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.
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.
%%%%%%
Needs repeating!
Since this reporter brought 2 soldiers from a unit that was busy preparing to move into Iraq, he most likely shopped around to find the 2 with the best "ability" to speak up to the Secretary of Defense.
Also, being in an armored vehicle was a priority for this reporter - not necessarily for the mission of the actual unit. (I have not read what their mission was.)
Read a few dozen responses...see the tone and the underlying theme of 'how could they do this to Rumsfeld'.
Seems more people are upset with the question itself than with the reason it had to be asked. From the reports I've read, the question resounded with the troops.
I also read a lot of disgust with the troops for asking for more...hey, they guys in the Revolution/Civil War/WWI/WWII/Korea all had to go without, so you guys should tough it out and quit complaining.
Hey, it was an open forum. If leaders don't want to answer tough questions, don't invite them.