Replies

One of my main problems with Mr. Rumsfeld:
In the first days of World War II, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall tried desperately to personally write letters of condolences to the loved ones of fallen soldiers but, alas, he couldn't because there were just too many of them. However, he signed as many of those letters as he could. In one respect, we're really lucky in that we currently only are losing two or, perhaps on bad days, three a day in Iraq; there were even less lossed in the fighting a year ago. But, if you'll remember back about a year ago, there was information out of the Pentagon that Rumsfeld was autopenning the letters out to the fallen (IOW, he wasn't even looking at them to sign--somebody else, probably some low-grade enlisted, was signing his name to the ones that the SECDEF's public affairs staff put out). Rumsfeld couldn't even bring himself to personally write one or two letters of condolences a day to the men and women giving their lives for our freedoms. That fact burned me up then and still does today.
President Bush, to his credit, is loyal to his people as evidenced by his refusal to ask for Rummy's resignation. He is loyal to the point of being recalcitrant.
But Rumsfeld loyalty to the soldiers is not evidenced by autopenning letters, IMHO...So, tell me, what is it about him to be so endearing? All I see is a man who can lose a war and also an election for Republicans!

I agree with you; but Bush couldn't get a new Sec-Def past the Senate now so I guess its Rummy till the end.

You're forgetting that Rumsfield won two wars quicker than anyone thought possible.

Other than that missing fact, you information and conclusions... well they still suck.