phengeoag [link http://uefu.com]test4[/link]

McGovern: "You said you knew where they were."

Rumsfeld: "I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were."

McGovern: "You said you knew where they were, near Tikrit, near Baghdad and north, east, south and west of there. Those are your words."

(Indeed they were: Appearing on ABC on March 30, 2003, Rumsfeld said about WMD: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.")

So nice of you to add this, now why ignore it for the rest of your piece?

Rumsfeld scored????
"But if the issue is Zarqawi, and a spooked and reeling Bush administration worrying that they just don't really know what's going on in places like Iraq, that they can't rely on the great CIA, and that they can't predict what will happen, Rumsfeld scored."

The reason the Neo-cons don't "really know" what's going on is NOT because the CIA is un-reliable, it's because they just won't listen to anything that doesn't fit their pre-conceptions.

The reason they can't "predict what will happen" (in reality) is their poor judgement, which stems from their unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of countervailing facts. That's why they are "spooked and reeling"; reality clashes with their perceptions.

Rumsfeld only re-confirmed the perception (the reality) that the neo-cons have little respect for facts; and that this hubris is what causes them to generate poor judgements - again and again. We should only expect more-of-the-same from them. They can't learn from their mistakes because they won't own up to making them.

More to the point, the false stories about WMD came from an extra-ordinary source, not from the regular CIA or the intelligence 'establishment': 1) Rumsfeld directed the creation of a group in DOD (OSP) that had access to raw intelligence data, and what they did was cherry-pick intelligence 'factoids'. 2) Cheney directed the creation of a group in the White House (WHIG) composed of public relations experts, and what they did was fashion talking-points based on those factoids. This is rather well-known (and speaks directly to the issue of 'lying' - pre-meditation).

What is less-known is that Administration personnel, both civilian and military, were REQUIRED by their bosses to repeat those talking points - verbatim - in all official meetings with all persons - both outside-the-government and inside-the-government. Employees were required to repeat the 'approved propaganda' to each other, and to everybody else. Please refer to "The Lie Factory" [Mother Jones magazine]. This also speaks directly to the issue of 'lying'.

Of course, we all understand that there is a difference between lying and being wrong; for one thing, it's easier to admit being wrong than to admit lying. It is significant that the neo-cons will NOT acknowledge that mistakes were made - unless they can blame those mistakes on somebody else. This, too, speaks to the issue of 'lying'.

There may be some sizeable measure of cynicism in protestors' belief that: despite being the person in whom the nation has entrusted all (and only) the powers of the Presidency to lead us thru these difficult times, the President has betrayed our trust. It is a hard thing to say, a hard thing to believe. (How much more cynical to actually DO it than to just TALK ABOUT it.) But until our nation 'comes to' the realization that the stories about Iraq's WMD and Saddam's links to terrorism are LIES, lies that were endlessly repeated by the Administration, America will continue to suffer the psychological pathology that currently afflicts us.

We have even more healing to do now, than after VietNam.

LIES START BAD WARS.

This article is a clear example of what drinking DC water does to the brain. Sycophants unite! Please William move to the country, get some air.

Rumsfeld every breathe is a lie.

"honest patriot" tries to compare Clinton's characterization of oral sex not being sex as an equivalent to the Bush administration's lying to get popular and Congressional support to put American servicemen and servicewomen in harm's way.

Here's what Republicans don't understand. I don't care whether my president has an affair if it doesn't interfere with his ability to do his job. Since I don't care if he has an affair, I don't care that he lies about it.

I DO care when my president lies about the "evidence" for why he is committing our country to war and the high cost of war in terms of money, international credibility, and mostly of American lives.

Bush lied, thousands died.

What are you smokin' William? Rumsfeld lied. He lied so often and so regularly that it is his natural condition. He has been doing since his Princeton days with roomie Carlucci. He is a psycopath and anyone who hasn't lost track of their senses can easily see how deranged this lunatic is.

America is the beast of the planet wiping out biosystems quicker than a blink of the eye. yes of course other "Civilized" nations are participants but pale in comparison to the USA's destructive capabilities and willingness to use them. Lying all the way through it, America. Rumsfeld embodies this.

REF: http://www.tompaine.com/print/my_meeting_with_rumsfeld.php

**

My Meeting With Rumsfeld
Ray McGovern
May 08, 2006

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour. A 27-year veteran of CIA's analyst ranks, he now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

"Hold 'em, Yale" is one of the best short stories of "Guys and Dolls" creator Damon Runyon, who depicted the New York City underworld in the 1920s. The story deals with an undercover operation to scalp ducats before the annual Yale-Harvard football game. It begins:

What I am doing in New Haven on the day of a very large football game between the Harvards and the Yales is something calling for no little explanation, for I am not such a guy as you are likely to find in New Haven at any time--and especially not on the day of a large football game.

A variant came to mind Thursday as I walked through a posh Atlanta neighborhood to the Southern Center for International Policy to hear a speech by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

What I am doing in Atlanta on the day of a very large lecture by Donald Rumsfeld to an establishment audience is something calling for no little explanation, for I am not such a guy as you are likely to find in such a venue at any time--and especially not when the ducat requires $40 up front.

But serendipity prevailed. The ACLU of Georgia had invited me to their annual dinner on Thursday, May 4, to receive the National Civil Liberties Award. Friends in Atlanta arranged for me to bookend my remarks at the ACLU dinner with a Wednesday presentation to Pax Christi, the Catholic peace movement, and a talk on Friday evening at Quaker House in Decatur. I planned to put the rationale for looming war with Iran in context by drawing an unhappy but direct parallel with the bogus reasons adduced to "justify" the U.S. attack on Iraq more than three years ago.

When those friends learned last Monday that Rumsfeld would be in Atlanta Thursday to give an afternoon speech at the Center, it seemed a natural to go. The event was said to be open to the public, but it took tradecraft skills assimilated over a 27-year career with the CIA to acquire a ticket. (The event was strangely absent from the Center's website, reportedly at the insistence of the Defense Department.)

The fact that my presence there was pure coincidence turned out to be a huge disappointment for those who began interviews later that day by insisting I tell them why I had stalked Rumsfeld all the way from Washington to Atlanta. Especially people like Paula Zahn, who asked me on Thursday evening "what kind of axe" I had to grind with him.

To prepare for my presentations, I took along a briefcase full of notes and clippings, one of which was a New York Times article datelined Atlanta, Sept. 27, 2002, quoting Rumsfeld's assertion that there was "bulletproof" evidence of ties between al-Qaida and the government of Saddam Hussein.

This was the kind of unfounded allegation that, at the time, deceived 69 percent of Americans into believing that the Iraqi leader played a role in the tragedy of 9/11. Rumsfeld's "bulletproof" rhetoric also came in the wake of an intensive but quixotic search by my former colleagues at the CIA for any reliable evidence of such ties.

A fresh reminder of the Bush administration's Iraq deceptions surfaced Thursday morning, when the Spanish newspaper El Pais published an interview with Paul Pillar, the senior U.S. intelligence specialist on the Middle East and terrorism until he retired late last year. Pillar branded administration attempts to prove a link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein "an organized campaign of manipulation... I suppose by some definitions that could be called a lie."

I arrived at the Rumsfeld lecture early, took a seat near a microphone set aside for Q-and-A, and thought I might ask Rumsfeld to explain his use of the "bulletproof" adjective, which came at a time when none other than Gen. Brent Scowcroft was describing such evidence as "scant," and the CIA was saying it was non-existent. (The 9/11 commission later ruled definitively in CIA's favor.)

Rumsfeld brought up bête noire terrorist al-Zarqawi as proof of collaboration between al-Qaida and Iraq, but that was a canard easily knocked down. It appears that Rumsfeld thinks no one really pays attention. Sadly, as regards the mainstream press, he has been largely right--at least until now.

When Rumsfeld broadened our dialogue to include the never-to-be-found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, saying, "Apparently, there were no weapons of mass destruction," I could not resist reminding him that he had claimed he actually knew where they were. Anyone who followed this issue closely would remember his remark to George Stephanopoulos on March 30, 2003:

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

As soon as the event was over, CNN asked me for my sources, which I was happy to share. The CNN folks seemed a bit surprised that they all checked out. To their credit, they overcame the more customary "McGovern said this, but Rumsfeld said that"--and the dismissive "well, we'll have to leave it there"--kind of treatment. In Rumsfeldian parlance, what I had said turned out to be "known knowns," even though he provided an altered version on Thursday of his "we know where they are." Better still, in its coverage, CNN quoted what Rumsfeld had said in 2003.

That evening a friend emailed me about a call she got from a close associate in "upper management at CNN" to ask about me. She quoted the CNN manager: "We checked and double-checked everything this guy had to say and he was 100 percent accurate." He then asked if those protesting the war "were getting organized or something." She responded, "Indeed we are and have been for some time, and it's about time the mainstream media caught up."

With the exception of CNN--and MSNBC which also did its homework and displayed the tangled web woven by the normally articulate defense secretary--the other networks generally limited their coverage to the "he-said-but-he-said" coverage more typical of what passes for journalism these days. Even CNN found it de rigueur to put neocon ideologue Frank Gaffney on with me for Wolf Blitzer. Gaffney is well to the right of Rumsfeld, so I should not have been surprised to hear Gaffney take the line that the U.S. may still find evidence of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Hope springs eternal.

And there were more subliminal messages. In some press reports I was described as a "Rumsfeld critic" and "heckler" who was, heavens, "rude to Rumsfeld." Other accounts referred to my "alleged" service with the CIA, which prompted my wife to question--I think in jest--what I was really doing for those 27 years. I believe I was able to convince her without her performing additional fact checking.

All in all, my encounter with Rumsfeld was for me a highly instructive experience. The Center's president, Peter White, singled out Rumsfeld's "honesty" in introducing him, and 99 percent of those attending seemed primed to agree. Indeed, their reaction brought to mind film footage of rallies in Germany during the thirties. When Rumsfeld replied to my first question about his false statements on Iraq 's WMD, the applause was automatic. "I did not lie then...," he insisted.

This was immediately greeted with what Pravda used to describe as "stormy applause," followed immediately by rather unseemly shouts by this otherwise well-disciplined and well-heeled group to have me summarily thrown out. At the end, as we all filed out slowly, I could make eye contact with only one person--who proceeded to berate me for being insubordinate.

Scary. No open minds there. A graphic reminder for those wishing to spread some truth around that we have our work cut out for us. We have to find imaginative ways to use truth as a lever to pry open closed minds.

http://www.tompaine.com/print/my_meeting_with_rumsfeld.php

inflation goes up (I think it's been about 3% a year, but I'm not sure)...the price of gas goes up...no rise in wages in over 10 years. What's 3% times 10?

Posted by: | May 8, 2006 06:34 PM

If we are in a period of belt tightening, does it have to be only one side that has to tighten...or strangulate?

I can't imagine a Marie Antoinette kind of world...and it seems were getting there...

All I wish for is a voice of conscience to represent the working class.

How can you trust when there are policies like this...

"You've simply renounced the first rule of the FXXX PXXX: distrust those who yield power, and then distrust them some more"

Gary states:
"Everybody makes mistakes. If we cn not tolerate mistakes we will not survive."

I don't think you know what that means. It's just a meaningless platitude. The mistakes (a.k.a. lies) are killing us, Gary. Please wake up.

This modest bit of good thinking and all the responses illustrates my idea perfectly. The current President and his administration is not the problem that will ruin us. What will ruin us is the total belief that all who do not agree with the "party line" are lying and that no ideas other than the "party line" are valid. intollerance will ruin us.

Not even long established reputations can survive this wave. If they don't agree 100% they are evil or mad and must be destroyed.

Everybody makes mistakes. If we cn not tolerate mistakes we will not survive. Who do you have to run things that is perfect?

"Pleabians Conduct 'buisiness' for Representation."--Int. Minutemen News

Negotiations for a merger or settlement give hope to both sides...

Mistakes were made. No one ever LIES in government. Thank you for filing away all those jagged edges of reality for us.

How difficult it must be to live in such trepidation of the Herods of Washington, that one must demand that questions be so "courteous" that they no longer be meaningful.

Ray McGovern underwent a religious conversion. He is genuinely born again, as opposed to the many people who claim it without having experienced it. Being re-born makes one understand how destructive and selfish the world is, how often wrong is done in the name of good. It forces one to speak against wrong, to bear witness. It forces one to ask real questions.

The voice may have been Ray McGovern's.

The message was straight from God.

Charles of MercuryRising
http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Here's someone who apparently thinks Mr. Rumsfeld is lying, although once again that word is so very, very hard to say...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/269394_rumsfeld08.html

Rummy lying is less saddening to me than the press covering it up. The press was our last refuge of freedom in this country when the corrupt politician have taken over. Now they are in the pocket of the power. Disgusting!

I remember Brit Hume (AKA Joe McCarthy) saying after 9/11 that those who spoke against the president were un-American. What happened to this once great country??!!

"America also needs
to give its leaders a
chance to be wrong.
The implications such
intolerance to error
is to push human beings
up against the wall, . . .

They were wrong about chemical weapons, but not that wrong.

They believed that there were enough chemical weapons to present some risk to some of the troops, but not enough to cause them to make any actual strategic changes in the invasion plans. So the question to Rummy should be: why (beyond those rubber suits) didn't he adjust his war plans more to deal with the strategic impact of those supposed weapons?

I am sure that the true answer to this would be that the Pentagon had good enough intelligence to put some rather low upper limit on the number of actual chemical or biological weapons that could be used against its forces. But of course he can't say that because it would undercut the administration's arguments about why the war was necessary.

So the issue is not about the "tolerance" of the American people for their leaders being "wrong" and being subject to "human error" it is about our tolerance toward our leader using spin and lies to get us to support a war of choice.

To be honest ourselves, we already knew that chemical/biological/nuclear weapons were not the actual reason for the war. And so we are right back again to the Helen Thomas question -- the one that only Cheney or Bush could answer: what was their real reason for wanting to invade Iraq?

The real media, not just a few civilians and retired insiders who manage to get into public events, should be stalking administration figures and putting them "up against the wall" with this question with the same tenacity that Helen Thomas showed in that spoof Colbert video at the correspondents' dinner.

I agree with Arkin that "America also needs to give its leaders a chance to be wrong. The implications such intolerance to error is to push human beings up against the wall, a place where there is no good outcome."

But to be worthy of such tolerance and forgiveness, the recipient must first be capable of and willing to admit that they made a mistake and were wrong. And this is the one thing that the Bush administration seems categorically incapable of doing. So Rumsfeld has finally seemingly admitted that there were no WMD, but that is *NOT* the official party line, nor has he admitted he was wrong. Instead, he says those advising him were wrong, which apparently is supposed to insulate him from the same taint. And as far as I know, Mr Bush is still looking under tables at DC fundraisers for those pesky WMD. *THAT* is why many people are so outraged that they throw the "liar" epithet so freely.

And lest readers blow this off as "another liberal rant", I am embarrassed to say that I am a lifelong registered R. I'm in the Lawrence Wilkerson camp - "They've stolen my party and I want it back." IMHO, the people currently leading our country have done far more harm to our nation than the 9/11 hijackers could have ever hoped for...

Arkin, you state: "Human courtesy would mean un derstanding fallibility, fear, pride, the drive of false certainty in office."
There is no courtesy in dialogue when a party to the discussion has committed/enabled the commitment of atrocious acts.

Although, I do concur with you when you state " I just don't want the only answer to be pulling a lever every four years; there are alternatives, even politicians and the administration learns." We (the people) need to enact/impart our will onto the body, which represents our voice. This is democracy.

However, to say: "America also needs to give its leaders a chance to be wrong". This is not only wrong, but way off center. To actually commit to an idea of tolerance for ignorance and 'mistakes' in the wake of greed is to commit to the idea that anyone within the government has a get out of jail free card and to believe that they are somehow above the law.
If a citizen were to go to court to defend their selves with the same argument, they will be scolded by the judge hearing their case and informed that it is their duty to know right from wrong.

Get to the point......or get off the line.......

I'm joining the sit in with w.c.

No press headline saying "Rumsfeld Lied"

I think I will sit here until we see someone in the media have the courage to say it...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

still waiting

Let's take it easy on Mr. Arkin. He is just doing his job,

Lets not forget W "The Decider" decides, the press secretary announces those decisions, and the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!

Courtsey of Colbert

the English were using them to reclaim the United States as a territory.

You're forgetting that the English were basically using the South, the South was enamored of the chivalric heritage/royalty that the British had...history, prestige, lineage....American cotton was replacing Egyptian cotton.

the war of 1812 was an attempt to regain the colonies....40 years later another try...I could say a few things about slavery and carpet baggers but you definitely don't want to get me started.

.

Rumsfeld, Cheyney, DealAide, Abramoff, Cunning-hamm, the bush boyz Neil, Jeb, geo w., geo h.w., negroponte geo h.w.'s honduran drug warlord, CIA/MAFIA/TEXAS/BAYOFPIGS/NORIEGA/NIXON

no there's no effing connection or to PNAC either

written and signed by Jeb, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld...

check it out:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Arkin,
In the past I have believed you. But not this time.

If Rumsfeld didn't lie, he used his words so recklessly, he might as well have lied.

Your mother: "Where is your brother?"
You: "In his room."
5 minutes later.
Your mother: "Why did you lie to me?"
You: "I didn't know where he was, so it wasn't a lie."

That won't get you off

William Arkin, it must be because you have to work in Washington at a well known newspaper that you can't see the pattern of behavior that Rumsfeld and the administration engaged in: "fixing the facts fit the policy" as the Downing Street memos said - is LYING. You folks apparently have too much BS to filter in your day-to-day work, and your filters must be clogged. Time to clean them - open the doors of perception.

Rumsfeld's selective truth telling and misrepresentation of the totality of facts is the kind of lying that politicians, dictators and kings have done for centuries to justify what they do. Rumsfeld lied because he wasn't honest about what he really knew and didn't know - and because, ultimately, the war in Iraq was sold to the American people on the basis of "trust the President and the administration".
They weren't and aren't worthy of trust, and they did lie.

Wow. Incredibly lame. You don't think he lied when he said "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."? Just amazing. I guess nothing he says could ever possibly seem like a lie to you. Look up the definition of lie. Deception counts too. By the way, there are two lies - the original one, and the one denying what he said.

And a multi-decade veteran of the CIA, a man who briefed G. H. W. Bush countless times, I think can decide for himself whether his line of unpatriotic questioning is appropriate. He showed Rumsfeld to be a dishonorable man and a bald-faced liar, just as Friedman did over a year ago on TV.

To DAD that believes President Lincoln started a preemptive war to divide the country...try reading US history a little closer. The Southern states chose to cecede from the Union in spite of Mr Lincoln's efforts to maintain the integrity of the states. Additionally, the Confederate States of America (the ceceded Southern states) began the civil war by attcking a Union Fort in South Carolina, Ft Sumpter. If you can't get even the basics of US history correct, perhaps you should refrain from using as an example.

RE

Bush is after terrorists? What is terrorism?
Wikipedia
"The term terrorism is used to refer to acts of violence, or the threat of violence carried out for political motives by organisations/individuals who are not recognised as organs of the ligitimate state within a given territory nor officially at war with that territory."

Acts of violence = bombing, War, and invasion
Regime Change in Iraq = political motive.
Organizations = George Bush and Company.
nor officially at war = When did Congress declare war on Iraq?

George W(warmonger) Bush and his Regime are Terrorists and has made America a Terrorist Nation.

You wonder why America today is hated world over and why it will take many years to correct George Bush's presidency?

George W Bush is more like Abe Lincoln the first Republican President who divided this country and started, I believe to be, the first Pre-emptive war in American History by invading Virginia and the Confederate States of America.

Now Bush and Congressional Republicans are calling for Regime change in Iran because the Democratically Elected president doesn't bow to Bush and Companies wishes.

We complained when Reagan illegally supported Contra Terrorists.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Iran Freedom Support Act of 2005.

Legislation passed by Congress calling for regime change in foreign countries is just more Terrorist activity.

Mr Arkin, How much did Rummy pay you for this pathetic article?

I feel sorry for our society now ... that the vehemence with which any and all ideas and commentary are met overwhelms the message a thousandfold. Black and white. No Gray. Gray, in fact, is either unpatriotic or unlibertarian. Hmm ... America, I think you now deserve everything you receive, if name calling and finger pointing are your only recourse. My only sadness is that my family and I are being dragged along with it.

You better get the bigger picture on Porter Goss and Hayden pretty soon.
Bribery and Hookers are just some symptoms which distract from the reorganisation of the whole U.S. Intelligence Apparatus:

http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2890
Hayden and the NSA- the most ignored "9/11 connection"?
A 'rant' based on research, compiled between 2001 and 2006,
by ewing2001

I am not sure if your conclusion was meant to be a sardonic commentary, or if you were being sincere. If you were being sincere, then let me awaken you from your deep sleep. An honest man can answer simple questions with concise answers. Our government has an obligation to answer all of our questions, completely, and immediately, irregardless of how distasteful they think the questions are. Rumsfeld's transparent attempt to confuse us by bastardizing the English language, does not bolster his credibility,or his intelligence. He lied to get us into the war, and he is lying now. The evidence has all been recorded, videotaped, transcribed...What part of that confuses you? If you can see, and/or hear, and if you have any ambition to find the truth,or any cognitive ability to comprehend the truth, then you should know the lie.

It's not great...but it's a change of position on my part

Polls can be pesky...

What would you think if Bush used a speach like this as a compromise on immigration?

People across the globe envy the freedom that Americans enjoy today. They fought to make this country free and they labor to maintain it. People shouldn't be blaimed for wanting to be a part of this great country, they should be encouraged to make this their way of life.
When extreme solutions to problems that have been growing for years are presented, we need to use reason.
We must protect our borders so that the flow of people into this country is done in a legal and controlled manor. We must protect ourselves from those that would do us harm. We must also recognize that when people spend years working here they are not a burden, but a benifit to society.
That's why I am purposing a bill that would allow people to EARN the right to live in this great land. Over the next 5 years as we secure the border, those people wishing to stay in this country should endevour to learn the English language, our laws, and our history. They must show that they are willing to be a part of the greatest labor force on earth. After 5 years, those people keeping with the spirit of this plan can get a drivers license. And after 10 years, they can register to vote. A healthy workforce is one that recognizes it's potential, yet strives to go further.

Downside..the darn borders might not get funded
Upside.. a healthy happy workforce

It is truly a fact that many in this blog ignore any scope or context; and even replace wish for fact.... Where are our history teachers?!

What a truly ignorant perspective. The author of this blog fails to point out that every "mistake" that the members of this administration have made, has been to their advantage.

Completely screw up an election in a state in which your brother is Governor and your campaign manager is the Secretary of State: WIN A NATIONAL ELECTION

Ignore reams of evidence that Osama Bin Laden has agents in the United States to attack targets and hijack planes, not holding one single high level meeting on terrorism: OBTAIN YOUR "NEW PEARL HARBOR" AND BECOME A "WAR PRESIDENT"

Rail on and on, falsely, and in direct opposition to the majority of the evidence, that Iraq has an Al-Qaida connection; has massive stockpiles of the worlds deadliest agents; secretly attempted to obtain nuclear (nucular) materials from Niger; has mobile biological weapons factories and has centerfugal tubes to enrich uranium: OBTAIN AUTHORIZATON FROM CONGRESS TO GO TO WAR AS A LAST RESORT

Completely screw up an election in a state in which the Governor is completely corrupt and convicted of a felony and your campaign manager is the Secretary of state:
WIN YOUR SECOND TERM IN OFFICE AND OBTAIN "POLITICAL CAPITAL"

Your right, their not liars, they're just the luckiest bunch of idiots that have every stained the earth with their shadows. All of the evidence that they have access to, completely validates their decisions, but in the end turns out to be based upon lies, errors and fraud.

What A Country! What A Party! God Bless America!

I don't see this aspect addressed either in the article or the comments I scanned. Yes, everyone is human and makes mistakes--but that is *NOT* how Bush and Rumsfeld and the rest of these scumbags are marketed to the voters. They are being marketed as patriotic superheros who can defeat the supervillains such as UBL and Saddam Hussein.

Rumsfeld made a statement that was false. He clearly claimed to know a fact that he could not have known, because it was not even true. If he was not being marketed as a superhero it wouldn't matter so much, but superheros aren't supposed to be incompetents or liars or both.

Well, Saddam turned out to be a weak sham, not a supervillain. Perhaps UBL is a supervillain, but if so, Rumsfeld the incompetent SoD has failed to get him and should be replaced.

Bush, Cheney Halliburton, Rumsfeld and Rove need to be tried for treason... with all penalties for treason on the plate.

Cheers,
Lori R. Price
Gen. Mgr.
Citizens For Legitimate Government
http://www.legitgov.org/

Of course, lies are not uncommon, coming from politicians.

It's just that these lies cost 2400 (and counting) American lives, 30,000 (and coiunting) Iraqi lives, $350 Billion (and counting) - and virtually destroyed a country, not to mention US credibility for generations to come.

That makes these lies a little different, a little bit worse than lying about fellatio, etc.

These are lies of historic proportions. Comparable (in a historical sense) to the lies of Hitler, Stalin, and others.

And that's what makes it incredible that intelligent people are still in denial about the very fact that these lies ocurred.

Wow! 625 posts (I'm not counting this one).

Mr. Arkin, you have touched a nerve. Maybe its time for the Post to take a poll! ... One they have avoided all this time...

1) Did Rumsfeld LIE when he said we knew where the WMD were? (This blog gives an idea of what the numbers would be).

2) Did the president LIE when he said Iraq was seeking uranium in the SOTU speech?

3) Should Congress consider impeaching the president?

4) Assuming the president is brought before Congress under articles of impeachment, would your congressman's vote for or against impeachment influence your future vote for your congressman? If so how?

Arkin, read my lips:

He. Lied.

Deal with it.

Or do you subscribe to the neofascist school of thought that when Leaders lie, it's truth?

Mr. Arkin,
You never did get around to explaining why you say Rumsfeld did not lie. You even printed the lie, the comment about Tkirit, north, south, east and west. If that is not proof enough for you, then you are beyond hope. The Washington Post has gone past covering for the administration to outright lying for them. I guess that's just part of your job description, ignoring the truth and obfuscating when challenged, but we out here in reality land have passed you by months and years ago. We know who the criminals are, and who is in thrall to them. It's just too bad you had to ruin a perfectly good newspaper by sucking up to a White House that no longer has the support of most of the citizens in America, & we will not forgive or forget your treason any more than we will this administration's.

To George Galva,
Your comments are very well argued. I could'nt help re-posting them as the long list of comments means many would miss reading them.

Mr Arkins:
Your hang up on the 'civility' and 'fallibility' questions is initially puzzling. It makes sense, however, when one considers the press's abdication of its roles as guarantors of a free public debate and counterweight to the government. You and your fellow reporters, for sure, are not really groveling at the feet of the Administration. You've simply renounced the first rule of the Fourth Power: distrust those who wield power, and then distrust them some more. It makes for a really civilized debate while emasculating the only true power a free press yields: the power to detect bunk and powerfully deconstruct it. That's the sad consequence of 21st Century monopolistic corporate capitalism, which has firmly tied elected officials and corporate interests into an inviolate Gordian knot.

As to the substance of the exchange, you totally fail to understand the import of Mr. McGovern's words. In the best tradition of juries and court commentators everywhere, you've firmly checked your common sense at the door. Mr. McGovern consistently reminded Mr. Rumsfeld, time and again, that he and fellow analysts never believed the extent and depth of the assertions made by the Administration, produced intelligence contradicting these estimates, and were stunned when minority views on intelligence estimates were ganged on the intelligence community. You also took leave of your intelligence by choosing not to examine the effect of the cross-examination: Rumsfeld lied back then, and then lies again about the lies. It was a pathetic spectacle, made even sadder when the organizers sicced the ever present goons ready to preserve 'civility' on McGovern

A lie or a misguided belief in a selected slice of intelligence?

The Downing Street memo, the fact that many of the details of what was known by whom and when are still hidden about under the word "secret" and the attempts to "change" their accounts to cover their tracks all point to in the same direction. No person wants to think that of our leaders would tell such a lie, but then we didn't want to think that Nixon had sponsored criminal breakins either. At some point we have to open our eyes and call it for what it is - a big, fat lie.

I guess what was missing from the equation was...facts..

I will not be any more trouble.

QUOTE: "Just a reminder why I continue this "sit in"-

I have vowed to keep posting on this sight until an American news org. runs the headline "Rumsfeld lied". So far every U.S. news artical has said stuff like "Rumsfeld's mistakes". "Rumsfeld's misteps"...etc
:ENDQUOTE

Yes, most of us have the two neurons required to put it together that Rummy lied.

Now -- it's time for YOU to grow up and stop spamming this thread. Let OTHER people have a chance to talk instead of destroying this interchange with your self-obsessed, barely literate ramgling.

Sorry..I'm slow =P

America became wealthy making the things the world wanted to buy. This wealth was used to dominate North and South America and drive out the other imperialist countries. WW1 and WW2 were fought between the old world power Great Britain and the rising world power Germany. In both world wars France and Great Britain suffered enormous economic and military losses fighting off the Germans. The US came in at the end of both wars to finish Germany off suffering as little economic hardship as possible, a truly brilliant strategy for a rising world power (unfortunately becoming a world power guarantees corrupt politics and policies not in the interest of the majority of it's citizens). The US took over as the world's super power picking up the pieces left from Great Britain and only opposed by the Soviet Union. Most of the world accepted the rise of the US as protection against the militaristic Soviet Union. After the demise of the Soviet Union US politicians debated whether to curtail military spending or go for permanent global dominance. Military spending continued but the debate was not settled until 9/11, the members of our political elite who were arguing for a reduction in the military were defeated.

During the period before 9/11 the US was reaching for global economic dominance. This was done by encouraging other countries to adapt to our legal and financial standards and allowing our financial institutions to help run their economies. In exchange for this countries are allowed access to our markets (less tariffs, subsidized shipping, and infrastructure improvements). Our financial and political institutions benefit and our manufacturing sector and working class population are hurt subsidizing their own demise. Our military is allowed bases in the foreign countries to protect our financial interests and our politicians influence and power in these countries are increased. American political power increases in exchange for a lower standard of living for middle class Americans.

All empires overreach. They rot from within. Smart Americans better start learning Mandarin. They will be in high demand during this transition period of wealth from Western democracies to Asia.

Taxation without representation!

Also known as S L A V E R Y

You have one thing that is missing...the missing key to your celestial guidance...YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT"S LIKE TO BE THE PRODUCT OF YOUR PLAN

See the discourse in the peoples voices...THATS R E A L I T Y

The flaw in your theory...highly intelligent people have been denied the proper education...and could probably be better leaders then those believing in a quasi-religion

here is another

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/mental%5Fcase

"The best thinkers"...hmmm...

An interesting websight...

http://www.gordiansolutions.com/TheKnot.htm

"Intelligence Minutemen"

Well, I'm glade I get a chance to talk to you now then...While this is still free

Ah...I SEE...

the only true power a free press yields: the power to detect bunk and powerfully deconstruct it.

I'd hate to think you meant this:

The representation of the individual ends in the nation-state

hehe

You people have NO morals

Fourth Power= Fourth Estate

Sorry 'bout that, I'm used to the nomenclature in Spanish when referring to the press ('el Cuarto Poder').

You can keep your gold...and your WTO

I don't live in the United Corpret States of slavery...no thanks

No taxation without representation!

No taxation without representation!

Yea, I'd say you went to far

omg

This fourth state?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Fourth+power&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=20&sa=N

Jorge,

What do you mean by---

"You've simply renounced the first rule of the Fourth Power: distrust those who yield power, and then distrust them some more"

What is the Fourth power?

Hmm, No minnimum wage increase in 10 years, threatening to take away Social Security, tax breaks favoring the rich...Let's offer 2.5 million dollars of tax payers money (NASA is still a government agency, right?)to millionairs to take a REALLY expensive joy ride...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12638904/

Dear Mr. Arkin:

I was graced with the chance of observing the exchange between Messrs. McGovern and Rumsfeld, which allows me to reach my own conclusions.

You are 100% wrong both in your assessment of the exchange and the lessons derived therefrom.

Your hang up on the 'civility' and 'fallibility' questions is initially puzzling. It makes sense, however, when one considers the press's abdication of its roles as guarantors of a free public debate and counterweight to the government. You and your fellow reporters, for sure, are not really groveling at the feet of the Administration. You've simply renounced the first rule of the Fourth Power: distrust those who yield power, and then distrust them some more. It makes for a really civilized debate while emasculating the only true power a free press yields: the power to detect bunk and powerfully deconstruct it. That's the sad consequence of 21st Century monopolistic corporate capitalism, which has firmly tied elected officials and corporate interests into an inviolate Gordian knot.

As to the substance of the exchange, you totally fail to understand the import of Mr. McGovern's words. In the best tradition of juries and court commentators everywhere, you've firmly checked your common sense at the door. Mr. McGovern consistently reminded Mr. Rumsfeld, time and again, that he and fellow analysts never believed the extent and depth of the assertions made by the Administration, produced intelligence contradicting these estimates, and were stunned when minority views on intelligence estimates were ganged on the intelligence community. You also took leave of your intelligence by choosing not to examine the effect of the cross-examination: Rumsfeld lied back then, and then lies again about the lies. It was a pathetic spectacle, made even sadder when the organizers sicced the ever present goons ready to preserve 'civility' on McGovern. Another sad spectacle of 21st Century America: free speech muzzled consistently, efficiently, even brutally, when it inconveniences somebody who has something to hide. Not a peep about this in your comments, Mr. Arkin, which is shameful.

You are wrong. I hope you have the gumption to re-examine the perfidious role that the press has chosen to assume vis-a-vis the government. The press was never meant to be a facilitator of governmental wrong-doing and prevarication. Your explanations provide a facile cop-out for a mendacious, incompetent, and probably criminal Administration.

Please redeem yourself by stating, loud and clear, that it's time for the lying fools to go and for America to reclaim government from, by, and of the people.

Sincerely,

Jorge E. Galva
Northville, MI

Cursory Stats wrote:
"Has anybody else noticed that the "Rummy Lied" vs. the "Rummy Didn't Lie" ratio is running about 10 to 1 on this thread?
Bush has a 35% approval rating?
I doubt that it's that high."

But you forget that the people on this blog can read and write. That leaves out a lot of Bush supporters. :^}

Here is another that gives only some of the dialog to decieve the readers...If you think this is what happened...please watch the whole tape.

http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=4806

The free press...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605060001

Who's to blame for the exchange between Rummy and McGovern? The "Heckler"'s motive...or the substance?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/193hqlnl.asp

Just a reminder why I continue this "sit in"-

I have vowed to keep posting on this sight until an American news org. runs the headline "Rumsfeld lied". So far every U.S. news artical has said stuff like "Rumsfeld's mistakes". "Rumsfeld's misteps"...etc

Given what happened with Rumsfeld and McGovern, why is this? The whole LEGAL argument that the U.S. has been using to defend this action has been that this was a "MISTAKE" and not a "LIE". The mainstrem media knows that if it posts a news article that it was a lie, there would be no defense for impeachment.

I mean...like right now

I don't think people understand, that we have to do this now

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501489.html

Right. The real question is why Rummy and the others presented things as fact that were far less than that. But we already know the answer to that too: Because Bush wanted to invade Iraq.

Thomas had the real question: "Mr. President WHY did you so want to invade Iraq."

The media needs to keep after an answer to that with the determination shown by Thomas in that Cobert press secretary audition spoof tape.

...hour 12

Just a reminder why I continue this "sit in"-

I have vowed to keep posting on this sight until an American news org. runs the headline "Rumsfeld lied". So far every U.S. news artical has said stuff like "Rumsfeld's mistakes". "Rumsfeld's misteps"...etc

Given what happened with Rumsfeld and McGovern, why is this? The whole LEGAL argument that the U.S. has been using to defend this action has been that this was a "MISTAKE" and not a "LIE". The mainstrem media knows that if it posts a news article that it was a lie, there would be no defense for impeachment.

A good artical:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1518668.cms

is that like "extreme consiquences"?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/05/rumsfeld_heckle.html

accused?

sigh..Power to the people...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002463525

the sit in continues...

I don't know what the future brings, but it seems many, like myself, we are being handed our hat and shown the door.

I like to think I am a life, not a sheep.
Social Security, jobs sent over seas due to trade, no money for college, minimum wage hasn't been raised in years.

I feel like I am in the fight for my life...litterally, and nothing to lose.

I guess vague statements get vague answers...

Arrkiin,
Please Chalk River, after eastern France. Inquiring minds want to know.

Lies, not a mistake....Lies not a mistake...

and the sit in goes on---

Ok, how about a CHALLENGE...can any foriegn media outdo the aussies?

Cummon guys...Are you kidding me? The Aussies are better journalists?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/rumsfeld-heckled-over-iraq-war-lies/2006/05/05/1146335925262.html

Did anyone out there see Dennis Kucinich on Cspan this week? Here is an article:

http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3227829

Sit in..hour 9 give or take

Sigh...the silence is defening...

The "Sit in" continues...
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060505_rumsfeld_mcgovern_lies/

Someone is getting it...

I have vowed to keep posting on this sight until an American news org. runs the headline "Rumsfeld lied". So far every U.S. news artical has said stuff like "Rumsfeld's mistakes". "Rumsfeld's misteps"...etc

Given what happened with Rumsfeld and McGovern, why is this? The whole LEGAL argument that the U.S. has been using to defend this action has been that this was a "MISTAKE" and not a "LIE". The mainstrem media knows that if it posts a news article that it was a lie, there would be no defense for impeachment.

Please spread the word....it's time to fight

William M. Arkin, did you put your name on this tortured defense of Donald Rumsfeld (pun intended) because that is what one has to do to get published in the opinion pages of the War-shilling com-Post, sorry, I mean the Washington Post, or have you swallowed the neo-con kool-aid and do you actually believe what you wrote? I hope it's the former.

Did you write "their [sic] on television" and other grammatical and semantic goofs as a subtle signal that you are capable of much better work than this when there is less pressure, or did you think that this column was a finished fully thought through argument? I hope it was the former.

Was Donald Rumsfeld lying, as corrupt war profiteers and their clique members and cronies will understandably do, or has he swallowed the neo-con kool-aid and does he actually believe the bulk of what he publicly says? Once again, I hope it was the former. Because imperialistic greed and corruption and the consequent dishonesty are reasonably well understood and predictable.

On the other hand, utopian delusional sociopathic psychosis is more unpredictable, and potentially much more dangerous.

Assurances in the wind are nice. A Tortured kitten fears no more. A poor grizzled man can recieve care. A viscious tiger Attacks no more. A crooked old man Rests in his old age. Oh changes! Oh Captain! Bare they soul and speak assurances...and the wind fades away....

Mr. Arkin,
I highly admire your column, but I am confused by this one: Why the strong put-down of a former CIA analyst (and G.H.W. Bush Daily CIA Briefer?) in such a derogatory fashion ("I imagine McGovern's goal yesterday was to get on the evening news") and then (kinda/sorta) tie McGovern to the belief that "Bush is Hitler" ? Are you just making this stuff up or do you know something you aren't discussing here?

You can write about your own abhorrence of this war and, thus, hopefully influence events. And it is more effective if YOU do so with intelligence, respect and courtesy and not associate yourself personally with those folks shouting "liar." But why do you suggest that an ex-CIA officer and ordinary folks do the same? Because "(they) are here as citizens to teach and guide (this Administration)?" Wow! What a stunning statement! It sounds seriously misguided. Please tell me there is something here I don't understand.

And, further, to paraphrase you: Anyone who has ever been in a relationship or taken Psych 101 knows that suggesting that Rumsfeld "should go" is likely to make his departure LESS likely. Are you suggesting Rumsfeld should go in order to encourage Rumsfeld to stay?

You seem to be out of your area of expertise with this column. I for one would be willing to forgive you for your errors in judgment, if you ask for forgiveness. I am serious. I'm keeping an open mind. Take care and keep writing.

Mr. Arkin,

" ... Anyone who has ever been in a relationship or taken Psych 101 knows that accusing someone of lying is unlikely to unleash truth-telling."

I doubt that Mr. McGovern expected to hear the 'truth.'

" ... And more important, it exposes the hand, and the conclusion, of the questioner."

Mr. McGovern didn't have a hand to expose. He had facts instead.

" ... Yesterday, protestors repeatedly interrupted the Defense Secretary during a speech at the Southern Center for International Studies, accusing Rumsfeld of "lying" to the American people."

Not a pretty sight. Especially when one of the male audience members reached up and tried to grab the protester's sign from her arms, drawing her forward forcefully. The ensuing tug-of-war for possession of the sign was sickening to see.

" ... Rumsfeld to his credit, told the organizers to let McGovern speak -- in which McGovern managed to successfully quote the Secretary back to himself saying things he wished he never said."

Mr. Rumsfeld is to be credited for 'letting' Mr. McGovern speak? Things 'he wished that he had never said?" Why not?

" ... But did the Secretary lie? Did he know some truth and intentionally tell the American people the opposite to manipulate them? I don't think so."

If he didn't lie, then by all means, can you explain exactly what it is that you believe he did do instead? Please support your argument.

" ... If the issue here is Saddam Hussein's connection to al Qaeda and his involvement in 9/11, to the "bulletproof" evidence the administration claimed, and more important for America, to the likelihood that Saddam would have ever shared any WMD with terrorists -- the true strategic assumption behind the Iraq war and the justification for our entire WMD obsessed foreign policy today -- McGovern scored."

Yes, he did.

" ... But if the issue is Zarqawi, and a spooked and reeling Bush administration worrying that they just don't really know what's going on in places like Iraq, that they can't rely on the great CIA, and that they can't predict what will happen, Rumsfeld scored."

Perhaps this is your supporting argument? 1) Mr. Zarqawi. He is now the supposed No. 1 terrorist in Iraq. Are you/Mr. Rumsfeld saying that he was the No. 1 terrorist in Iraq prior to the invasion? Can Mr. Rumsfeld say or prove the same? If not, why did he refer to him? 2) A 'spooked and reeling' BA 'worrying that they don't really know what is going on in places like Iraq?' So they decided to invade the country to find out? 3) They 'can't rely on the great CIA.' Which part of the agency is unreliable - the individuals who produced the analyses that they decided to observe or the individual's whose work they decided to ignore and who are now representing the best that the United States has to offer by speaking out and having their careers terminated as a result of their efforts? 4) They also 'can't predict what will happen?' True. But, they have hedged their bets by developing the Pre-Emptive Strike Doctrine.

If you are attempting to present a case stating that members of the administration were both fearful and concerned regarding the security of the US post-9/11, fine. Members of any administration likely would have been. However, fear and concern should not have led to the actions committed by the BA post-9/11, actions that are continuing unabated to this date, including the initiation of the war in Iraq. Americans won't buy this story - nor will they accept and embrace an 'apology' - it is too late, IMHO.

If you or the BA have an 'explanation' for said actions - please present it for all to consider. Doing so will not save the Republicans in November or in 2008, IMHO, but it would at least afford the American people some semblance of respect - a sadly missing entity from this administration to the American people since its inception.

" ... Yesterday the Secretary of Defense was able to say without equivocation and hesitation that "it appears there were not weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, but that is not the headline."

Why the inclusion of 'without equivocation and hesitation?' Is this because you are sensitive to the criticism that Mr. Rumsfeld has hesitated before answering questions in the past? Perhaps you believe that the admission itself should be the headline? If so, you are sadly mistaken. Here is the suggested headline: "Secretary Rumsfeld Publicly Admits what the American People have Known for Years - No WMDs have been Found in Iraq."

" ... A better question for McGovern, once he was given a chance to talk, once he was standing their on television, once he had Rumsfeld captive, would have been: Mr. Secretary, do you now see that you or the administration were wrong about Iraq's WMD or the characterization of Iraq as imminent threat?"

To admit that they were 'wrong' seems to trump the Secretary's reasons for having lied to/deliberately misled the American people. I submit that you have your priorities reversed. Their ability to "admit" that they were wrong pales in comparison to their manipulation of the American people and their opinions. The American people CAN accept HONEST mistakes, when admitted in a forthright manner and when corrected in the same manner (which did not and has not happened in this case.) What the American people can not tolerate is being deliberately misled/manipulated in addition to being asked to accept the theory of faulty intel, a theory that is itself slowly being eroded. Faulty intel has served as their excuse for the war; faulty, distasteful character and lack of personal integrity are serving as excuses for having misled the American people. Which 'matters' more - the idea of an unorganized, bureaucratically inept CIA or the idea that particular high-level individuals continued to mislead the American people even after they became aware of the "faulty" intel and started a war in Iraq?

" ... The protestors screeching impeachment and "lying" yesterday, as well as McGovern, can't accept that there is a difference between being wrong and deceiving."

Again, please present your case(s) for why the BA is/was 'wrong'/mistaken versus correct/innocent. Also, please explain why the American people should not feel deceived by the BA.

" ... They are so stuck in a mode of accusation and certainty they don't really think there is any point in political dialogue with the administration."

Political dialogue? When did the BA ask others to participate in a dialogue of any type? How can one impact decisions when the decision-makers are not interested in interacting with anyone outside of their own circle?

" ... Human courtesy would mean understanding fallibility"

We can understand fallibility, if admitted openly.

" ... fear"

We can accept this as well, to a certain degree, in a leader.

" ... pride"

Or false pride? An extremely important characteristic and one that has unfortunately led the BA to make many of the mistakes that it has made, to date.

" ... the drive of false certainty in office."

Out of fear, perhaps? Or an overwhelming feeling of responsibility after 9/11? The people may have 'bought' this theory several years ago, but not now. The BA does not appear to be uncertain, if anything, they still appear to be very arrogant and unyielding.

" ... I just don't want the only answer to be pulling a lever every four years; there are alternatives, even politicians and the administration learns."

Please explain the 'alternatives' in further detail, especially ones that could be immediately applied to the relationship between the BA and the American people.

" ... We are here as citizens to teach and guide them."

No. The people's task is to ensure that our leaders are well aware of our desires and opinions concerning the current operation and future direction of our nation. Their task is to ensure that the people's will is executed - for the benefit of all. They should be listening - as they serve - and not simply before the elections. (Perhaps if they did, you would not see and hear the anger and frustration that you are currently witnessing.) One can not teach/guide politicians regarding integrity and indeed, we should not have to. They are either a person of integrity before they reach DC and are able to maintain that aspect of their character or they voluntarily surrender particular parts of themselves to become a stereotypical - "politician".

" ... In the end, my respect for the Secretary went up when he said, responding to another protester that accusations of lying are "so wrong, so unfair and so destructive.""

Please explain. Why do you agree that the accusations are wrong, unfair, and destructive?

" ... America needs someone in charge of the military who can give candid answers without fear of having yesterday's candid answers thrown back in their face."

Why/how are you excusing the inconsistent nature of the secretary's answers over time? One should not 'fear' answering the same question more than once, unless they are fearful of forgetting their previous answers. The truth doesn't change that much, even over time and under shifting circumstances.

" ... America also needs to give its leaders a chance to be wrong."

A public admission along with plans for corrective action will not help this situation, IMHO. The BA can not now state that they were 'wrong' about Iraq. Even if it were actually true, there is no recompense for the lives that have been lost, the individuals who have been injured, the current state of affairs in Iraq, the damage done to the US reputation throughout the world, and lastly - the damage done to the psyche of the American people.

" ... The implications such intolerance to error is to push human beings up against the wall, a place where there is no good outcome.

Again, error must be admitted in a timely manner and the BA has failed to do this. If the BA is "up against the wall," it is because they have pushed individuals too far and other individuals are inherently required to defend themselves in the face of continuous intimidation.

You likely 'understand' much more about the BA versus the average reader of your blog. But, as the author, you are required to educate your readers such that they can fully understand the basis of your arguments in addition to its details. I do not believe that you have accomplished this with regard to this article.

I hope that you will consider adding another article (or series thereof) in an effort to further explain your thesis that the BA, and specifically Mr. Rumsfeld, are receiving criticism that is in some way undeserved. Short of this, I must disagree with most of what you have proposed in this article in light of what I currently know about the BA and Mr. Rumsfeld.

The media is doing my work for me...

Lie, not a mistake! Lie not a mistake!

I guess it was when the protesters got whisked away...

Opps I mean this article

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060505-010450-6744r.htm

Please show me where in this article "Rumsfeld Fights back"

P.S. American...I will be here when the people start looking at thier morning news

Amen...there I got faith...

William Arkin, is no different than the brown shirters of Hitler's 3rd reich. He is a sycophant, sucks up to the WH, GOP & the RNC, & will parrot anything these (WH, GOP & the RNC) tell him. The US is in this mess, because people like William Arkin, Richard Cohen, Tim Russert, George Stephanopaulous, Brit Hume, etc. who are just relaying what ever these (WH, GOP & the RNC) people tell them. American media including William Arkin have lost their testicular fortitude. If Hitler were alive today these people (William Arkin, Richard Cohen, Tim Russert, George Stephanopaulous, Brit Hume, etc.) would sing praises of Hitler. If racism was officialy still there in USA, then these people (William Arkin, Richard Cohen, Tim Russert, George Stephanopaulous, Brit Hume, etc.) would support racism. They will do anything for the WH, GOP & the RNC. What do they get in turn? Access to power, invitations to parties, poker parties, prostitutes in hotel suites, gifts (& grafts) in cash & kind, & lastly great employment contracts (with huge cash remuneration & golden parachutes). So why should these (William Arkin, Richard Cohen, Tim Russert, George Stephanopaulous, Brit Hume, etc.) people care for the truth when they can strengthen their personal fortunes while paying lip service to societal issues, fairness & accuracy in news. Hitler & Goebbel are laughing that their legacy is being continued with the collusion of these people (William Arkin, Richard Cohen, Tim Russert, George Stephanopaulous, Brit Hume, etc.).

About 5 hours into the "sit in"--still no American Newspapers with the headline "Rumsfeld lied"

Bush did 9-11

Arise again Whig America to destroy the Tory papist anti-Christ

It is sad that this nation was lied to when it went to war in Iraq. However, we can always vote the miscreants out come next election, now that lies are out. The real tragedy we face is that journalists who should be asking the questions on why we were lied to have prostituted themselves to this degree to further their careers. It is left for the common citizen to search and report the truth.

So much for free press when so much of it has become captive of its own greed.

This is why we need a change...this just hit google

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/06/world/europe/06geneva.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1146888000&en=4f32ef42dec876cb&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

err fate

It's just Tenat didn't get rid of Wilson, and Goss didn't get rid of McGovern...and they shared the same fait

No, I think he is as left leaning as Joe Leiberman...the guy who was being named as a possible replacement for Goss.

Is this the same Ray McGovern who was recently quoted win WaPo as an indifferent observer on Mary McCarthy's leaks being patriotic?

Is this same Ray McGovern who is a member of Daniel Elsberg's organization of anti-government "outers"?

I'm interested in the coordination of the attacks.

If Ray McGovern, Mary McCarthy, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Richard Clark and Sandy Berger all know each other and are tied together, a number of news stories are starting to have conspiratorial super-partisan coloring.

Hmmm... What was the order?

Richard Clark
Sandy ("sloppy") Berger
Joe Wilson
Mary McCarthy
Ray McGovern

Didn't Richard Clark and Mary McCarthy both sign a document that said they thought the cruise missle attack on the Sudanese factory was justified because Iraq and Al Quaeda were collaborating to make chemical or bio weapons?

If the Washington Post ombudsman doesn't take on these and similar questions, then no part of the historic national newspaper is without a slant.

Who was the sponser?

WC: "Millions of immigrants had the big buisiness media on its side. Before each protest CNN, MSNBC and others talked about the 'upcoming marchs'. Before the war, and on the aniversary, when millions of protesters marched, there was no mention before these actions took place, and little mention during. If there was as much coverage of the anti-war protests, there would never have been a war."

In fact there was another huge six-figure antiwar protest in NY just the other day. The WaPo barely mentioned it.

WXIA TV---"Former CIA analyst opposes War"

LIE, NOT A MISTAKE....LIE NOT A MISTAKE...

and the "sit in" goes on...

With a press like this: who needs information.........

......serious........06 baby

06 is our only systemic hope.

take all the time you need.
i should be retired by january, 2009.
then, your tax dollars can pay for my security while i write my tell-all story... that you will buy.

9/11 was an Inside Job.
Sheeple doesn't want to know.
WP sold out right after "watergate".

http://u-f-a.org.ru/arh_im/antifa/fascism.jpg

We all know the Iraq war was about oil and helping out the rich get richer. The price of gas in the USA is almost 3X what it was before Bush was put in office by the Supreme Court. So who is winning what?

If the war was about terrorism then why is it that there have been more terrorist attacks in the 5 Bush years than in the previous 100 years combined?

Rummy needs to go as history will prove out over time that both Bush and Rummy should have been found guilty of high crimes.

Besides, you motivate people when you threaten to throw them all in jail.

Millions of immigrants had the big buisiness media on it's side. Before each protest CNN, MSNBC and others talked about the 'upcomming marchs'. Before the war, and on the aniversary, when millions of protesters marched, there was no mention before these actions took place, and little mention during. If there was as much coverage of the anti-war protests, there would never have been a war.

So, we have to start by being our own media...the rest comes later...like I said, this will take time

How can anyone claim that Rummy or Bush anything honest in starting the Iraq war? If this were any other dictator (president) he would have already been impeached. If you look at what Rummy has done wrong - he would be long gone. Remember a couple of years ago when he stated they were doing everything they can to protect the soliders - all lies when you check out the facts.

If the USA were watching another country do what Bush and Rummy have done in this illegal war - we would be demanding removal of the dictator and an immediate withdraw from the war.

Why is the truth so hard to get through and the facts to be known?

Is Arkins article a joke? Rumsfeld was caught in a lie, period.

millions of immigrants marched without tanks or shots.
americans that hide behind their PC monitor are exactly what i was referring to.
post away...

the "sit in" continues...

The Weekly standered weighs in with,"Rumsfeld's heckler, Rep. Kennedy, and more."

Still no "Rumsfeld LIED"

Yes it is appropriate to call a liar a liar!
Bush, Chenny and Rumsfeld did lie, did manipulate, and are guilty of the most expensive and sociopathic blunder in American history.
They should be tried for treason and crimes against humanity. When the UN finishes looking into what this unholy trio have done with regard to torturing prisioners, America will be even further humiliated. These three have made America the most unsavory terrorist nation in the world!
And in the process, they have supported and grown the initial terrorist effort more than could possibly have been done without their dim-witted, school-yard bully behavior.

And this is the "Libral" paper that they always site...

This newspaper is pathetically pro-Bush.

Massing in the streets does little good against people with tanks. I believe in the "Intelligence Minutemen". People who analize documents, become their own media, and take actions that are the most effective without firing any shots or anyone getting hurt. It just requires patience...It's called a movement.

maybe if i get them all posting on web forums instead of massing in the streets, i can continue forwarding 'the agenda.'

I think it has more to do with the fact that Sadam threatened to start selling oil in Euros instead of dollars, not Kawait. If you understand the world oil market you know that it wouldn't change the amount of oil we have or the price...it just changes who gets rich from it.

It was not Saddam's atrocities-his torture rooms, his gassing of the Kurds, the use of chemicals against Iranians, his crimes against peace-that turned Rumsfeld and U.S. officials against Iraq. It was the invasion of Kuwait, which threatened Western oil, that transformed Saddam from an ally into "the butcher of Baghdad." Prior to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, few Americans ever heard about Saddam's atrocities. In a typical white-wash of Saddam's crimes the New Republic (April, 1987) noted "a degree of moderation," in Iraq. Its editors described Iraq as "an independent militaristic regional power...the de facto protector of the regional status quo."

And it is certainly reasonable to believe that, had Saddam refrained from invading Kuwait, the alliance between Iraq and the U.S. would still be in place today. No doubt the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam would still be hanging from the wall of the White House. Norman?

Here is an article on it..

http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3227829

In 1963 the CIA helped the Ba'athist Party overthrow General Abdel-Karim Kassem, who was gunned down with other leaders from a list supplied by the CIA. One of the conspirators was a young, ruthless insurgent named Saddam Hussein. After a purge and revolt, the Ba'athists took total control of Iraq, and Saddam Hussein took power in 1979. Together, the U.S. and its surrogate waged a brutal, illegal war against Iran for eight years. In violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (which outlaws chemical warfare) the Reagan-Bush Administration authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological stocks, including anthrax. Iraq was already was using chemical weapons-on an "almost daily basis," according to the Washington Post-when envoy Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1983, an historic meeting that consolidated an active military partnership. The repression and brutality of Saddam's regime was not a secret when U.S. and Iraqi officials coordinated their military efforts. Not only did the U.S. supply planes, munitions and bombs, it supplied the satellite images that enabled Saddam to massacre thousands of Iranians. Twenty-four U.S. firms exported arms and material to Baghdad. France also sent 200 AMX medium tanks, mirage bombers, and Gazelle helicopter gunships. Norman, why havent you addressed these points yet? Dumbfounded?

Before I forget, speaking of the press, look at the Washington Post and the NY Times.

Bob Woodward sold his soul for access to the White House and put a lot of green in his pocket without asking any really tough questions and pointing out obvious problems with the rationale for war and the occupation plan.

Judith Miller sold her soul for similar access becoming another mouthpiece for the White House.

The administration, Congress, the party leadership, and the press have all let us down. Their own loyalty is to the dollar.
Look at the principled Senator McCain, so desperate to be president, he is pandering to Jerry Falwell. And don't forget his appearance at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference where he exhorted attendees to vote for Bush as a sign of support for the president. Hard to believe I once thought he was a man of impeccable integrity.

Did anyone else catch the Cspan coverage of Cong Kucinich grilling Ambassador Bolton about a Seymore Hersh article stating that covert military opperations are already under way in Iran?
When cornered, Bolton refused to acknowledge the article. He then refused to look at an article when Cong Kucinich offered him a copy. He was trying to maintain his "plausible deniability" on the subject.

Quoting David Kay at me, Norman?

Here's some more David Kay back atcha. From his interview with the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1160609,00.html

"I was convinced and still am convinced that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction at the time of the war," he told the Guardian in an interview in Washington. He now believes that any weapons the Iraqis had were probably destroyed before 1998. "There were continuing clandestine activities but increasingly driven more by corruption than driven by purposeful directed weapons programmes," argued the 63-year-old former diplomat and sleuth.

...By the time he flew back to Washington in September to deliver a progress report, he was already convinced that no significant stockpiles would be found. But he found that some officials in the US and Britain were in no hurry to publicise his realisation.

"At Langley [CIA headquarters in Virginia] at the highest level, there was concern about how we were going to deal with the [discrepancy between the] prewar intelligence assessments and what we were finding, and wanting to delay having to confront that ugly fact as long as possible," Kay says. "Because this came in the context of the 9/11 investigation and a series of other things that are likely to be unpleasant for them. And so this was just one more potential hammer blow and they were already thinking about how long they could delay it."

However, he says the Blair government was even more worried about the report he was preparing to deliver to Congress in early October. "I think the greatest concern about the report in October and where it led was in London rather than in Washington," he says. "It was a different political issue in London than it was here. There was the David Kelly investigation that was ongoing. There was far more political concern there than what there was here, at least as expressed for me."

Don't these people know that videotape exists? Whether or not he actually knew there were no WMDs or only believed what he wanted to believe, he now denies making unambiguous, recorded remarks, just as Cheney has in the past. Aren't there some consequences for that?

You're joking, right?

You give Rumsfeld credit for allowing the question that pointed out his blatant lying?

Wow, how gracious, that the Secretary of Defense of the United States, who is supposed to be accountable to the American people, didn't allow his bodyguards to bodily drag out of the room a polite questioner who said something the Secretary didn't like.

THIS is why people hate the U.S. media, because you have a house slave mentality to this Administration.

Regarding WMD in Iraq; if they existed President Bush would have paraded them before us. Even he admits we didn't find them.

When someone calls a 767 a WMD it is out of desperation to make a case for something patently false.

Don't let Colin Powell off the hook. He knew the mobile bio weapons labs were for weather balloons. I just don't know why he chose to lie. His reputation in my opinion is FOREVER tarnished. He is now spinning new stories, the latest about how he tried to get the invasion force up to half a million, but was shot down. Don't know if it was true and don't really care. What I do know is he is a liar, possibly a compulsive one who will do anything to save himself. He could have been great, but all he ended up being is a pawn, a sellout, a liar, and another man with the blood of 2500 American dead and 18,000 wounded on his hands.

Hard for me to believe Zarqawi had ties to Ansar Al Islam, as it's a Kurdish group, not particularly fond of Arabs, even if they are Sunnis. They wanted an Islamic Republic of Kurdistan meaning they weren't in bed with the Hussein regime.

Zarqawi most likely went to Iraq to participate in a jihad, but the Baathists had other uses for him. He is a great propoganda tool and has assumed near mythical status. What better way to appeal to all those politically naive but devout Muslims than a video of him warring with the Crusaders?

Mr. Arkin has certainly stirred up a hornet's nest. For starters, Bush lied, Cheney lied, Rumsfeld lied, Rice lied, Powell lied, and Tenet lied. A better question