That's politics!

WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 (UPI) -- Be on your guard.

The attack by a suicide bomber on a U.S. military dining tent in Mosul is the latest addition to the growing list of public-relations nightmares for the Bush administration where Iraq is concerned. The killing of 22 people, including 18 Americans, in what was supposed to be a safe -- as such things go -- place comes at a time when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is fending off charges that he is callously indifferent to the plight of U.S. military personnel in the Gulf region.

Before the Mosul attack came the revelation that Rumsfeld did not personally sign the condolence letters sent to the families of service members killed while serving their country as well as the debate -- prompted by a question planted by a Tennessee reporter among troops with whom the SecDef meet in Kuwait -- over why the administration had not done more to armor the Humvees the troops were given to drive through dangerous places. Even though the premise of the question was itself in error -- the Defense Department has been arming the Humvees as fast as it can and most of those in the unit of the solider who asked the question had already been armored -- it led to more black eyes for the Bush administration.

Working backward further still is the matter of U.S. service members -- including National Guardsmen -- who are being redeployed to the region for a second time or who are having their postings extended in order to keep troop levels where the Pentagon believes they must be prior to the Iraqi election at the end of January.

In the context of U.S. politics, it would seem the president -- who remains steady on course toward the Iraqi election -- is somewhat insulated from the consequences since he will never again face the voters. The same is not true for his GOP congressional colleagues, many of whom will be running for re-election in 2006, and who are concerned that the whole business -- particularly the issues involving the National Guardsmen -- may end up an albatross around their necks as the campaign season commences.

It is also a matter for U.S. presidential politics for 2008. Two of the most vocal critics of the conduct of the war -- Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- are on just about every list of Republicans who might throw their hats in the ring. Their latest huffing and puffing about Donald Rumsfeld may be another step down the road to becoming the Republican "peace" candidate.

But there are also implications on the Democrat side of the aisle. Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the party's 1988 presidential nominee, helped burnish his liberal foreign-policy credentials by reminding party activists that he had stood up to the Reagan administration's Central America policy by announcing his intention to fight the federalization of the Massachusetts National Guard for service in the region. He lost that fight, but that doesn't mean it can't be fought again -- which has some people wondering if any of the Democratic governors who are presidential wannabes might try to fight the administration on the issue of sending guard units to the region or keeping them past their expected date of return. Even if the challenge ultimately failed, it would give the governor who tried it a valuable political chit that could be played to some effectiveness during the nomination fight.

An indication of intelligence.

Senate leaders have done some monkeying around with the makeup of the Senate Intelligence Committee, shirking the panel by a few members and altering its responsibilities just a bit. As part of the changes, the seat held by retiring Sen. John B. Edwards, D-N.C., will be eliminated. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the party's newly elected whip, will be getting off the committee and will be replaced, Senate Democrats say, by Sen. Jon Corzine of New Jersey.

Corzine's selection is an interesting one, since he has already said he will be a candidate for governor in the next election -- which occurs in November 2005, mid-way through the 109th Congress. If he wins, he would have to resign his Senate seat, leaving more than one person wondering why such a prime spot on such an important committee would go to a senator who might only be sitting in it for one year.

Rick-y business.

Someone is working pretty hard to drive a wedge between Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and his party's conservative base. Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate leadership, has been on the receiving end of pretty stiff criticism for backing bona fide liberal and fellow Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter over the much more conservative Rep. Pat Toomey in the 2004 GOP Senate primary.

Santorum has also been pinched for backing Specter's ascension to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Specter's pro-abortion-rights position is a cause for concern among activists who want to see the confirmation of Bush judicial nominees speeded up. Santorum is generally considered a reliable, even strong conservative and, because he is both Roman Catholic and from the nation's fourth-largest state, is a potential presidential candidate several cycles down the road or -- for 2008 -- a very attractive option for the No. 2 spot on the party's national ticket. Yet some of those folks who would be thought of as most enthusiastic about his possible rise seem to be doing some of the loudest sniping -- which has led more than one GOP political insider to wonder if the source of the discordance might be another GOPer with 2008 presidential or vice presidential aspiration and an ideological pedigree and following similar to Santorum's who is trying to take out the competition.

--

(That's Politics! looks at the inner workings of the U.S. political process and is written by UPI's Peter Roff, a 20-year veteran of the Washington scene.)

--

(Please send comments to nationaldesk@upi.com.)