Some Editorials Say Rumsfeld Must Go

By: E&P Staff Several major newspapers called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning, but for now most are holding their fire.

"Donald Rumsfeld Should Go," ran a headline on The New York Times' editorial. It charged that he bears "personal responsibility" for the prison abuse scandal in Iraq, adding that "this abuse was not an isolated event, as we know now and as Mr. Rumsfeld should have known ..." The defense secretary, it said, had "morphed" into a man of "almost willful blindness."

The Minneapolis Star Tribune (Click for QuikCap) went one step further, saying that Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, should also resign, adding: "If they do not, they should be fired." The editorial labeled them the "architects" of hatred in the Arab world.

The Plain Dealer of Cleveland said: "It is time for [Rumsfeld] to prepare the final document of a long and sometimes illustrious public career: his letter of resignation."

Newsday of Melville, N.Y., which has long supported the war in Iraq, declared: "The reality is that, if Bush is going to clean house, it makes no sense to stop with Rumsfeld. Considering how the Bush administration has made a mess of the situation in Iraq ... the whole national security team should be fired."

The Boston Globe, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Detroit Free Press also called for Rumsfeld's withdrawal. But New York's Daily News said: "Don't be ridiculous," blaming the current "self-flagellation" in this scandal on "bleeding hearts." The Wall Street Journal observed that if Bush fires Rumsfeld, "the voters may well conclude" it is time to also fire the president.

The Chicago Sun-Times praised Bush for "standing by" Rumsfeld.

Finding middle ground, the Chicago Tribune held off calling for resignation, pending "future revelations."