Donald Rumsfeld doesn’t bother to read Pentagon reports, even the ones he commissions himself. Or Donald Rumsfeld is a liar.
The reports, one by a panel Mr. Rumsfeld had appointed and one by three Army generals, made clear that some abuses occurred during interrogations, that others were intended to soften up prisoners who were to be questioned, and that many intelligence personnel involved in the interrogations were implicated in the abuses. The reports were issued Tuesday and Wednesday.
But on Thursday, in an interview with a radio station in Phoenix, Mr. Rumsfeld, who was traveling outside Washington this week, said, “I have not seen anything thus far that says that the people abused were abused in the process of interrogating them or for interrogation purposes.”
A transcript of the interview was posted on the Pentagon’s Web site on Friday. Mr. Rumsfeld repeated the assertion a few hours later at a news conference in Phoenix, adding that “all of the press, all of the television thus far that tried to link the abuse that took place to interrogation techniques in Iraq has not yet been demonstrated.” After an aide slipped him a note during the news conference, however, Mr. Rumsfeld corrected himself, noting that an inquiry by three Army generals had, in fact, found “two or three” cases of abuse during interrogations or the interrogations process.
[Sir, there seems to be smoke coming out of your trousers…]
In fact, however, the Army inquiry found that 13 of 44 instances of abuse involved interrogations or the interrogation process, an Army spokeswoman said. The report itself explicitly describes the extent to which each abuse involved interrogations….
Mr. Rumsfeld also misstated an important finding of an independent panel he appointed and is led by James R. Schlesinger, a former defense secretary, saying in the interview with KTAR radio, “The interesting thing about the Schlesinger panel is their conclusion that, in fact, the abuses seem not to have anything to do with interrogation at all.”
But the first paragraph of the Schlesinger panel report says, “We do know that some of the egregious abuses at Abu Ghraib which were not photographed did occur during interrogation sessions and that abuses during interrogation sessions occurred elsewhere.”
.
What his excuse? “That The New York Times would find the secretary’s misstatement and the subsequent effort to set the record straight is of interest is a shameless example of news that is sought during the dog days of August in Washington,”…Pentagon spokesman, Eric Ruff said.
Misstatements. My people call them “lies”.
{ 20 comments }
howard 08.28.04 at 5:23 am
The case study in denial that the bush administration provides will be of remarkable fascination to generations of scholars to come. How did these people come to be regarded as the “aduls?” Were they this bad as CEOs? Did no one ever, for a second, examine the possibility that they might be wrong about something?
bad Jim 08.28.04 at 5:31 am
May I guess, Howard, that you haven’t spent a lot of time in the loftiest realms of business? “This can’t be my fault” is practically axiomatic in many boardrooms.
howard 08.28.04 at 5:59 am
Actually, bad jim, sadly, i’ve spent enough; i was keeping my comment simple rather than dig into how CEO these guys are – ’70s CEO, to be precise….
jdw 08.28.04 at 7:15 am
The content of the Army report is “disputed” then, isn’t it? Who’s to say who’s right, who’s wrong? We need to get the full story before we go jumping to conclusions, I think.
bad Jim 08.28.04 at 7:22 am
My contrite apology. I’m still flabbergasted by my (late 90’s) exposure.
Willingness to admit that one might have been wrong, the hallmark of intellectual honesty, is among the rarest of traits. In contrast, the current U.S. administration seems to think that denying responsibly is proof of its steadfast virtue.
bad Jim 08.28.04 at 7:26 am
“denying responsibly” should have been “denying responsibility”.
“Who’s to say who’s right, who’s wrong?” Gospodin jdw, have you been paying attention over the last few months? Ignorance is a poor defense.
jdw 08.28.04 at 7:52 am
bad jim–
There are two sides to every story. I think it’s pretty obvious that the New York Times had an agenda in running that story: they wanted to point out discrepancies between the report and Rumsfeld’s account of it — so naturally their version of what’s in the Army report is going to be different from Rumsfeld’s.
Now, I’m not the Army report. I’m assuming you’re not the Army report. So how can we know what’s in the Army report when Donald Rumsfeld is saying one thing, and the New York Times — which I would accuse of publishing their article ON PURPOSE — is saying something else?
SixFootPole 08.28.04 at 7:54 am
Why doesn’t someone make an issue of the commandment getting broken here? These blasted Xtians love to dwell on Leviticus, but they forget about those 10 little rules in Exodus. Oh, then there’s that one about killing and the one about stealing too.
nick paul 08.28.04 at 8:13 am
“so naturally” Rumsfeld lied and the NYT’s engaged in journalism.
bad Jim 08.28.04 at 8:15 am
The NYTimes surely had an agenda: they were reporting the news, like the LATimes:
Perhaps there is a reality in which the U.S. did not engage in systematic abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Like you, I prefer that reality. However, it doesn’t appear that that’s the one in which we find ourselves at present.
Robin Green 08.28.04 at 12:42 pm
Now, I’m not the Army report. I’m assuming you’re not the Army report.
It is indeed fair to say that people are not identical to inanimate objects. What a remarkable observation!
I infer that your point could be more directly stated as “We don’t have first-hand knowledge of what is in the army report”.
Indeed – but do you think it’s fair to assume that reports from halfway-credible newspapers like the NYT did not simply invent quotations from the reports, unless proven otherwise?
Don’t you think the onus is on you to show why we should be suspicious of the newspaper reports, using more data than “Well Donald Rumsfeld said otherwise and personally I believe him!”
So how can we know what’s in the Army report when Donald Rumsfeld is saying one thing, and the New York Times — which I would accuse of publishing their article ON PURPOSE — is saying something else?
Oh no, publishing an article on purpose! What a terrible, sinister crime to be accused of! All newspapers should publish articles by accident, as any right-thinking person well knows.
DR 08.28.04 at 3:10 pm
Let me explain – there are facts and there are these reports, there are known knowns and unkown knowns, but let me say that I was telling that what was known to me.
Those reports were made on my request, and I, we, have to read them and draw the appropriate conclusions. But in the mean time there will be trials, and I can’t, nor do I want to interfere with these trials. So to say that these people are guilty is not only not known, but also not for me to say. So I would suggest you read those reports, and follow the way we will deal with it. Because we will deal with it.
Thank you.
Donald Rumsfeld, tomorrow.
Steve 08.28.04 at 3:26 pm
Donald Rumsfeld, tomorrow.
Excellent job. One quibble: you forgot at least one iteration each of “heavens to Betsy” and “goodness gracious me” in there.
norbizness 08.28.04 at 6:04 pm
The Pentagon spokesman continued: “I mean, we have a major breaking spy scandal in the Pentagon, and you’re worried about whether Rummy correctly stated the conclusions of a report? Whoops.”
Doc Rampage 08.28.04 at 10:15 pm
It seems pretty clear that Rumsfeld had not read the report and didn’t know what it said. You could have just criticised him for that and it would have had some validity. But Republican-haters just can’t let an opportunity go by to use the L-word: “LIE”. Those evil Republicans always “LIE”.
One would almost be led to suspect that you have an interest in devaluing the word, making it less forceful by over-using it. Why would you want to do that?
Doc Rampage 08.28.04 at 10:18 pm
You do realize that there is a difference between a mistake and lie, right? Even a careless mistake and a lie. Careless mistakes are bad. Lies are bad. But they are not thereby the same thing.
Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page about that.
Matt Weiner 08.28.04 at 10:23 pm
Doc R, “he didn’t read the report” is no excuse–he should be reading the report. And certainly, if he hasn’t read the first paragraph of the Schlesinger report, he shouldn’t be making false statements about what it contains, even if those false statements reflect his beliefs. There’s a point at which there’s no moral difference between lying and producing false statements out of your ass.
Partisan J 08.30.04 at 2:18 am
jdw — there are NOT two sides to every story. There are two sides to SOME stories, and some other stories are either true or false. Rumsfeld’s story here is false, as is demonstrated in this very article:
“After an aide slipped him a note during the news conference, however, Mr. Rumsfeld corrected himself, noting that an inquiry by three Army generals had, in fact, found ‘two or three’ cases of abuse during interrogations or the interrogations process. In fact, however, the Army inquiry found that 13 of 44 instances of abuse involved interrogations or the interrogation process, an Army spokeswoman said. The report itself explicitly describes the extent to which each abuse involved interrogations.”
robbo 08.30.04 at 5:16 am
Doc, you win. I’m perfectly willing to believe that Rumsfeld is truly incompetent. And let’s not forget that Condaleeza Rice also demonstrated a distinct lack of ability pre- and post-9/11. Can’t wait to see your crew in mass retirement come November.
Robin Green 08.31.04 at 1:35 pm
No. The proof that he lied is right above. When passed a correction by an aide, he lied again.
Comments on this entry are closed.