Rummy Agonistes?

Laura Rozen asks "Has Bush called some people to inquire if they would be willing to replace Rumsfeld? In the past ten days?".
This after Sy Hersh's article where he wrote:

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. The U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said that "“there was a feeling that Rumsfeld was jaded in his approach to the Israeli war."” He added, "“Air power and the use of a few Special Forces had worked in Afghanistan, and he tried to do it again in Iraq. It was the same idea, but it didn't work. He thought that Hezbollah was too dug in and the Israeli attack plan would not work, and the last thing he wanted was another war on his shift that would put the American forces in Iraq in greater jeopardy."

There's a lot more about Rumsfeld there, it might be a good time to review it.

In any case, if what Laura says is true, there could be other factors involved, one being the situation in Iraq, and especially in Baghdad. Surely one of the few effective things we've done in Iraq is to make sure that it is practically impossible to know what is going on, but I think there is a breakdown in security in Baghdad that goes beyond the sectarian violence, and is starting to get people really worried about the Green Zone. Thinking this way, that might the real reason for the reinforcements by the Stryker brigade and operation 'Together Forward'.
If the disaster in Iraq starts to show up in the media again, it might be necessary to sacrifice someone, and who better than the Secretary of Defense?