The Left is asking for Rumsfeld's head. An honest answer to an un-screened question is being taken out of context to try to force an effective man out of office.

First, Rumsfed gave a quick answer to a complicated situation. When we invaded Iraq it was assumed that Saddam's army would stand and fight and either be captured or defeated. Instead they melted away and, along with foreign fanatics, started a guerrilla campaign.

The original assumption was that the front line troops would take all the fire so they would need the armor. As it turned out, supply lines are also targets. This means retro-fitting the military which takes time.

It isn't that we went to war without properly equipped troops, it is that the requirements for the equipment is different than anticipated.

Not that this explanation would satisfy the Left. Any admission of a mistake turns into a charge of incompetence.

Besides, it turns out that this isn't really an issue. According to Powerline, the kid who asked the question was from a unit that was mainly armored and was completely armored the next day.

Why does this only come out in blogs?

For as long as they can keep it in the news cycle, the Left will insist that Rumsfeld left the troops exposed. I'm not sure that they really care about troops, only about making Bush look bad.

Speaking of which, a lawyer filing a brief on behalf of Saddam receives funding from George Soros. Little Green Footballs dug up this little nugget.

I know the old maxim that the enemy of my enemy is my friend but this is rediculous. Soros's Open Society Institute is supposed to be promoting "an open society that is fair and accountable to all of its members".

How is this goal helped by supporting a murderous tyrant?

Yes, Saddam should get a fair trial but... are the people helping him because "it is the right thing to do" or because they want to make Bush look bad?