But that has not stopped some commentators from questioning the president's decision, or pointing out that there could be a change of heart if the political fallout from the affair continues to worsen. As John King of CNN reported, the White House believes that the scandal will get much worse with the release of additional photos and video. And an editorial in the Washington Post said that by congratulating Mr Rumsfeld and describing the abuses as aberrations the president had not responded correctly to what it described as "the nation's worst disgraces". But President Bush is famous for his fierce loyalty to his inner circle and unlikely to force Mr Rumsfeld from office. And such a move would be seen as an admission that the Bush administration's Iraq policy is in disarray, commentators said.

Rumsfeld safe for now: Editorial writers in the US have split on whether Mr Rumsfeld should resign. The New York Times, The St Louis Post-Dispatch, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, New York Newsday, The Boston Globe, The Minneapolis Star Tribune and The Detroit Free Press have called on Mr Rumsfeld to step down. The Wall Street Journal, The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times and The New York Daily News are among those to write in support of the embattled defence secretary. But one of the most widely reported calls for resignation came in the Army Times, an independent newspaper that covers the US military. "This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level," the Army Times editors wrote. "This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential - even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war," they added. The Boston Globe said the problem ran deeper. "We have called for Rumsfeld's resignation, not only for bungling the prison abuse crisis but more fundamentally for failing to have a realistic plan to win the peace in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was driven from power," it said. "Looking ahead, there can be no confidence that Rumsfeld can repair the damage of Abu Ghraib or put American policy in Iraq on a productive track." But many in the US media think Mr Rumsfeld's position is secure for the time being.

Loyalty: Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz responded to a question in an online forum as to whether President Bush would be persuaded to fire Mr Rumsfeld in light of the Army Times editorial. "Bush, who just called Rumsfeld a 'superb' DOD chief, is the only one whose opinion matters, and he's not likely to be swayed by an editorial in Army Times or the New York Times or anywhere else, for that matter," Mr Kurtz said. Asked if the criticism could become so intense that Mr Bush is left with no alternative but to fire Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Kurtz said: "I wouldn't hold my breath." He added: "Bush prizes loyalty above all and also knows that dumping his defence secretary would be seen as an admission that the war effort is not going well." And the public does not seem to be clamouring for Mr Rumsfeld to be fired. According to CNN political analyst Bill Schneider, the American people, by 2-to-1, think that he should be allowed to stay on the job. It is not because they are not outraged and disgusted by the prisoner abuse scandal but because they believe that these were "rogue acts of criminality".