Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 2:30 PM ET, 02/22/2011

Memos show Rumsfeld's ire at Woodward's work

By Stephen Lowman

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Today, in an interview with MSNBC, Donald Rumsfeld said he has never read Bob Woodward’s three books on the Bush administration because The Washington Post reporter was “outside listening to people two or three levels down.” (Last 10 seconds of the video.)

This isn’t the first time Rumsfeld has been critical of Woodward’s books. Memos released by Rumsfeld on his website (timed to coincide with the publication of his memoir “Known and Unknown”) show the former Secretary of Defense had strong opinions about Woodward’s work even before the journalist's first volume, “Bush at War,” was published.

Rumsfeld writes in a memo to Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew Card, that he initially declined to be interviewed by Woodward. Later, after the White House informed him they were cooperating with Woodward, Rumsfeld said he sat down with the reporter “against my better judgment.”

“My concern was and remains that these stories inevitably create dissension and differences within the administration….How, in the middle of a war, people can spend that much time in such a self-serving way is beyond me.”

Thumbnail image for rumsfeld4.bmp

In another memo written in early 2002, Rumseld found fault not only with Woodward (saying his articles were filled "with a great many inaccuracies") but also with his colleagues in the administration ("folks say to Woodward that which would help themselves").

rumsfeld3.bmp

By Stephen Lowman  | February 22, 2011; 2:30 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What’s behind the best presidential decisions?
Next: Every Congress member to get Rand Paul's book

Comments

No matter WHAT Rumsfeld says . . . . Bottom line IS that He, Cheney, Rice and Wolfowitz,et al., MURDERED more than 4,500 of OUR servicemen, mangled tens of thousands more and slaughtered and maimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children --- Based on erroneous information and Bush's pre-9/11 determination to become a swaggering War President. They should be placed on trial in Geneva as War Criminals, and in the USA as Traitors!

Posted by: lufrank1 | February 22, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Known and Unknown: Known, Rum Runner is hiding the fact that the Bush admin knew there was no WMD in Iraq. Known, Rum Runner is trying to avoid jail time for crimes against the american people. unknown, when will Rum Runner finally fess up to the truth and realize he is jerk.( I know I went the jerk route but showing my kinder side). unknown, why is the in midst of this revisionist history media frenzy no one has called him out for what he is, a liar.

Posted by: Realistic5 | February 22, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Rumsfeld's appointment as Secretary of Defense was clearly beyond his field of expertise as history has revealed. That he was chosen by the Bush/Cheney duo whose talents mirrored Rumsfeld's incredible lack of skills will stand as the penultimate example of how not to govern.

Posted by: vicsoir1 | February 22, 2011 3:32 PM | Report abuse

The "revisionist history media frenzy" exists because most people who pretend to be journalists have a credo - "If I didn't see it, it didn't happen - unless it's about the black president. Then anything goes."

Posted by: therev1 | February 22, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Rumsfeld genuinely believed that Saddam had weapons because Rumsfeld sold those weapons to Saddam. Of course, Rummy didn't understand how effective "Old Europe" and the UN were at eliminating Saddam's stockpile.
4500 of our finest men and women died for that mistake in judgement.

Posted by: karenfink | February 22, 2011 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Rummy led an administration based entirely on lies. They have to continue the lies now to forestall the judgement of history.

Posted by: cartercamp | February 22, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Bob Woodward didn't send 4,500 brave Americans to die in an illegal war over non-existent WMDs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did, and Rummy didn't even give many of them adequate body armor.

THAT's the way history will remember Rummy.

Posted by: SilverSpring8 | February 22, 2011 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Rumsfelt's hubris...and Bush as the inept leader directly caused one of the most horrific foreign policy decisions...to invade Iraq....no sweets...nor cheers along the way.

As such, over 4300 of our people were killed in Iraq..and over 30,000 wounded beyond the ability to regain normality.

I..and many others only hope Rumsfelt, Bush, Cheney, Fieth and others are visited each and every night by the faceless souls of those killed or maimed in Iraq.

Iraq/2005;Afghanistan/2003; HOA/2008

Posted by: LTC11A | February 22, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Rumsfeld and his colleagues were fooled by one Iraqi, who lied about Iraqi WMDs and mobile chemical labs. Inspite warnings by the Germans that the source was unreliable, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush swallowed the lies. This raises one question: Were these people dumb or evil?

Posted by: rsliazas | February 22, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Rumsfeld doesn't like Woodward's books? That's a point in their favor.

Posted by: hairguy01 | February 22, 2011 4:34 PM | Report abuse

SomeIdiot wrote: "Rumsfeld's appointment as Secretary of Defense was clearly beyond his field of expertise as history has revealed"

----

Jesus, he was Secretary of Defense under two different presidents. Presidential Chief of Staff, United States Permanent Representative to NATO, three term member of the House of Representatives, and spent 21 years in the United States Navy, retiring as a Captain.

But all in all I guess you have the right to post how ignorant one can be.

.

Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko | February 22, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

The audacity of Rumschpeel to think that he is still credible, that people will still believe his words. He lied about the WMD, he lied about al-qaeda training in Iraq, the threat Sadam imposed on the US, he lied about the Iraq's response to the invasion (we will be greeted as liberators). And he thinks opening up to the media is a bad idea. No kidding, they were going to expose his every lie. Maybe he should pull a Palin and only interview with Faux News. This Skeletor should be tried in Geneva, and be made an example of these right wing nuts in the USA.

Posted by: jc_abril | February 22, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

That was a fun interview to watch. He consistently spanked Andrea's hind end over her facts. If you listen to journalists when they speak of 'facts', it's always couched in the form 'In the NYTimes..., or Chris Matthews said...' or something along those lines.

They never have the facts. They only have quotes from other journalists who wrote about an unnamed administration official.

She has to be embarrassed over this interview.

..

Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko | February 22, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Another Republican didn't like Woodward's output, and we all remember good 'ol Dick Nixon fondly.

I'd trust Woodward first.

Posted by: MichelleKinPA | February 22, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

rumsfeld is a war criminal and along with his buddies bush/cheney/wolfowitz/tenet/rove/rice they should be in jail for life or executed..........

Posted by: ticked | February 22, 2011 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Sitting down with Woodward was against his better judgement? Rumsfeld has no better judgement. He's an idiot.

Posted by: COLEBRACKETT | February 22, 2011 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Just shows that Rumsfeld never got it. he SHOULD have read Woodward's first book about the war - he was bumkissed by Woodward, and never felt it, I guess!

But isn't that just the height of Rumsfeld's hubris - why should the leading policy-maker on the decision to go to war actually sit down and explain his reasoning to the American public?

The unwashed masses don't need to be informed about any aspect of the war - why we went, how it was going and why it did or didn't make us safer.

This pesky democracy thing - it's one of the fundamentals of the United States that Rummy didn't know about, and didn't know that he didn't know about.

Posted by: nadinem | February 22, 2011 5:38 PM | Report abuse

It's always a bad idea for a cretin to come out from under its rock. It will only get crushed.

Posted by: DJ_Spanky | February 22, 2011 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Nothing is quite so amusing as watching ankle biting munchkins presume to attack a great, dedicated patriot and talented public servant like Rumsfeld. If he has ever experienced any anxiety at the prospect of being nibbled to death by such harmless ducklings, there is scant evidence of it. Indeed the self marginalizing nibblers bring to mind an observation by that great SecNav John Lehman about so many of those who reside inside the beltway: Like thirty thousand ants on a half submerged log floating down the Potomac, each one thoroughly convinced HE is steering.
DOOOOOOOOOO carry on you harmless little nibblers as my taste for such entertainment is abysmally low.

Posted by: Pyroclastic | February 22, 2011 7:14 PM | Report abuse

So many right-wing ideological thugs like Rumsfeld get pissed when their people get caught in the act of committing crimes.

The real outrage here is we stopped holding most of them, including Rummy himself, accountable for their crimes.

In this country we didn't slap the wrists of the right-wing cabinet members who used tax dollars to campaign for other right-wingers running for governorships and Congress. That, people, is a felony. Accountability out the window.

Score board

0 United States as a nation of laws
1 Right-wing ideologies using tax dollars to further their cause

Anyone else remember Rumsfeld was one of 43s henchmen indicated world-wide for war crimes committed in Iraq? That is why Rumsfeld, Cheney and 43 do NOt travel beyond the continental shelf.

Score board

0 United States as a nation of laws
2 Right-wing ideology

Doesn't look like the home team - American citizenry - does very well when it comes to holding right-wing ideologues accountable under the laws of a nation touting its adherence to laws, national and international.

And that, my friends, is the right-wing legacy.

Posted by: PoliticalPrisoner2012 | February 22, 2011 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line: A truly just war requires no cherry picked intelligence, lies, disinformation, preemption without UN Security Council authorization, contrived pretexts etc, just as there is no need to cover-up or lie about what is clean, only what is dirty. Further, the guilty do not need denials of due process or accelerated trial, finding of guilt and immediate execution (the guilty like Saddam Hussein above all need to be given due process so there are no excuses or equivocation about guilt and they need to be questioned for lessons to be learned to save future lives). International law is clear that certain acts are crimes no matter by whom or against whom committed: launching and executing wars based on lies and contrived enemies (Iraq and Afghanistan) no different than the Nazis invading Poland on the basis of a contrived and pretextual attack on a German radio station on the German-Polish border.

Posted by: jcraven | February 22, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

All that has to be said about Rumsfeld's character or lack there of. One picture is worth a thousand words http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Posted by: tianyisun | February 22, 2011 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Rummy should be an orderly in a Veteran's Hospital, taking care of the wounded men and women whose lives have been changed forever by his lies.

Posted by: okiedeadhead | February 22, 2011 9:58 PM | Report abuse

One cannot help but wonder if any of these foam flecked Rummy bumpers have actually bothered to read his book in order to offer SERIOUS critique or are they so caught up in the thick ropey web of lies, hate speech and spleen venting distortions they have spun for themselves over the years that rank bigotry is now their only venue.

From the evidence at hand ... well, no need to dwell on the obvious, eh?

That said, it surely IS a tonic to watch one's political and cultural adversaries pursue self destruction with such GUSTO!

Posted by: Pyroclastic | February 22, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Rumsfeld forgets that telling the truth in any context is the best policy. Let the chips fall where they may.

Rumfeld said regarding the location of WMDs in iraq, "I know where they are." He made no qualifying statement. I did not hear this from some talking head, I heard it from Rumsfled himself in an interviw on mainstream TV at the time that we had entered Baghdad and we were actively moving to get to the stockpiles of WBDs.

It has been intereting to listen to people who made tragic errors of judgment regarding the invasion of Iraq in 2003 trying to justify their decisions, even when we know the truth. Their asnwer: We would have done it anyway because it was the right thing to do. It mattered not that they used the wrong rationale.

Posted by: EarlC | February 22, 2011 10:42 PM | Report abuse

★★★★★Something unexpected surprise

welcome to: http://www.shoesforking.com/

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

3 free shipping

competitive price

any size available

accept the paypal

90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$

jordan shoes $ 32

nike shox $ 32

Christan Audigier bikini $ 23

Ed Hardy Bikini $ 23

Sm ful short_t-shirt_woman $ 15

ed hardy short_tank_woman $ 16

Sandal $ 32

christian louboutin $ 80

Sunglass $ 15

COACH_Necklace $ 27

handbag $ 33

AF tank woman $ 17

puma slipper woman $ 30

90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$

Believe you will love it.

welcome to: http://www.shoesforking.com/

Posted by: zhengccp | February 22, 2011 10:45 PM | Report abuse

The policy of pre-emption is totally contrary to the moral underpinnning of the United States.

If we really wanted to pre-emptively attack any country based on the known facts surrounding 9/11, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia.

The world rallied behind us when we tracked Osama to Afghanistan. The rest is history as they say.

Posted by: EarlC | February 22, 2011 10:50 PM | Report abuse

CORRECTION: There were four Woodward books on the Bush Administration. "Bush at War" was the second volume, not the first. (The first was "Plan of Attack.")

Posted by: cjknew | February 22, 2011 11:37 PM | Report abuse

"How, in the middle of a war, people can spend that much time in such a self-serving way is beyond me.” Of course, in the middle of that same war, he took the time to write memos about it. Rumsfeld has always been the most pompous of asses. Stop wasting space on him.

Posted by: harryejones | February 22, 2011 11:42 PM | Report abuse

I have not read any of the political books about 9/11 or the Bush Administration. I do know we are in the mess we are in because the common thread is in every city in America just as it was in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago. It is easy to destroy a country that abuses it's own technology as a right to push the window as if in a competitive race. There is no united in being pitted against each other. Rome brought the Middle East down 2000 years ago and they have not changed. They just have greater stealth. It is about money and 9/11 was about setting the stage for today. Do your home work. They do. Don't behave like puppets. Your allegiance belongs to the land that feeds you. Your friends and neighbors in every inch of this land we call the United States of America. No government or religion or people are greater than the God who is Love. Your allegiance is to love your country of people who want to eat and sleep in peace just like you do. Don't let us down.

Posted by: momvera | February 23, 2011 1:41 AM | Report abuse

By the time Rummy realized he was the fall guy on Iraq it was too late. He tried to cover his tracks but since his involvement was public knowledge he tried to defend his honor...or what was left of it. Bush and Cehney hung him out to dry *alone*, even though he deserved to be hung out to dry.

Posted by: sjp879 | February 23, 2011 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Rummy was just one important player in America's greatest foreign policy debacle. They all share equal blame and contempt for they damage they heaped upon us all. So many of our problems today resulted from the fraudulent war in Iraq and the trillions spent and to be spent as a consequence of Rummy and friends.

Posted by: HillRat | February 23, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Rumsfeld should have stayed at home on the ranch in New Mexico and read about the Dubya/Cheney administration in the papers. Once a neocon always a neocon, though. He must have been nostalgic for the Nixon days and his last swansong under Gerry Ford. His best claim to fame is as a Navy Reserve pilot. Anyway, no neocon can stand it when the truth gets in the way. Dubya and all his boys will try to color and rewrite history to shine more favorably upon their misguided mistakes.

Posted by: old_sarge | February 23, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

There never were any WMD in Iraq. No matter where the US and anyone else looked there were none. Both Bush the elder and Bush the junior knew this. There old chemical muntions left over from the Iran-Iraq war but nothing on the scale that Bush Jr tried to find for and use an excuse for war. Even today, you can bet that if there had been WMD they would have been found. There are none. Bush Jr, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, the Service Chiefs knew all of this and so did Congress, and in the rush to prove that Bush Jr was as tough as his dad over more than 4,500 of OUR servicemen, tens of thousands wounded all in the name of ego. These people should be made to go to Section 60 in Arlington and publicly say at least they were wrong.

Posted by: KBlit | February 23, 2011 10:14 AM | Report abuse

What a treat it is to view the left anger forum, how uplifting. I too opposed the invasion of Iraq, it may turn out to be a mistake of historic proportions, however, the nonsense that spews forth would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Was and Is Rumsfeld arrogant? Of course, but then again anyone Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative who is in a position of power must have a touch of ego. It is important to have some facts at hand: Fact 1: All of Western Intelligence thought that Saddam had WMD, all Western Intelligence, the disagreement was over the proper response, with The United States and Britain favoring a military response and the rest of The Security Counsel favoring resumption of inspections. It is also troubling that all those who scream about our "crimes" don't seem to be bothered or moved by the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. Who has the double standard?

Posted by: keithminkin | February 23, 2011 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Rumsfeld would know about self-serving.

Posted by: minstrelmike | February 23, 2011 10:56 AM | Report abuse

keithminkin | February 23, 2011 10:39 AM practices the old BIG LIE approach. ALL western intelligence thought that Sadaam had WMD. He knows this personally? He has daily briefings from all western intelligence agencies? Give me a break.

Posted by: ken40 | February 23, 2011 11:06 AM | Report abuse

No matter WHAT Rumsfeld says . . . . Bottom line IS that He, Cheney, Rice and Wolfowitz,et al., MURDERED more than 4,500 of OUR servicemen, mangled tens of thousands more and slaughtered and maimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children --- Based on erroneous information and Bush's pre-9/11 determination to become a swaggering War President. They should be placed on trial in Geneva as War Criminals, and in the USA as Traitors!

Posted by: lufrank1

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You left out POWELL along with OBAMA and this entire administration including the new mayor of New York.

NEWS FLASH we are still there.

Posted by: dottydo | February 23, 2011 11:22 AM | Report abuse

No matter WHAT Rumsfeld says . . . . Bottom line IS that He, Cheney, Rice and Wolfowitz,et al., MURDERED more than 4,500 of OUR servicemen, mangled tens of thousands more and slaughtered and maimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children --- Based on erroneous information and Bush's pre-9/11 determination to become a swaggering War President. They should be placed on trial in Geneva as War Criminals, and in the USA as Traitors!

Posted by: lufrank1

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You left out POWELL along with OBAMA and this entire administration including the new mayor of Chicago.

NEWS FLASH we are still there.

Posted by: dottydo | February 23, 2011 11:24 AM | Report abuse

awwww come on! woodward does these books for the money!

Posted by: fngVP | February 23, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"My concern was and remains that these stories inevitably create dissension and differences within the administration…. How, in the middle of a war, people can spend that much time in such a self-serving way is beyond me."

Since we're still fighting the wars Rumsfeld got us into and failed to plan adequately for, I'm sure he's appalled at the attacks on our Commander-in-Chief by members of his own Party.

What a self-serving hypocrite. Oh, and did I mention that he who will, most likely, never be able to leave the USA without facing arrest as a War Criminal.

Posted by: thebobbob | February 23, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I suspect that they got their marching orders from the 'BILDERBERG GROUP"

YOU TUBE: Bilderberg Group Bilderberg Club Bilderberg Plan

Posted by: josetrevino19 | February 23, 2011 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Liberalism is a mental disorder. Reading many of these comments is comical. So many of you were so happy over wikileaks. Wikileaks was yet another source that proved there were WMD.

The other large fact you all like to leave out is how many Democrats were behind our attacking Iraq. Amazing how simple and predictable some peoples minds work.

Would like to know where you people stand on Obama's war?

Posted by: jjmali | February 23, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Good Lord! He copied 'Gunner' Cheney on a simple request to give an interview? Was he afraid Lord Dick would get mad? Why on earth should Cheney even care?

Unless......

Posted by: BurningFeet | February 23, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

THANKS FOR THE COMIC RELIEF YOU PROVIDED THIS AM. WHAT A RIOT!!!! OPINIONS BASED ON NO FACTS, BUT HALF-TRUTHS, AND DISINFORMATION. OH YEH! I CERTAINLY WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING REPORTED IN THE MEDIA VIA WOODWARD, ETC. ETC. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!

Posted by: BHAUGLAND | February 23, 2011 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Gaddafi will vouch for Rumsfeld's innocence. Killing has a purpose, no matter what. It is the right of great leaders. In private he says that Rumsfeld is a wus, or he would have suppressed the truth a long time ago. Woodward would just be a stain on the Potomac River.

Posted by: AffinityGW1 | February 23, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"Worse, the series is providing the world information they shouldn't know." - D. Rumsfeld

That was a typical attitude of the Bush admnistration. A level of arrogance and secrecy that no democracy should every permit.

Posted by: Menidia | February 23, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

jjmali posts:

"Wikileaks was yet another source that proved there were WMD.

The other large fact you all like to leave out is how many Democrats were behind our attacking Iraq. Amazing how simple and predictable some peoples minds work.

Would like to know where you people stand on Obama's war?"
--------------------------------------------------

Wikileaks has shown that there were scattered remnants of old chemical agents - but most of the reports didn't pan out, and even those that did were hardly a WMD cache of sizable proportions.

We made a mistake. First - we made a strategic mistake. We were already involved in one war overseas, and as was eventually shown, reducing our footprint and focus there had serious long-term repercussions. Second - even if WMDs had been provably present in significant quantity in Iraq, a combined-country force would have been much more prudent and reasonable, and if the combined forces disapproved, as they did (because they were *right*), we should have abided by that. Our decision to "cowboy" it was simply poor judgment, regardless.

As for "Obama's" war - I assume you mean the US war. It's disingenuous to call it "Obama's" war, since he didn't instigate it; in fact, he *opposed* it while a senator. Enough Democrats approved the initial decision, but it's not as though a majority of Dems were in favor of the Iraqi invasion.

I'm glad we are backing out of both countries at a reasonable rate. As long as our military commanders feel that they can be effective even as forces downsize, then I think that doing so on their time table is wise.

Posted by: iamweaver | February 23, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

MR KNOWN AND UNKNOWN AND He should have known because he is a liar & a WAR CRIMMINAL...He Dicky and Bush Jr...and never forget his girlfriend Ms Rice they are all WAR CRIMMINALS and SWITZERLAND needs to bring them to justice and they need to be in JAIL....OR well you know what..

Posted by: janetmramos | February 23, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

One of the loveliest things about America is her dedication to the strength of her people. Because of that dedication, America is strong enough to defend even the witless ninnies who use the precious Freedom that was GIVEN to them -- Freedom that they did not EARN -- to bad mouth America, making up hateful lies and distortions per the practice of "any stick to beat the dog".

Rabid Rummy bumpers on this stream -- who could not pass a saliva test if their life depended on it -- provide a welcome illustration of this dedication to STRENGTH with their childishly petulant behavior

Posted by: Pyroclastic | February 23, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

While the source of the increased agitation and frenzy of the Bush Derangement Syndrome afflicted Rummy bumpers cannot be known with certainty, it certainly seems reasonable to surmise that their current ecstasy of rage and tumult has a great deal to do with the collapse of the public sector government worker union souffle that had its earliest manifestation in Wisconsin -- a collapse that is rapidly spreading to other states IN SPITE OF the (indeed BECAUSE OF) the egregious intrusion of the current occupant of the White House into these issues of STATES RIGHTS.

As a groundswell of grassroots support for resurrecting the Tenth Amendment sweepw across the fruited plain, -- threatening in this case to give teacher unions the long overdue heave ho given by the Gipper to illegal PATCO strikers back in 1981 -- we may well expect even more vitriolic, even less coherent outbursts from those now writhing in an extended agony of their own making.

And speaking personally, HOW SWEET IT IS to watch these creatures suffer!

Posted by: Pyroclastic | February 23, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

The exquisite hypocrisy of the demented Bush haters -- now coming completely unraveled by the licking public sector government worker unions are taking -- has been captured today in delicious detail, to wit:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775704576162533209090102.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
BEST OF THE WEB TODAY -- FEBRUARY 23, 2011

'Get a Little Bloody' -- A Democratic congressman urges government employees to take violent action.

The rhetoric around Wisconsin's government labor dispute is getting more violent. NHJournal.com reports that Rep. Michael Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat, said this yesterday at a Boston "solidarity" rally: "I'm proud to be here with people who understand that it's more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."

The Boston Globe reports that the union crowd responded to Capuano's exhortation with "cheers, whistles and applause" and that Capuano, issued a written semiapology: "I strongly believe in standing up for worker rights and my passion for preserving those rights may have gotten the best of me yesterday in an unscripted speech. I wish I had used different language to express my passion and I regret my choice of words."

It will not surprise you to learn that Capuano is another "civility" hypocrite. On Jan. 9, the day after a madman in Tucson, Ariz., got a little bloody, the Globe quoted him: "What the hell is going on? There's always some degree of tension in politics; everybody knows the last couple of years there's been an intentional increase in the degree of heat in political discourse. . . . If nothing else good comes out of this, I'm hoping it causes people to reconsider how they deal with things."

Posted by: Pyroclastic | February 23, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Rumsfeld's better judgment and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were both figments of his imagination and just NOT.THERE.

Posted by: carole2 | February 23, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

lufrank1 ... you're not too bright, R U?

Posted by: Hazmat77 | February 23, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

MichelleKinPA ... since you approve of Woodward's reportorial efforts maybe you can explain how it is that when he and Bernstein were putting the Watergate story together he was able to conduct a one-on-one interview of CIA Director William Casey, at the very time Casey was hospitalized and deep in an end of life COMA. Please explain how Woodward's cedibility goes unquestioned?

Posted by: Hazmat77 | February 23, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

One of the excuses the neo-cons use for justifying the Iraq war is the phrase "Congress saw the "same classified intelligence reports" we did" and voted for approval of the war.
What would be the justification for releasing the "same intelligence reports"
to such a large body of people as Congress?
Why hasn't any Congress person or press person questioned such a ludicrous assertion by the Neo-cons which violates the"need to know "principle" of protecting military secrets
Frank Lipsky
Scottsdale AZ

Posted by: frank62 | February 23, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Rumsfeld and Cheney mislead the world of WMD. All dirty tricks have learned from Nixon administration and fooled the American citizens. They should face the world court and let the chips fall where it may.

Posted by: Samshivji | February 23, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Well if Rummy and his buddies made some bad decisions they should own up and apologise the Iraqis and Americans!

Posted by: Asiimwe1 | February 23, 2011 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld for telling people what they don't want to hear. Let the emotion driven Leftist drown in their own hypocrisy, self-deception, and infantile anger.

Posted by: mbabbitt | February 23, 2011 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"Rumsfeld's better judgment and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were both figments of his imagination and just NOT.THERE."


Basic fallacy in whatever it is that passes for thinking on the part of those that repeat this mindless jargon.

Why?

Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Posted by: Pyroclastic | February 23, 2011 9:26 PM | Report abuse

I am not a fan of Rumsfeld, but he has a very good point about Woodward. The man covered Watergate scandal and lives in this illusion of grandeur that he can odiously profit from that experience by writing on other insane things --- and our so called leaders fall on their knees to accommodate him. I have never read any of his "self-serving" books and I will not read any. He is nothing but a narcissistic fella!

Posted by: midas20874 | February 23, 2011 10:20 PM | Report abuse

"Basic fallacy in whatever it is that passes for thinking on the part of those that repeat this mindless jargon.

Why?

Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"

Um, that's exactly what it is.

It is proof that they are not where they are looking.

When you perform an exhaustive search without finding anything, the odds only remain high for two options. One is that the item you are looking for is exceptionally well-hidden. The other is that it simply doesn't exist in the first place. If it ever did.

Of course you can always counter with the possibility that it exists NOW either where you looked before or in some place you haven't looked yet. But now you are betting against yourself, that only makes sense if you think that it is really someplace that you have yet to look after all this time, or you really aren't able to find it using your search method of choice.

It's something like saying that you are going to win the lottery if you bet just a few more dollars after a lifetime of losing. No it doesn't PROVE that they do not exist. But it's pretty good EVIDENCE.

This is why Bush did not argue for the war because Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction. He argued for it because he saw Saddam as a risk for *acquiring* WOMD. Especially given that he'd already used WOMD against his own people.

Of course even that argument got really hot when we first got the news about Irans' nuclear program. But then again Iran has not used WOMD as far as I have heard. But in the end Bushs' "logic" held because it wasn't so much the presence of WOMD in Iraq that was the problem but the possibility of the presence of it in the future. And Saddam played right into it by trying to bluster his way out of an invasion.

Never talk tough to the cops when they are on your front doorstep.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | February 23, 2011 10:23 PM | Report abuse

...say whatever you like about GW, he was not a complete idiot. And often he was a step or two ahead of most of the so-called "smart people".

The guy was a classic "out of the box" thinker. Worked for him as much as it worked against him. He used "the predictable response" against those who opposed him. Sometimes he got it wrong but quite often he got it right.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | February 23, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"Liberalism is a mental disorder. "

...so says the sociopathic arch-conservative.

Nice.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | February 23, 2011 10:30 PM | Report abuse

So what do we do with the self-styled "Christian conservatives" who are neither true Christians nor true conservatives?

What about the right-to-lifers who argue for the death penalty for abortionists?

I'm not so sure that it's wise for a sociopathic hypocrite to go around saying that a group of people who don't agree with him on a wide range of topics have "a mental disorder". Is it totally predictable that such a person would say that? Yes. So-called "conservatives" make a living out of classifying and denigrating their ideological opponents. That's what sociopathology is all about. They just don't see it as a crime against humanity....they actually see such comments as a good thing.

Neither a true Christian nor a true conservative would go around calling people "disordered" because they don't share his sociopolitical philosophy. It's like a hater hating on people for hating him. That only makes sense to the hater. Even if it's perfectly true that people do hate you, hating them back for hating you is simply idiotic. And *that* is *definitely* the New Conservativism. Only a truly conservative moron would think that it is ok for him to hate others, but wrong for them to hate *him*.

You stop hating on people, you solve half the problem.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | February 23, 2011 10:41 PM | Report abuse

My guess is that conservatives who get on the messageboards of so-called "liberal" websites and rant on liberals are either secretly jealous or insufficiently conservative to make it on conservative sites.

What do you think of Hillary Clinton taking the State job under a man she campaigned against past the point of all rational hope of winning? Do you see her as a conservative or a liberal? If you say liberal then why are you following in her footsteps by even posting on this site? Go back to the Faux News site and hang out with your bosom-buddies. Your best chance of convincing people that you respect that you are right? Is to hang out there and talk amongst your own kind. Or have you gotten tired of repeating the Rush party line?

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | February 23, 2011 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Pyroclastic writes:
""Rumsfeld's better judgment and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were both figments of his imagination and just NOT.THERE."


Basic fallacy in whatever it is that passes for thinking on the part of those that repeat this mindless jargon.

Why?

Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
---------------------------------------------------

This is the wrong side of the problem. It's not up to anyone to prove that WMDs didn't exist. That's impossible. It's up to those advocating aggressive US action to prove that they *do* exist. But this wasn't what happened. What really happened was that, because Hussein's government stalled and couldn't prove that WMDs didn't exist (which we agree is impossible), we decided to invade.

Sure - in 1,000 years, someone might run into a hidden cache of tons of chemical weapons. Wikileaks has shown that small quantities of chyemical weapons have been found, in places where we weren't looking before the war. But it was up to the Bush administration to prove that WMDs existed in quantity, which they failed to do both before and after the war started. Remember poor Cheney's feeble attempts to duplicate Desert Storm?

Posted by: iamweaver | February 23, 2011 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Rumey joins Cheney in the quest to cover up instead of open-up for history their contribution to good - why - because there wasn't any it was all self serving and at the worst interests of a country with a President who could be manipulated by them - some "decider". Bush 41 wants no thought of his #1 son's performance as President and now we shall see if Fox writes history or does time itself right the lies being spawned.

Posted by: etartar | February 24, 2011 4:34 AM | Report abuse

Even the few snippets of Secretary Rumsfeld’s analysis here prove his acumen and quality. His view that toadying to braying hacks like Woodward – in the middle of a war – was foolhardy, at best, is spot on and right through dead centre.

Secretary Rumsfeld served with valour and distinction. He did not serve perfectly, no man in that job ever has – or should be expected to. Personally, I will be ever grateful to Donald Rumsfeld for his daily Pentagon briefings, ( Hat tip here to Victoria Clarke as well ). To watch Rumsfeld take the press corpse to school and feed them their lunch and to watch them actually cower before his disciplined wit is a memory I will long treasure.

Further, the infantile schoolyard sniping about WMD is beyond tedious. Iraq used chemical WMD in the war with Iran, gassed countless thousands of Iraqis in his own southern regions, and through varied ministries made every possible effort to convince the world that he possessed both chemical and nuclear capable WMD.

Among those who stood publicly in Congress exhorting loud, visible, and highly public denunciations of Iraq and the surety of Iraq’s WMD threat to the world were John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Dick Gephardt, and a mewling host of self serving liberal sheep who bleated like frightened… well..,. sheep – when it suited their purpose to pose in fey alarm before the cameras, “Lookit, see how fierce and patriotic we are!!”

Without exception, and this is public record, each of the above swore, positively, in fierce protest, ( oooh – they were sooo fierce ), that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world AND needed to be removed from Power.

In the days following 9/11, each of the above, John Kerry in particular, ( the erstwhile patriot with his famed of famous “hats” ), called for Saddam Hussein to be held to account as an active supporter of Al Qaeda and for his ultimate removal from office. For John Kerry to adopt a warlike posture is risible far in excess of extremis.

Each of the above voted, VOTED, to support the war. When it served their personal political gain. And then, each, like the craven yellow bellied scum they are, turned coward in the face of the enemy and attacked our president in the midst of a war.

How much blood is on their hands? How many servicemen and women died, DIED while these liberal snakes bit at the cause the voted to support.

If there truly can said to be War Criminals in America, look no further than the DNC.

Posted by: China_Rider | February 24, 2011 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Woodward is a lying leftist. Will wonders never cease..

Posted by: wewintheylose1 | February 24, 2011 8:04 AM | Report abuse

he was @ pentagon WHEN it got HIT by a cruise MISSLE w/ a lot of americans as hostages. He worked under NIXON admin during cold war & yes had 2 deal w/ IRAQ when they were @ war w/ IRAN. BIN laden fought against the russians. WE blew UP ever military target IN irag. EVERY single ONE, shift THRU the rubble & tell me what was WMDs. Sadaam is DEAD by his own PEOPLE. Rumsfeld is a MAJOR prick , he's OUR prick & a lot of U folks should kiss his BUTT..

Posted by: cjurchSILVERhammer | February 24, 2011 8:37 AM | Report abuse

'Rumsfeld: The Lying Liars Who Lie' a biography.

The Rumster has a 'weltanschauung' that would have compared favorably to Hermann Goering's.

Posted by: keviquin | February 24, 2011 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Look, the corruption surrounding the Iraq war is notorious. I was never fooled by the Bush administration b/c I never trusted them. Tell one good thing that came from that administration. The last 10 yrs have been tough. Trace it back folks, when did it all start & by whom. We've seen things go down that I never believed were even possible in my country. 9/11, the Katrina debacle, the level of corruption in our gov., the financial rape by corps on our financial system & it all came as a result of republican leadership. Then we elected a President who gave us some hope of pulling our country back up out of the muck & mire & when I read stories like this & I think, ok, but surely we've learned something from it. Have we? Well, we're still in what appears to be an unwinable war that is burying us in debt, the very corps who nearly drove the country over the edge financially are thriving & the spin coming out of the right has actually convinced people to put the foxes who caused most of this right back into the hen house. As a result, we now face a Gov. shut down. Teachers are forced to demonstrate in order to keep their collective bargaining rights, & the working/middle class are still getting screwed while the wealthy & corporations continue to enjoy their tax breaks. Ideas that once would have been considered reasonable are now being spun by a never ending barrage of right wing TV & radio hacks into something sinister & we have politicians who seem to need to be on meds for parnoid delusions. The kooks seem to be multiplying. Who are all these people who seem to dominate the narrative. Who is this Glen Beck person & where did he come from & why would anyone in their right minds listen to his manaic rantings? The news media has become obsessed with this Sarah Palin woman, they hang on her every word. She's silly & she contributes nothing! And Michelle Bachman, what can I say, the woman needs meds. And last but certainly far from least, Rush Limbaugh. Don't people know how vile this person has always been? What good could he possibly contribute? This, ladies & gentlemen are your far right mouth peices-nice, huh? There are many others crawling out from under their rocks like your tea partiers. They say they want their country back, but I have to wonder what they plan to do with it if/when they get it back. Pay attention to what these people are saying. Bottom line is that I want my country to move forward, I want us to solve some of our problems. We have a President who won't go after these war weasels b/c he is much more interested in turning the corner & moving on & moving up. America has big things we need to tackle. We all know what went down in Iraq and we need to learn from from it and not get stuck in it. I really hope we will but I have to admit that for the first time in my life, I am truly concerned for our country's future b/c the nuts seem to be outnumbering the sane. Pay attention America!

Posted by: bluedogdem1 | February 24, 2011 12:04 PM | Report abuse

China Rider - there are medications for what ails you - seek some help!

Posted by: bluedogdem1 | February 24, 2011 12:12 PM | Report abuse

QUOTE
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Um, that's exactly what it is.

It is proof that they are not where they are looking.

When you perform an exhaustive search without finding anything, the odds only remain high for two options. One is that the item you are looking for is exceptionally well-hidden. The other is that it simply doesn't exist in the first place. If it ever did.

Of course you can always counter with the possibility that it exists NOW either where you looked before or in some place you haven't looked yet. But now you are betting against yourself, that only makes sense if you think that it is really someplace that you have yet to look after all this time, or you really aren't able to find it using your search method of choice. UNQUOTE

But an exhaustive search was NOT performed. For months preceeding our forcible ground incursion into Iraq in March 2003, overhead systems detected sigificant covered truck traffic movement from Iraq into Syria and, sadly, we did not invade Syria while the iron was hot. One thing we DO know is that the IAF made a surprise fixed wing attack against a Syrian target -- surprise because the fancy, expensive Russian air defense systems sold to Syria never provided a peep of warning -- that completely destroyed a nuclear facility in, I believe, 2007 ... a fact our "news" media took pains to sweep under the rug as irrelevant.

So, when information is incomplete, as so often the case (certainly in THIS case) absence of evidence should NEVER be taken as evidence of absence. This is the critical distinction Rummy made in his book between the known knowns, the known (or suspected) unknowns and that most dangerous of all, the unknown unknowns .... those are the nasty surprises that jump up to bite us in the hindquarters when we least expect it. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld team realized as did most Americans that 9/11 was a game changer and that after 9/11 seemingly remote risks lurking in the unknown unknown territory that once might have occasioned procrastination could no longer be set aside as something to worry about later. Thus were the aggressive actions ordered up by the BCR team -- to take the fight into the teeth of the enemy -- prudent indeed. After years of Clintonian dereliction, the last thing the evil doers expected was an aggresssive American response ... which is why it was so effective.

Posted by: Pyroclastic | February 24, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Pyroclastic Writes: "Thus were the aggressive actions ordered up by the BCR team -- to take the fight into the teeth of the enemy -- prudent indeed. After years of Clintonian dereliction, the last thing the evil doers expected was an aggressive American response ... which is why it was so effective."

Just exactly so. Well said. The first hint that the President Bush and his team recognized 9/11 for what it literally represented was the moment Bush said in his speech before Congress, “this was an act of war". Finally, a sitting American President had the stones to give voice to that which the rest of the world had known for decades: It's not a "criminal" act, it's not a "civil" matter. It's war.

There was also another war discovery, an "unknown unkown", published but o'er glanced in the media as insignificant.

In August of 2003 an entire fighter wing, ( 30+ aircraft ), including MiG 25's, buried intact and complete in the sand, ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93483,00.html ).

Rep. Porter Goss, then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the discovery provided contextual proof of how far Iraq went to conceal their activities. "Our guys have found 30-something brand new aircraft buried in the sand to deny us access to them," Goss said. "These are craft we didn't know about."

To date, all we truly know for sure is that no WMD’s were ever found. We do know that Iraq scientists and officials were so compartmentalized within their own regime that many working on the same project did not know either what they were working on or who they were working with. We do know that Saddam Hussein was making every effort to obtain and weaponize WMD.

Does anyone seriously doubt he would have used them given the chance?

Posted by: China_Rider | February 25, 2011 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company