After reading many responses it seems that many Freepers are more interested in protecting Rumsfeld than the troops.
Eagle Eye,
With all due respect, the real issue here is not protecting Rumsfeld or sticking up for the troops.
The real issue is an embedded leftist reporter with an agenda and desire for money and fame slinking around, whispering in guys ears and manipulating a situation detrimental to the cohesiveness and well being of an active duty unit in a war zone.
That's what has people pissed off, including me. If the soldier is a patsy, we can forgive him for that, but by his ex-wife's account, the guy is a loudmouth and probably needs extra attention by his superiors to make sure he is contained and on a leash. There are people like that in every unit, it is a fact of life. What we don't need is a stinking reporter egging him on.
I am interested in protecting the troops, but if anyone believes this reporter gives a rat's rear end about protecting our troops, I have a bridge to sell you. Rumsfield opening himself up for questions - I give him credit for that, and I believe it's a legitimate issue raised. And I don't fault the Guardsman for asking the question - it's how he asked it I have a problem with - the disrepect he showed - and it's that disrespect the media loves.
The media and the terrorists have less than two months to derail the elections in Iraq and that is what this is about - undermining the war effort - period. The guardsman allowed himself to be used so the reporter could have a "gotcha moment" against Rumsfield. I haven't read all the 1000 replies before mine, but if in the end our troops are more protected, then that is the bottom line and will be a good thing. The bad thing is how this was carried out as it seems to me, we have just emphasized even more to our enemies what our weaknesses are and this might even endanger our troops more and it may create the impression of dissension in our troops against Rumsfield and against the war, which might embolden our enemies more.
But then isn't that really what the reporter wants anyway, and if that sounds a bit cynical, well, just look how the media relishes reporting deaths of our troops. Our media is our enemy, and they aren't even trying to hide it anymore as they've given us plenty of reason to question their motives and agenda. And whether to undermine our war effort and aid and abet our enemy - or whether purely for self-serving reasons - the reporter's damage has been done - but if in the end this helps our troops to be more protected, then that is what matters most. But the way this has gone down was intended, by the reporter, to undermine Rumsfield and undermine our war effort. But, in the end, this just might backfire on the reporter as hopefully our troops will become more protected, which will help the war effort by maybe helping the morale of the troops and by reducing troop casualties.
The law of unintended consequences, Mr. Reporter - careful what you wish for.
That means your comprehension skills need tweaking.
And you come across, though I'm sure it's unintentional, as an apologist for the fourth estate.
What I hear in response to this entire situation is a lot of frustration - frustration that once again,the media is trying to undermine our war efforts, thus endangering the troops more. As we are finding out today, evidently the good reporter, who had supposedly been working on this story forever, failed to discover, or failed to report, that this problem has been being addressed for a long time. He wanted to leave the impression that nothing has been done on this and that Rumsfield doesn't care about our troops, blah blah blah. The reporter had an agenda, and it was not to help the troops, and that is what I believe is behind of lot of the anger and frustration you are hearing.