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.
I haven't read all the repsonses, but the leftist reporter was crowing about his little ruse to try to embarass Rumsfeld.
I have no problem with a soldier asking the Sec. Of Defense a question, even a hard hitting one.
I do have a problem with that soldier being coached by a reporter with an agenda, and that agenda, IMO, is to defeat American objectives.
To bad Senator Kerry didn't join Sec.Rumsfeld. Someone could have asked why he voted against the 87 billion.
Again, it is fine that the question was asked, but why do you say it "had to be"? From *the answer* and *the facts* it is an issue Rumsfeld and the DoD and the generals were aware of and have been in the process of addressing.
By framing it as "it had to be asked", you imply "or else it would be ignored" and that is the problem many of us had with the way the topic is being handled.
You're missing the point. This is a unit integrity issue.