More on Rumsfeld

The six generals who have called for Rumsfeld to step down are not the only voices critical of Rumsfeld. Over the last three years, a number of papers have been highly critical of Rumsfeld including the Army Times.

Here's an editorial from The Boston Globe reminding us that Bush's rush to defend Rumsfeld is more about politics than thoughtful policy:

PRESIDENT BUSH made a serious mistake yesterday when, responding to devastating criticisms of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by retired military generals, he asserted that Rumsfeld's performance is ''exactly what is needed at this critical period."

The officers speaking out against Rumsfeld deserve serious consideration. They are making a judgment that career military officers are almost always reluctant to make, since they respect the principle of civilian authority over the nation's armed forces. This is an essential principle, one that accounts for the stability of the American political system and distinguishes it from countries in which elected civilian governments are intermittently supplanted by military regimes.

To go public as they have, these generals had to conclude that the harm done to the national interest and military institutions by Rumsfeld has become so great that they had to make a rare exception to their code of silent deferral to the Pentagon's civilian chiefs.

Here are other papers critical of Rumsfeld, here, here and here. I believe the calls for Rumsfeld's resignation will be getting louder.