I read it that the reporter had another question, that being the issue of women in combat situations.
FLEISCHER: The history of our military is that men and women have served this nation honorably and with distinction. The treatment of prisoners by Saddam Hussein is the only point worth mentioning here. It's a given that men and women serve our country with dignity, that Saddam Hussein's regime had better not harm our prisoners. The president has made that clear. … Lester, no follow-up.
Considering the sentence "The treatment of prisoners by Saddam Hussein is the only point worth mentioning here.", rape is most definitely treatment of prisoners by Saddam, and Ari refused to discuss it beyond political vagueness. Why didn't he make a positive statement? What would have been wrong or insensitive about issuing a statement roundly condeming rape of captured female soldiers?
I think nothing. I also think that the reason he didn't was because he wanted to avoid the the central question, women in combat. I also think this is a most important question and one that damn well should have been discussed.
The fact that Fleischer danced around it was part and parcel of the "not worth mentioning" allegation. We shouldn't bring it up when the reality is that the ladies are in combat now? Now is exactly the time to bring up the issue, when its application is clear and present. The attempt to wait until it fades away indicates to me that that policy will remain in this administration, with all of its talk of Chrisitan principles.
I'd have to say I agree with your implication in one respect: the administration does care. But what it cares about is not worth mentioning, and in that I agree with WND. 