Replies

Wall Street Journal did an in depth article on him. It was done by the news side of the WSJ which is more liberal than the editorial page. The intention and tone of the article was mildly supportive of the general, but if you read carefully his complaint and his beef with Rumsfield it raised more question about his judgment than Rumsfield's.

The revealing incident was when Rumsfield paid a visit to Iraq to meet with him and the other generals. According to Batiste there were all these terrible problems he had all these critical concerns; yet when asked in front of others how things were going and if he needed anything he said everything was fine. When invited to speak privately with Rumsfield and air any concerns, he turned down the opportunity. His very week excuse was; he did not want to appear to be undermining the general in command and he did not think Rumsfield would listen to his complaints.
After reading carefully the interview you really suspect his motivations his judgment or both. We are supposed to believe a senior commander in Iraq believed hundreds of soldiers were dying and we were losing the war but he did not feel he could talk to Rumsfield or the President about it, so he quit the service.

The more you listen to Generals Clark, Zinni and Batisti the more doubt are raised about them than the people they are attacking.