WASHINGTON, 21 December 2004 — President Bush defended embattled Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday, saying the Pentagon chief was doing “a very fine job.”

“I know Secretary Rumsfeld’s heart...He’s a good, decent man. He’s a caring fellow,” Bush told a news conference in response to questions about Rumsfeld’s since-abandoned use of a mechanical device to sign letters of condolence to military families.

Congressional criticism of Rumsfeld has mounted over the escalating violence and other problems in Iraq, with a growing number of lawmakers issuing statements of no-confidence in the Pentagon chief.

Asked about the criticism, Bush said, “He’s doing a very fine job.”

Leading senators on two key committees, meanwhile, said that while Rumsfeld should shoulder his share of blame for escalating problems in Iraq he should not step down — yet.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the Armed Services Committee chairman, said a change of civilian leadership at the Pentagon now would be too disruptive, given the scheduled Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

“We should not at this point in time entertain any idea of changing those responsibilities,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

The committee’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said yesterday problems in the conduct of the war in Iraq and its aftermath were caused by the administration’s wrongheaded policies and should therefore be laid at President Bush’s door.

“If I thought those policies would change by changing the secretary of defense, I’d be all for it,” Levin said on CNN. “But I don’t see that that is the ticket to policy changes.”

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday, “We really can’t go through that ordeal” now of finding a successor. Rumsfeld “should be held accountable, and he should stay in office,” Lugar said.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., saying he had no confidence in Rumsfeld, nevertheless stopped short of calling on the secretary to step down. “I find it astounding. ...Things are worse than they’ve ever been” in Iraq, Hagel said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” He said it was up to President Bush whether to replace Rumsfeld.

More than 1,300 American troops have died since the war began in March 2003. Meanwhile, soldiers have complained about long deployments and a lack of armored vehicles and other equipment.

Rumsfeld’s since-abandoned use of a mechanical device to sign letters of condolence had added to the criticism by Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, and others.

The current controversy arose when solider-turned-writer David H. Hackworth wrote in the daily newspaper for military personnel, “The Stars and Stripes,” that two Pentagon-based colonels told him that Rumsfeld “has relinquished this sacred duty to a signature device rather than signing the sad documents himself.”

At first, the Pentagon denied the allegations. Hackworth wrote that Defense Department spokesman, Jim Turner, told him: “Rumsfeld signs the letters himself.” It now turns out the secretary was using a signing machine.

After checking with families who had lost their loved ones while serving in Iraq, Hackworth said: “One father bitterly commented that he thought it was a shame that the Secretary of Defense could keep his squash schedule but not find the time to sign his dead son’s letter.”

In response, Rumsfeld sent a statement to Stars and Stripes, saying: “I wrote and approved the now more than 1,000 letters sent to family members and next of kin of each of the servicemen and women killed in military action. While I have not individually signed each note, in the interest of ensuring expeditious contact with grieving family members, I have directed that in the future I sign each letter.”

Stars and Stripes quoted families of the dead saying they were insulted that Rumsfeld did not sign the letters himself.

They also said they were suspicious about the signature on similar letters they received from President Bush, but a White House spokesman said Bush does sign personally sign his letters.