• Home
>
• Blog
> Comment for March 6, 2006

The People (via McGovern) v. Rumsfeld

This Thursday, Ray McGovern, a 27-year veteran of the CIA, former briefer of President George H. W. Bush, and author of one of the featured essays in Neo-CONNED! Again, asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld why he "lied" to get us into a war in Iraq.

Though Rumsfeld asserted that he "did not lie," McGovern insisted that the Secretary said he "knew where the WMD were" and that there was "bullet-proof evidence" of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Rumsfeld denied making the former statement and ignored the specifics of the latter, but McGovern had at hand a direct quote from the Secretary indicating that Rumsfeld said precisely what he said he said.

The Secretary was flummoxed and, at one point, simply stammered. Those who haven't yet seen the video should do so, here (with excellent MSNBC commentary) or here (at crooksandliars.com).

Since that Thursday in Atlanta, the major media and the blogosphere have been buzzing with discussion of whether McGovern was right to say that Rumsfeld "lied" and whether Rumsfeld did or did not participate in willful misrepresentation of the facts to lead the nation to war.

This ongoing discussion, arguably one of the most candid since before the March 2003 invasion, was prompted only by only two comments from McGovern and a couple of direct Rumsfeld quotes. But there’s more to the story. If just two remarks and a quote or two can send people flailing, how about 1400 well-documented and neatly argued pages on one of the worst strategic blunders and most sadly immoral and illegal actions in American history?

It has been interesting to follow the media reaction to the McGovern-Rumsfeld exchange. At first much of the media seemed to miss the point with simply (and typical) shallow and superficial coverage of the clash, ignoring the essential point that Rumsfeld said exactly what Ray said he said. Some dismissed this Soviet specialist as a mere "anti-war heckler," and the best that Paula Zahn could come up with was to ask McGovern what kind of axe he had to grind against the Defense Secretary. But with the progress of time, the truth seems to be making progress. Lou Dobbs even corrected CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre on Thursday night regarding Rumsfeld's incredible -- if "technically" correct -- statement that he's "not in the intelligence business." (Say what? How quickly we forget about Stephen Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for....uh...what is it....darn....  OH! Right,...; Intelligence. And how last year Rumsfeld was trying to take over covert intelligence operations from the other part - the CIA - of the nation's intelligence community. And about that darn DIA, the Defense....um...Intelligence....Agency; oh and the J2s and G2s and N2s throughout DoD's unified and component commands. Otherwise, the SECDEF is perfectly correct; he's not in the intelligence business. Perhaps as a "consumer" of intelligence he is merely an "analyst," like William Luti, Abe Shulsky, Mike Rubin, and the other "not-in-the-intelligence-business" "analysts" in the now defunct Office of Special Plans set up under the Policy Undersecretariat formerly owned by Doug Feith to "reconsider" and "reexamine" bits of intelligence that the real "analysts" over at the "in-the-intelligence-business" part of the intelligence community had dismissed as insignificant or inconsequential.)

At any rate, Lou is in full form in this exchange. And CNN's Wolf Blitzer, pitting McGovern against the recycled neocon Frank Gaffney Friday night, was plainly deferential to Ray's 27 years in the CIA and gave Gaffney almost no time to push his "George Tenet said so" line of defense.

The host of the event Thursday night insisted that Rumsfeld is "unflappable," implying that this exchange will make no difference in how things unfold in terms of the war and the debate surrounding it. It would be more correct to say that the Bush administration's stubbornness is "unflappable"; if facts were permitted to be obstacles we wouldn't be in Iraq today.

Nevertheless, one may be permitted to hope, however vaguely, however cautiously, that this brief spotlight on the "inconsistencies" in the statements of one of our nation's leading executive-branch figures might contribute to the continued awakening of the American people. Though we're not holding our breath.

Don't forget that Ray McGovern makes his complete case against the pre-war intelligence claims in his new and comprehensive essay included in the groundbreaking collection on the war in Iraq, "subtly" titled Neo-CONNED! and Neo-CONNED! Again. This two-volume anthology presents the full roster of arguments made by McGovern and his colleagues, including recently retired military officers, CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency professionals, and military war-college professors.

A centerpiece of the second volume is McGovern's chapter, "Sham Dunk," a comprehensive look at the intelligence fiasco that was the foundation of the Bush administration's case for toppling Saddam Hussein. In his chapter, McGovern expands the arguments he made to Donald Rumsfeld in Atlanta, about the absence of evidence for pre-war ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, about the Defense Department's effort to circumvent the intelligence community's judgment on that subject, and on the other major charges relating to Iraq's alleged WMD.

This chapter is a not-to-miss expose of McGovern's thesis, and a clear indication of what the facts are and whose interpretation of events they support. An excerpt from his chapter is available here and his full essay is available in Neo-CONNED! Again; direct from the publisher online or by phone at 877-447-7737; or from Amazon.com and the other major online and brick-and-mortar booksellers.