Bush unhappy with Rumsfeld - Is this article real? Or not?

What's odd about this article? Knight Ridder is not carrying it their website (yet it is attributed to them), the only source for this on Google News is the article from Taiwan, and there is no credit for the writer. Is this an example of disinfo from our side? Is it crafted by the Taiwanese? Or is it real?

I would love for it to be real of course. Hmmm....

--------------
Bush reportedly unhappy with Rumsfeld

2003-10-11 / Knight Ridder /

U.S.President Bush's overhaul of his top Iraq strategists reflects deep unhappiness with his national security team - particularly Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld but also Secretary of State Powell, Bush sources told the New York Daily News Thursday.

Bush's displeasure means that neither Powell nor Rumsfeld will keep his job in a second Bush term, the sources said. Powell already has signaled his intent to leave after the 2004 election but Rumsfeld had indicated he wanted to stay on.

"All this does is validate (Bush's belief that) it's time for new blood in a new administration if we're reelected," one official said. "There will be a changeover at Defense and a changeover at State."

Despite official White House denials, Bush's creation of an interagency Iraq Stabilization Group headed by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice is designed in part to halt the intramural turf battles between the Pentagon and State - infighting Bush believes has contributed to flagging public support for the war and its aftermath.

Much of Bush's disappointment is directed at Rumsfeld, who is widely seen within the administration to have been more adept at waging war than peace in Iraq.

"The president feels let down," one well-placed source told the Daily News. "He feels as if Rumsfeld was unwilling to come and get help (for the postwar effort) and thinks his inability to trust anyone other than his immediate subordinates created a serious, ongoing problem in both Afghanistan and Iraq."

Moreover, the source added, "After the war, Rumsfeld wanted to get back to (Pentagon) modernization and transformation and took his eye off the ball."

But the secretary of state comes in for his share of criticism as well.

"Powell has basically absented himself from this situation because he wanted Rumsfeld to fail - and believe me, the president's unhappy about that, too."

SNIP

http://www.etaiwannews.com/World/2003/10/11/1065838658.htm

... Rumsfeld had a little tantrum about it in front of the press the other day.

One thing that's funny about these corporate guys - they can seem completely confident (I'm talking about Rumsfeld), even when they're screwing up royally.

I am more interested in the veracity of the article. Whether it is real or not. I cannot find it on Ridder. That's all. I would love it to be true but just trying not to post something that is not.

the poor innocent victim who had NO idea what was happening, it was those other bad guys. Pretty pathetic attempt to take the focus off Bush.

...picked it up.

the author was interviewed by a couple of talking heads on cable news yesterday.

Thanks. That's what I wanted to know. Who was the author?

...distancing himself from the people he picked is going to work. He's done enough passing the buck...he's got to take responsibility at some point. Back during the election when I would ask Republican friends "How can you vote for this moron?" The answer always was "Oh...but he's surrounding himself with smart people!" Well...I hope they learned that you have to BE smart to make a smart choice!

It's just a question of who.
Powell seemed likely before; Rummy seems
likely now. Someone, besides Bush, has to
fall on their sword so it'll look good
for the BFEE. SOP.