Donald Rumsfeld told a bald faced lie yesterday. In the process of telling the lie, the Secretary of Defense showed that public officials still don’t get it, that with the advent of the internet and its powerful search engines, every utterance made in public yesterday can be recalled immediately and compared for accuracy today.
This familiar fact is not being absorbed by the political and journalistic elites, nor by academics, celebrities, and business leaders who continue to supply the fodder for ravenous blog beasts who delight in pointing out discrepancies, flip flops, prevarications, and misstatement of facts in the words of the high and mighty.
Are our elites really that clueless? The short answer is yes. Those of us who spend a lot of time on the net tend to forget the truly revolutionary nature of the New Media. We take so much for granted we naturally assume that everyone is as plugged in as we are. Hence, when the Secretary of Defense denies making a statement that has been highlighted about a dozen times in various postings on blogs, forums, chat rooms, and the growing number of E-Zines, we are surprised that someone could still not be aware that the rules have changed and that public officials can easily be held accountable for what they’ve said in the past.
Rumsfeld’s folly occurred yesterday at a forum in Atlanta where the Secretary was supposed to be talking about security issues but instead found himself continuously having to deal with the “speaking truth to power” crowd and other free speech advocates – the “free speech for me but not for thee” nitwits who are too dense to realize the snickering irony inherent in their “protests.” Constantly interrupted with attempts to shout him down (something Rumsfeld has evidently gotten used to), it was in the Q & A session where Rumsfeld unleashed his whopper.
Somehow, rogue ex-CIA agent Ray McGovern had been invited to the event. McGovern you may recall is on the steering committee of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), the group which has carried out an insurgency against the Bush Administration during a time of war that in another age, at another time, would have led to the satisfying spectacle of McGovern and many of his friends in VIPS swinging from a White Oak tree for treason. McGovern has also advanced the theory that the United States government was involved in the attacks of 9/11 and has urged active duty intelligence officers to leak classified information to the press.
The fact that he is a hero on the left shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. And the fact that he was in attendance at this forum in the first place proves that the disruptions and protests were about as spontaneous as Saturday night sex for an old married couple. This was a planned op carried out to maximize media exposure not to mention the goal of embarrassing the Secretary of Defense.
They needn’t have bothered because Rumsfeld embarrassed himself. During the question and answer session. Mr. McGovern got a hold of the mike and began to fire questions at the Secretary:
Rumsfeld: ...it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.
McGovern: You said you knew where they were.
Rumsfeld: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and…
McGovern: You said you knew where they were. Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.
Rumsfeld: My words-my words were that-no-no, wait a minute—wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second….
For the record, here’s the familiar exchange between ABC’s George Stephanopolous and Rumsefeld on March 30, 2003:
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think—let me take that, both pieces—the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
The irony here is that McGovern was accusing Rumsefeld of “lying” in 2003 while the Secretary ended up lying about actually telling the truth. What was the truth? That Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Bush, the overwhelming majority of analysts in our intelligence community, the intelligence agencies of the western world, Hosni Mubarak, the Emir of Kuwait, Vladmir Putin, and Saddam Hussein himself all believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
To accuse someone of lying when they believe what they are saying is true is idiocy. Does a child lie when he talks about Santa Claus coming on Christmas eve? According the left, the answer is yes. The child believes whole heartedly in Santa Claus and talks about him as if he is a real person. But for the left, this doesn’t matter. The child is lying through his teeth and should be “called out” for his prevarications.
This ground has been covered thoroughly in the past three years. The American people made their determination about these “lies” in the election of 2004, rejecting the leftist interpretation of the “truth.” And this is why Rumsfeld’s lie about what he said back in 2003 (and given the wide play those words have received over the past three years I find it highly unlikely that the Secretary did not recall exactly what he said) was so unnecessary but perhaps indicative of the state of the executive branch of government in modern America.
The inability of public servants to admit to mistakes has gotten to the point of surrealness. There is something dreamlike about Rumsfeld’s continuing defense of the Pentagon’s performance and assessment of what has been happening in Iraq. It isn’t just a matter of Pollyanish briefings about the capabilities of the Iraqi army (although there has been marked improvement in the last 6 months) or about the level of sectarian strife (100,000 people fleeing from the violence and dozens of bodies being found every day). Rumsfeld’s folly extends to decisions made going all the way back to the beginning of the war starting with the number of troops that would be needed to pacify the country following the overthrow of Saddam. Despite the lawlessness that plagues Iraq to this day, the Secretary of Defense refuses to admit error in this regard.
The explanation that criticism would be overwhelming if he did so doesn’t hold water. Taking responsibility for your mistakes is part of the job – or at least it used to be part of the job for public servants. I distinctly remember the first time I realized that the rules had changed. It was following the total, unmitigated disaster at Waco and the deaths of 76 members of the Branch Davidians, 27 of whom were children. Attorney General Janet Reno should have been fired for her actions and the actions of her subordinates in the botched operation. Instead, President Clinton kept her on.
At the time, I racked my brains trying to think of any other President who would have kept an official who had committed such grievous errors in judgement. Certainly none come to mind even today. An important dynamic of executive leadership changed at that point; the fact that public officials are ultimately responsible for the results of their actions, not just their good intentions.
For Rumsfeld, the results have been less than adequate since Saddam’s statue was toppled. The Secretary may be a good manager. His ideas about a transformational military may prove to be inspired genius. And the performance of the troops under his command has been uniformly spectacular. But his refusal to acknowledge mistakes and adapt to new realities on the ground in Iraq has been a disaster. The insurgency, so long unacknowledged or shrugged off as Saddam bitter enders, was allowed to grow in strength until it has metastasized and will now require a monumental effort by the new Iraqi army to cut it out of the body politic. This inability to recognize the tribal and clannish nature of the insurgency despite being told repeatedly by his commanders of these facts on the ground has caused more problems than necessary to our troops.
Rumsfeld’s lie yesterday about something he didn’t have to lie about points to this changed dynamic in Washington that extends all the way to the office of the President. Accepting responsibility for mistakes both of omission and commission is necessary for our public servants. The American people recognize this which is why they are almost always quick to forgive an official who admits mistakes and apologizes. How and why this tradition has been lost probably has a lot to do with the polarization of our politics and the rabid, open hostility of the media to this President and his policies. But this really is no excuse. The people have shown that they are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about our leaders, even when they get most of their information through the prism of a press suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. George Bush’s re-election proves that point in emphatic fashion.
The Secretary’s lie will not get him fired. But given Rumsfeld’s performance over the last few years, perhaps it should.
7:36 am
[...] Update: Rick Moran says Rumsfeld lied yesterday. And lefties should be thankful that he did. [...]
8:48 am
Unfortunately, it would appear the unwillingness to accept responsibility for one’s actions has spread across society. I think it’s part of feeling one did the right thing regardless of the real world results.
8:54 am
You’re right. Excellent analysis. Rumsfeld did not need to lie about this. Clearly the WMD are not “there.” At least they are not where we thought they would be. The VIPs are part of the CIA. The CIA failed us here. Rumsfeld did not have to lie. He should have simply pointed out we had an intellegence failure and referred to the number of reports that elaborate on the unanswered questions about what was transferred to Syria prior to the war. In Syria, is where you may find Saddam’s WMD stockpiles. Perhaps not but those questions need to be answered before we can assume the stockpiles did not exist.
9:00 am
Rockefeller did you “teller?”- XXI- When VIPS att
You know that the traitorous rogues are getting desperate when they go on the road to attack the Secretary of Defense.
Ray McGovern is one such traitor.
9:44 am
Oh lord, another idiot blogger pushing the “not enough troops” meme. Give it a rest, ok? Some times there aren’t good choices and bad choices, just bad and worse. Adults understand that. Whiny overgrown teenagers bitch and complain about the man.
You sound like a bad local talk radio host.
9:45 am
To use a Clintonian argument, I think your contention that he lied depends on the definition of the word “they.” If “they” are the WMDs themselves, you’re right. If “they”—as Rumsfeld maintained at the event—means “suspected sites” then that comports with the facts.
9:56 am
In this particular case, I believe you are splitting hairs. The partisan hacks have their long knives out. Regardless of the circumstances if Secretary Rumsfeld ever utters the words “I was wrong” in any context or conversation that will be the story.
I remember when 70 odd complaints were lodged against Newt Gingrich. One of them – One of them – had merit. It was a relatively minor infraction, and if I’m not mistaken, it was completed by someone else. I’m not justifying it. I am not condoning it, but, given the press coverage, you would have thought he had killed someone – on live TV. The fact that he had admitted a “Mistake” was the story. The Speaker of the House made a “Mistake.”
In the environment you describe, no official should ever answer questions in an extemporaneous format. No person in his position can possibly remember every utterance or response to every question. It is impossible.
At the time, Secretary Rumsfeld believed the intelligence. Many officials believed the intelligence – on both sides of the Atlantic and the political spectrum. They had plausible reasons to do so. They may have been wrong. That is the truth.
If conservatively disposed ideologues will not defend conservative (or in this case right of center) officials, we might as well give up now. We don’t stand a chance against people who care little about logic or hypocrisy when they defend their political leaders.
10:27 am
The Revolution will be blogged, 9 (updated Cinco de Mayo)
[update: via Allah -- May 4: "Rumsfeld heckled … by wacko conspiracy theorist Ray McGovern":; meanwhile, Rick Moran notes that Rumsfeld lied on the spot yesterday, something he finds ironic, insofar as he believes Rumsfeld was l…
10:36 am
I love this post, because I can’t stand the SecDefense. But why muddle your point with an attack on us left wingnuts who protest so poorly. Oh, I agree, replete with unintended irony.
Anyway, I’m going to link back to this post. Well done.
11:02 am
What about when Rumsfeld said:
“I’m not in the intelligence business”?
What the hell do the 7500 people employed at the Defense INTELLIGENCE Agency do all day?
11:38 am
Rumsfeld Lied, People…weren't attacked with Chemical Weapons. Recently.
From ABC News /AP Anti-war protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him in a question-and-answer session of lying about Iraq prewar intelligen…
12:45 pm
It’s difficult to imagine the administration firing Rummy when they haven’t even got the nerve to investigate and fire the numerous CIA officers who have leaked classified information, undermined administration and government policies, and jeopardized the likelihood of success in Iraq.
Imagine a group of intelligence officers undercutting Roosevelt during World War II because they didn’t agree with the Japanese internment. That’s what we have today, an intelligence class that has placed their own political beliefs and working philosophy above the democratically elected government of the country.
If the active military did something like this, there’d hell to pay and the danger of a major Constitutional crisis. When the CIA does, all of a sudden the black ops troublemakers that the left loved to hate are somehow the good guys.
Iraq is turning everything on its head. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has concluded that they have to maintain some sort of equillibrium with the press and critics, not in their words but in their actions. They should take a page from Lincoln about not trying to please everyone all the time and do what it takes to win the war on terror in so much as it can be won.
It would be nice though if some people on the anti-war left would wake up and see how utterly ridiculous and pathetic it is to continue to regard the administration as somehow morally and ethically worse than Hussein, Al Queda, and others whose goals are the deaths of millions, the extermination of worldwide Jewry, and the imposition of totalitarian Islamic government throughout the globe.
Until that happens, many of Rumsfeld’s critics will never have any traction to deal with the real failures in Iraq, or the perspective to see why some of those failures occurred.
1:10 pm
Me wrote:
“It would be nice though if some people on the anti-war left would wake up and see how utterly ridiculous and pathetic it is to continue to regard the administration as somehow morally and ethically worse than Hussein, Al Queda, and others whose goals are the deaths of millions, the extermination of worldwide Jewry, and the imposition of totalitarian Islamic government throughout the globe.”
If the vitriol spewed by the left is any indication of how they intend to conduct themselves should they regain control of the federal government, Americans will be in a shooting war with one another sooner rather than later. The fact that current and former elements of the intelligence and defense communities appear to be conspiring with a panapoly of knee-jerk reactionaries is eerily familiar to the byzantine cabals one observes in banana republics, not the United States.
I think the left has made significant progress convincing its adherents that Americans who happen to disagree with them – not foreign terrorist who want to kill them – are the real enemies we should be fighting.
1:26 pm
Another example .. does this letter say that Iraq was linked to 9/11 ?
These guys think so.
3:41 pm
Neo
It is well known that Al Qaeda and the former Iraqi regime actively worked together on projects especially weapons of mass destruction. At least it used to be well known until the massive efforts undertaken by the main stream media to suppress the relevant information. This does not mean that the invasion of Iraq was necessarily a sound decision strategically. It could be argued that while Iraq and Al Qaeda actively worked together the level of cooperation did not rise to the level to justify the removal of the Iraqi government. The fact that the media has not tried to take this stand indicates they probably think they will lose this argument, therefore, they have instead opted for the various “Bush lied” diatribes.
4:09 pm
I love this place:
I have never seen more collective denial than in the Cult of Bush.
This war was a sales job. And the only dissent who was in power was Joseph Wilson, who as we see, was CRUSHED and his wife CRUSHED for daring to contradict the Cult leader.
Your congress, YOUR congress turned a blind eye to the obvious. They spent MONTHS selling us this war, making false claim after false claim. But rather than honestly looking into it, admitting that all this effort was a sham, they crushed wilson, planned a strategy and crucified him. Meanwhile, they took perhaps the most important speech of our lifetimes, the state of the union, and LIED OUTRIGHT to the American Public.
Your president: Compromised.
Your Congress: compromised.
Enjoy your November. Enjoy your Nuclear Iran.
Foston
4:24 pm
BTW, the Left does not think Hussein is better than Bush. Bush is just an evil idiot. Hussein is an evil madman, and was smart and effective, both things Bush has proben not to be.
In addition, this is America. Not Iraq. We expect more from our leaders, and Bush has not been much.
But no matter HOW JUSTIFIED you all claim this war is, that is only a political adjustment. Thats what you all claim AFTER the fact. Thats what you claim when we are still there after no substantial claims to JUSTIFY THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE have come true. Its a smart strategy, but don’t think that people can’t see through it. For most people, they simply dont care. It doesn’t affect their life, and they don’t “understand all that stuff”. So maybe it will work. But its starting to stink. And I think enough has come out that, with enough bodies now that people might be rightly concerned that the PRESIDENT LIED TO US. His ass should be impeached.
Most likely people will just be concerned that we will lose.
The ends do not justify the means. The war was a lie. The intelligence was “sexed up” at best (Uranium Claims) to Fabricated at worst (“We know where they are”)
We’ll see how that passes the November test now won’t we. They must think we are might F’ing dumb.
For the record, before you dismiss me as some lunatic ( I am sure it is too late for that). Of course, we must stay the course unitl we can rightly leave Iraq. So long as we are doing more good than harm. And Agreed that the press is a blood thirsty bunch who only want more conflict (whether political or actual blood) so they can continue to capture our attention and ratings.
BUT the PRESIDENT SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. HE LIED. HIS STAFF CRUSHED DISSENT.HIS STAFF LIED. And they are placing the blame on “bad intelligence”. YA. No wonder the CIA is about ready for a coup.
Are you all gonna welcome this type of behavior from a president when HILLARY is in Charge?
Thought not. Its a 2 edged sword. And ALL OF US should be banding together to express concern.
YOU HAVE BEEN PLAYED.
Foston
5:16 pm
Foston
You are correct we have all been played, however it is not as you seem to think. It is the main stream media who has played us. Unfortunately the Bush administration is to clumsy to fight back. Rumsfeld had a golden opportunity to point out the intellegence failures and also to point out there is still alot we don’t know about Saddam’s WMD. There is some evidence it may have been transferred to Syria. You are right we should all be banding together. We should be banding together to defeat the terrorists not fighting among ourselves. The terrorists we are fighting in Iraq right now represent a survival threat to Americans every where.
“Me” says it best when he points out the terrorists are trying to impose their brand of Islam on the globe. This is who we fight in Iraq. Saddam actively supported these people even during the Clinton years. Not only are these people trying to enslave us, they are capable of doing it. The threat is far deeper than Islamic Extremists. It goes all the way to Russia and China, who are the biggest supporters of the terrorist states. We must take this enemy seriously and stop fighting among ourselves or they will destroy us.
Btw, the “cult of Bush” to leftist seems to mean anyone who thinks we should meet the terrorists with a strong response and who believes that Iraq is a central front in this war. I do not think Bush is a good president. i wish we had someone else but anyone who does not recognize the Islamic extremists for the danger they are is not someone I can trust to lead. At least president Bush, for all his flaws, is trying to defend America. The Left, it seems they would rather vilify the man they hate, even if means enabling those who want to over throw America. Its not hard to understand why Russia and China would support these people. The terrorists and the Marxists have the same goal in mind. This goal is world domination, as such it means they must destroy and/or enslave America. They are fully capable of realizing this goal. This threat has to be taken seriously. A diplomatic solution can only be achieved if they give up their goal of world domination and agree to respect America.
6:12 pm
Lefties Beat Children for “Lying Through Teeth” About Santa
Oh, the old “Santa Clause” defense. How pathetic! Come on Rick, this is a bit of a stretch even for you. The reason children talk about Santa as if he’s real is because they don’t know any better. When your a grown-up you don’t talk like that. Rumsfeld is a grown-up—right?
“Rogue ex-CIA agent Ray McGovern”—(I have to give you credit for acknowledging he actually was a CIA agent, Brit Hume said he only “claimed” to be one.) Your saying he’s a rouge for thinking the administration lied to us? Over half the country thinks that. Could you source for me where he advances the theory about gov. involvement in 9/11?
It’s all Clinton’s fault for not firing Reno. I see your staying true to the rightwing format.
“His ideas about a transformational military may prove to be inspired genius.” I’ve heard it’s one of the biggest boondoggles in military history.
“The American people made their determination about these “lies†in the election of 2004” Funny thing about the truth, it always comes out eventually.
Ok, enough picking on Rick. I read your whole piece wanting to see what you would say about my favorite part of the Rumsfeld vs McGovern clash and you didn’t even mention it. It was where Rusfeld offers as proof that he didn’t lie by the fact that the soldiers that lead the invasion of Iraq wore chem-suits because they believed there were weapons. Adding this bit of humor, “They didn’t wear those because they liked the style.” As if he had lied, the soldiers would have skipped the chem-suits.
Rusmsfeld should “swinging from a White Oak tree for treason.”
7:31 pm
Citizen Dewayne
Over half of America may believe Bush lied. This does not make it true. Bush has done a poor job defending himself and the media is selectively reporting information. If your only source was the main stream media, you would believe this to. The enemy we are fighting in Iraq is capable of bringing down the USA and imposing their vision of Islam on all of us. This enemy was there before we arrived and they were plotting attacks on the USA. The administration is trying to defeat this enemy. So yes anyone who offers aid and comfort to this enemy, such as this rogue CIA agent, is a traitor and should hang from the proverbial oak tree. The strategy being employed by the administration may be misguided but it is not treason to attempt to defend America from an enemy that wants to destroy it and is capable of doing so.
8:47 pm
To all of you:
The Bush administration did not lie. The intelligence community believed there was WMD and we had evidence to support it. Some parts of the intelligence were hyped by the administration – mainly with respect to Iraq’s Nuclear program, but most of it was based on what we thought was solid evidence.
All of you should read the Iraq Perspectives Project at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/special/iraq/ipp.pdf
You can read a summary in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs here: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html
This IPP report is based off interviews with all the key Iraqi leaders we have in custody, including Saddam. It gives the Iraqi side of the story prior to and during the war based on those first-hand accounts. What’s clear after reading this report is that Iraq had a policy of ambiguity with respect to WMD’s. They wanted their regional competitors to believe they had them, while at the same time they wanted to show the UN they didn’t. Here’s a substantive quote from the report:
“When it came to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world.”
“Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as “Chemical Ali” for his use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1987, was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD but claims that many within Iraq’s ruling circle never stopped believing that the weapons still existed. Even at the highest echelons of the regime, when it came to WMD there was always some element of doubt about the truth. According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about the weapons during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary, going on to explain that such a declaration might encourage the Israelis to attack.”
People have attacked our intelligence community about “screwing up” the analysis of WMD. The fact is, much of the Iraqi government believed they had WMD when in fact they didn’t. How are intelligence analysts supposed to decipher the truth from a government as broken and dishonest as Saddam’s government was?
8:52 pm
Rumsfeld is just as corect to say he believes WMD’s exist in Iraq as those who dispute it. The fact is, a gas artillery shell WAS found in Iraq, set up in a Roadside bomb. Doesn’t anyone remember?
9:10 pm
Sprint
The media reported this very briefly. As I recall, only Fox News had anything at length on this. The media quickly suppressed it. Also large amounts of insecticides were found at military sites. Perhaps the Iraqis had a huge insect problem. It should also be known that insecticides are often a precursor for some forms of WMD. As a general rule, any thing that would support a position taken by the Bush administration will be suppressed or spun and information that would work against the Bush administration will be disseminated far and wide. There is nothing wrong with reporting information harmful to the administration. The media simply should report all angles of an issue. In other words more reporting and less advocacy.
10:43 pm
If you would read the whole transcript of the conversation were you make the claim Rumsfeld lied, you would find that the conversation makes it clear Rumsfeld believed they would find the WMD in the mentioned sites. He is also clear on a simple fact: they (WMD) might have been removed, as there was photographic evidence of possible removal. There is no lie here. Perhaps Rumsfeld, along with every credible intelligenc agency on earth, was wrong. Being wrong is not a lie.
11:39 am
Andrew Sullivan: Bush to Blame for his Political Opponents Holding Views that Secret Jewish Cabals Run the World
You can't make this stuff up, people: From "Crazed Lefty vs. Rumsfeld"Many of you have pointed out that Ray McGovern, the man who challenged Rumsfeld in public, holds some wacko views, and has made some anti-Semitic statements. It se…
4:49 pm
ref comment #24.
Belmont Club has a article up on this confrontation and they post the LONGER relevant portion of the interview with Rumsfeld about the WMD. Summing up… He didn’t lie.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/05/rummy-lied.html
8:57 am
A chuch school with major political activity. Doesn’t he worry about the IRS ?
2:40 pm
Rumsfeld may have said he knew where they are, but McGovern believed that there some WMDs to find, when two days before the 20-Mar-2003 Iraq invasion, he wrote that .. “we believe the Iraqis retain some chemical and biological warfare capability.”