GOP Lawmakers Mount Tentative Rumsfeld Defense

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

WASHINGTON – Several senior Republican lawmakers yesterday attempted to quell calls from within their own party for the resignation of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, in the face of mounting criticism of his job performance and a recent admission that a machine signed his name to condolence letters to the families of soldiers killed in battle.


But several senators also said the secretary should be held responsible for leading the war in Iraq with what they say have been too few troops and insufficient armor.


The White House defended the secretary’s leadership yesterday but stopped short of saying he would serve out the president’s second term.


“Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a spectacular job, and the president has great confidence in him,” said the White House chief of staff, Andrew Card.


As for how long Mr. Rumsfeld would serve, “there are no timetables in those opportunities to serve in this government,” Mr. Card said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”


The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner of Virginia, said Mr. Rumsfeld should remain in place for now, citing the need for leadership during the Iraqi elections planned for January 30 and what he anticipated would be a “tough period” afterward.


“We should not at this point in time entertain any idea of changing those responsibilities in the Pentagon,” Mr. Warner said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”


Mr. Warner blamed Mr. Rumsfeld for disbanding the Iraqi army too quickly, but he said the Penatagon is learning from its mistakes.


The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar of Indiana, said replacing Mr. Rumsfeld would be “disruptive” and the nation “can’t go through that ordeal.” However, lawmakers should “be more vigilant” in their oversight over the Pentagon, he said on NBC.


Some of the most barbed comments came from a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Hagel of Nebraska, who said he has “no confidence” in Mr. Rumsfeld, but said the secretary’s future is “up to the president.”


“I find it astounding. We’re in there now 21 months, things are worse than they’ve ever been. … No one over there has been held accountable for the poor planning,” said Mr. Hagel on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”


A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, said Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation “would be a handing a gift to insurgents and jihadists,” even as he said the defense secretary should be “held responsible” for his mistakes and correct them.


The latest criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld came after he admitted over the weekend to using a signature machine on some 1,000 letters to bereaved families. More than 1,300 American soldiers have been killed to date in Iraq.


“If the president of the United States can find time to (sign such letters), why can’t the secretary of defense?” asked Mr. Hagel on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “I think it is reflective, of his management, his style, his substance.”


A Democrat on the Armed Services committees, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who is a veteran, said he was “shocked” by the news that the secretary had not signed the letters.


“I think the mothers and fathers of these brave soldiers would like to think at least for a moment that the secretary thought about, individually, this young man or this young woman who gave his life for his country, or her life for her country,” he said.


Mr. Reed said “the country will be better served by Secretary Rumsfeld’s departure.”


In a statement to the military newspaper Stars and Stripes on Friday, Mr. Rumsfeld said he had not personally signed more than 1,000 condolence letters sent to the families of American soldiers killed in action, but he promised to change the policy.


“While I have not individually signed each one, in the interest of ensuring expeditious contact with grieving family members, I have directed that in the future I sign each letter,” Mr. Rumsfeld said in the statement.


He noted that he and his wife, Joyce, had met with many soldiers and family members.


“I am deeply grateful for the many letters I have received from the families of those who have been killed in the service of our country, and I recognize and honor their personal loss,” he wrote.


The newspaper quoted numerous relatives of soldiers condemning Mr. Rumsfeld’s actions as an insult to the war dead.


Democrats’ calls for the secretary’s resignation were loud after the disclosure of abuses of prisoners held in military custody at Abu Ghraib last spring. They were revived recently after soldiers complained publicly that they lacked sufficient armor to protect their vehicles. This time, the criticism has come increasingly from Republicans.


Senator McCain of Arizona said he did not have confidence in Mr. Rumsfeld’s leadership, and Senator Lott of Mississippi said the secretary should be replaced in the coming year. A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Collins of Maine, said she was “disturbed” by Mr. Rumsfeld’s response to a soldier in Kuwait who asked why there were insufficient armed vehicles for soldiers.


In a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld on Friday, Ms. Collins, a Republican, asked why the Pentagon “has received only 5,910 of the 8,105 of factory-armored Humvees commanders say they need.”


Ms. Collins pointed out that the issue of shortages of body armor and fortified Humvees for military personnel in Iraq had been brought to Mr. Rumsfeld’s attention as early as March 2,during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.


Senator Bayh, a Democrat of Indiana, said yesterday on CNN’s “Late Edition” that the Pentagon was underestimating the rate at which armored Humvees could be produced. He echoed the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation.


Mr. Card said the secretary’s attempt to restructure the military was the real cause of the criticism. “Any time you do that, there are controversies,” he said.


Mr. Rumsfeld, who also served as secretary of defense in the Ford administration, has made transforming the military to a smaller and swifter force a defining goal of his second tenure in the job. The approach has been blamed for troop levels in Iraq that critics say have proven inadequate to secure the country first against looters and later against insurgents.


The administration has maintained that the troop levels have reflected the requests of commanders on the ground.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use