The counterattack by Secretary Rumsfeld and his staff against his critics has been impressive. The Secretary defended himself at length during a recent press conference. Senior active and retired officers defended him on television and in print. His office sent out fact sheets and called influential commentators to get the secretary's side of the story out. The message offensive was swift, disciplined and effective and put many of his critics back on their heels -- for now at least. But my question is why such a well-coordinated offensive hasn't been waged against critics who week after week and month after month have been pummeling the Bush administration's rationale for taking Saddam Hussein out. Democratic Senators Levin and Rockefeller, the New York Times, and most of the liberal establishment have been pounding away without a vigorous and sustained response from senior Bush officials. When he's on Rumsfeld is very effective in getting a message out, as we've just witnessed. But one rarely hears him during a press conference or in a speech forcefully challenge at length the following statements constantly by made anti-war critics: 1) Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat. 2) Iraq had no link to al Qaeda. 3) Iraq's connection to terrorism, in general, was insignificant. 4) UN inspections were working before they were short-circuited. 5) The Duelfer report, in fact, proved that containment was working and such a policy should have continued. 6) We'd be better off if Saddam were still in power. And there many other charges that should rebutted. A Rumsfeld-inspired offensive on all these questions done with the same gusto, precision and reach of the last few days would certainly deliver a different message to the American people than they've been getting from the front-pages of the New York Times or on CNN. Getting such a message out -- week after week -- should also be a part of the Iraq war effort.