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”.
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?
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.
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….
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
“so naturally” Rumsfeld lied and the NYT’s engaged in journalism.
The NYTimes surely had an agenda: they were reporting the news, like the LATimes:
The Defense Department inquiry, which examined the role of military interrogators at the prison, identified 44 separate cases of abuse, some of which were even more brutal than many of the incidents documented in the now-infamous photographs taken on Tier 1A at the compound outside Baghdad. Gen. Paul Kern, who supervised the investigation, said at a news conference Wednesday that some of the practices amounted to “torture.” The report was the second from the Pentagon in two days on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal — and together they debunk the idea of a rogue operation by the prison’s night shift and instead paint a picture of widespread abuses by many more individuals and institutions, with responsibility going all the way up the ladder to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
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.
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 All newspapers should publish articles by accident, as any right-thinking person well knows.
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.
Donald Rumsfeld, tomorrow.
Excellent job. One quibble: you forgot at least one iteration each of “heavens to Betsy” and “goodness gracious me” in there.
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
No. The proof that he lied is right above. When passed a correction by an aide, he lied again.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review