America Conor O'CleryThe harsh comment by the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to an Iraq-bound soldier that "you go to war with the army you have" has put the Bush administration on the defensive over the abysmal lack of planning for the conflict in Iraq.
Rumsfeld was responding to a National Guardsman who asked him at a "town hall" meeting in Kuwait: "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to 'up-armour' our vehicles?"
President Bush next day tried to soothe the national outrage at the Pentagon's failure to provide proper armour by giving an assurance that the soldier's concerns "are being addressed".
It later emerged that the question was prompted by an embedded reporter, Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
An e-mail Pitts sent to his colleagues back home was leaked. It began "I just had one of my best days as a journalist" and went on to relate how, barred from asking questions himself, he coached two National Guardsmen to ask Rumsfeld "about the appalling lack of armour their vehicles going into combat have".
He even found the sergeant in charge of the microphone to make sure he picked "my guys". Pitts said in the e-mail he had written two articles for his own paper but had been unable to get national attention for the problem.
Now, he wrote gleefully, the big media were jumping on it. When a New York Times reporter asked him for his stories, he said, he told him "he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines."
Pitt's role in the affair then became the story for the conservative media. The Drudge Report splashed a headline: "Rumsfeld Set Up; Reporter Planted Questions with Soldier", and radio host Rush Limbaugh said it was all part of a plot to bring down the Defence Secretary.
However, the whoops of agreement from soldiers in response to the question made it clear that Rumsfeld is facing a real backlash in the ranks. The Chattanooga Times publisher, Tom Griscom, commended the reporter's work, saying the question was one that soldiers and their families wanted answered.
Nor have Pitt's motives been questioned. He said in the e-mail that lives were at stake with so many soldiers riding with scrap metal as protection. "It may be too late for the unit I am with," he wrote, "but hopefully not for those who come after."
At least Donald Rumsfeld doesn't have to worry about keeping his job.
President Bush has confirmed he will stay on indefinitely. Bush was not so quick to give such an assurance to the Treasury Secretary, John Snow.
On November 29th a senior administration official told the Washington Post that Snow "can stay as long as he wants, provided it is not very long."
This callous remark left the loyal 65-year-old Treasury Secretary to twist in the wind. For two weeks he could not get to see the President, and no one in the administration said anything to quell rampant speculation that he was going to be fired.
The media even listed the names of likely successors leaked by the White House.
On Wednesday, however, Snow was summoned to the Oval Office and told by President Bush to carry on in the job.
What was going on? The most popular theory is that Bush wanted someone more forceful than Snow to push through his big projects, mainly privatisation of Social Security and tax reforms, but not someone independent enough to object to the rising deficit and massive new borrowing needed.
Bush reportedly sacked a previous treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, in frustration at his "independent thinking".
World markets and economic allies are now bound to conclude that the Treasury Secretary is not a decision-maker but merely a promoter of policies made by Mr Bush's inner circle.
Mr Bush may also have opted to keep Snow to avoid a Senate confirmation hearings for a new treasury secretary that could generate awkward questions aout the growing deficit. As it is, he is going to have problems with hearings to confirm Bernard Kerik as head of Homeland Security.
Some senators worry that, if appointed, the former head of the New York Police Depart-
ment during 9/11 would have oversight of a department with a $38 billion budget that does business with companies that have helped make him rich.
Kerik, who likes to give friends busts of himself paid for by the Police Foundation, joined the board of Taser International when he left the NYPD and helped promote the company's stun guns to state and federal law-enforcement agencies.
(The Tasers are promoted as non-lethal but have killed 71 people, according to Amnesty International.)
The company's share price took off, and Kerik, who before 9/11 was being sued by a bank over an unpaid mortgage, made over $5 million this year by selling stock options. He is also a member of Giuliani Partners, the lucrative terrorism consulting firm set up by former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
US senators will want to question Kerik about the possibility of former security-related clients getting preferential treatment. They will also be taking a hard look at ethical questions that have dogged Kerik's career.
In 2002 he was fined $2,500 for using three NYPD officers to help research his best-selling autobiography, The Lost Son. When his close friend and publisher, Judith Regan, lost her cellphone at a Fox TV show, Kerik diverted five homicide detectives to fingerprint Fox employees at home (it was found in a waste-paper basket). A lawyer for the Fox staff members accused Kerik of abuse of authority.
In another case, Kerik was expelled from Saudi Arabia 20 years ago after working as head of security at a hospital where he allegedly spied on women on behalf of the hospital administrator. Newsday also reported this week that Kerik, when head of NY prisons, blocked the promotion of a qualified jail supervisor because the man had reprimanded a female warder Kerik was friendly with.
Questions may also be asked about his abrupt departure from Baghdad three months into a six-month contract to set up a police force in Iraq.