it's interesting to follow the discusion about the Rumsfeld rumble. Some military people,retired and current, are speaking up in R's defense. My read on the comments is that R is being "damned by faint praise". What has yet to be determined is, were R's decisions correct, or at least good ones, under the circumstances?. His apologists say he listened, his critics say he intimidated. Again, my read is that among those in power there was an arrogance and casualness affecting the decisions that brooked no desention and punished criticism (Shinsecki's removal). General Frank is cited as one who worked well with Rumsfeld, easily aquiesing to R's ideas. Also Frank neglected reports from his field commanders that the Fehdaheen(sp?) were posing an ominous threat to the advancing units. These were strong forces that were being bypassed in the rush to Baghdad. The Fehdaheen had been established by Saddam as a parallel army to put down a feared uprising by the Shiites and it was widely disbursed in the South. There were also tremendous arms and explosives caches made ready. These are the apparent source of all the IEDs that are so deadly to our troops currently. Frank was intent on Baghdad and impatient with such reports. He also is quoted as calling Zinni a traitor for critisizing the battle plan. Frank was outspoken about the conduct of the war and he also retired as the fight turned nasty.

Whether or not the controversy gains momentum or is squashd remains to be seen. I think that, as Chris Matthews says, "it has legs". Bush by nature sticks by his decisions and his people. He not only seems oblivious to the discontent of the public, he seems to have no concern for the future of the Republican party. ?????