It was an attempt to show he was not a heartless defence secretary, one who would use a machine to sign condolence letters. But if Donald's Rumsfeld's insistence he lies "awake at night for concern for those at risk" are not the words that mark the beginning of his fight back, they will be some of the last he speaks in the Pentagon.
Few expected Mr Rumsfeld to see out George Bush's second term but critics – and not just Michael Moore, in fact some people who are very far removed from Michael Moore – have been rounding hard on him recently. His bluntness lost some of its charm when he told a US national guardsman in Kuwait who asked why he and his comrades had to use scrap metal to protect their vehicles: ''You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have.''
The standard argument, one that has been around a while, is that Mr Rumsfeld is responsible for the errors of foresight and the lack of equipment that have left soldiers vulnerable. Power Line offers a critique of Andrew Sullivan's version.
It was a tipping point. Senator John McCain re-asserted that he had "no confidence" in Mr Rumsfeld and others, including Norman Schwarzkopf, the 1991 Gulf war general, and Chuck Hagel, another powerful Republican senator, joined in. Sen McCain's intervention could be put down to maverick tendencies or an early run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination - but there are some hovering about who have a quite different agenda.
Rightwing columnist Robert Novak argues that the Washington neo-conservatives, who wanted to prove that US military might could create democracies with ease, do not want to be blamed for the increasingly unpopular war. Their goal is therefore to shift blame on to the way the Iraq war was managed, not the thinking behind it. To them, Mr Rumsfeld is the perfect fall-guy. Michael Moore will surely be pleased.
