that ironically Colin Powell is the best guarantee against the *total* collapse of the neo-con project in the near and middle east. Chris Burford
