either rummy is essentially lying to the american people or he is completely out of touch with the world. either way the man should be removed from his post.

nice work steve - it would be great to hear more about rove's impendind (hopefully) indictment here - nicely covered at the leftcoaster.com by steve soto and friends.

Pentagon press corps should revisit Rumsfeld's Rules--well worth a look at
http://www.analects-ink.com/weekend/020308.html
And they should start quoting appropriate ones at start of tough questions with follow-ups when he obfuscates and not let him continue the "oh, my goodness gracious grandfather" facade.

It is well known that he, Rice, and Bush all have nasty tempers when challenged persistently, and the press have let them get away with changing the subject, etc. for the past five years.

Steve...thanks for the heads up on Wilkerson tonight. If he is going to get on smiling Jim’s, go along-get along, see no evil,-hear no evil, show he really IS making the mainstream. I'm amazed. This is the cross-over effect big time. Nice

I am equally amazed that Rummy et al keeps getting away with this, as we use to say on Charles St in the Village, oakie-doak nonsense. Why someone in the room does not call him on it, and there are ways to do so, speaks volumes about the people in the room. I don't know...perhaps some of them tried to. But its a surrealistic state of discourse.

Hey Hi...is that the way your world view works? A bad tip, which is swiftly copped to by Steve, up front, and that makes him "full of it"? If so, if that is the dynamic that governs you world, what do it make of BushCo and their non-stop lying?

isn't it more than a little interesting that when these administration officials face some real and troubling criticism that their first response is to pretend that they "don't know" the criticizer and have "never heard of him."? Cheney did it with Wilson and now this bit by Rumsfeld. I'm sure there are multiple other examples. What gives here? And why are their feet not held to the fire better when they pull these stunts?

Drag them to the ICC, kicking and screaming. I feel sick.

I wonder if Rummy would have tried to get away with this claptrap is the reporter had included Colonel Larry Wilkerson's title in his question....

(and, apropos of nothing...can anyone explain why "colonel" is pronounce "kernel"? Where's the R? and why only two syllable? )

Have you noticed that Rummy always claims he hasn't read any of the stuff critical of him?

After the Alito nonsense that Matthews pushed, why does anyone treat any Matthews' program as anything but inherently suspect? Even if it's good for our side.

I'll believe anything Schuster says when I see it on another program.

I read a stronger motive for Rumsfeld. He just fingered W as being more than a puppet. This is predictable for two reasons--1) Bush used to have higher likability numbers than either Cheney or Rumsfeld, so shifting the blame to him has a bit of a cushioning effect and 2) Bush going down in flames does not end the neo-com cabal, he is dispensable. That's what W gets for his "loyalty"--should have fired the bastard when the opportunity existed.

I agree with buck that Rumsfeld basically pointed the finger at Bush - I was rather shocked to read it. It's very clear, from his response, that he wasn't protecting his boss in any way, certainly not the way Libby is protecting the VP. Wonder what it all means?

Rumsfeld: I don't know the man. I've never met the man, and I don't believe he's ever been in a meeting of the NSC. So it's hard for me to understand exactly what his insights might have been.

This is a complete and utter lie. Read the Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind book, where he describes the first-ever meeting of the Bush NSC. He says that every member of the NSC had their chief deputy their, sitting behind them.

It beggars belief that that was the last NSC meeting Wilkerson attended, either. There must be a dozen people who can say that Rumsfeld is full of it on this point.

Rumsfeld is just psychotic in his denial. Bush would soar in popularity from firing him, not that he has the wit or spine to do it (or that Cheney would allow it to happen).

Dear 'Hi': If you look back a few posts or search under the subject 'office space', you will find my retraction and the reasons for it. My sources proved to be wrong -- and I got word out as soon as the sources went wobbly. But your note sounds a bit on edge. Email me if you like -- but use an email address that I can actually write to rather than a fake one where I can't respond in a serious way.

best regards,

Steve Clemons

What "goodness"? What "gracious"? it's impossible for me to respect a man who loves war, but is too chicken to fight himself. then add lying, dissembling, mismanaging and I can't place any credence in anything you say or do.

The players in this adminstration, and I do mean "players' are so immature, they are incapable of rigorous debate. They disparage anyone who disagreees with them with derrogatory, insults, projecting their own devious machinations and bunglings onto others.

Is Alzheimers a Republican disease? They seem to do the "I don't know, I can't remember" dodge with alarming regularity. Sneaky little cowards.

cf. Giorgio Agamben - Stato di eccezione

Guess this is OT, but did anyone else hear about this? With all the Senate excitement yesterday, I just read this:
White House disputes Italy role in Iraq claim
http://www.heraldnewsdaily.com/stories/news-0093780.html

I don't know much about the publication, but it is an intriguing read, given WHO Cheney just promoted and there's McClellan on record again with an official denial.

Hmm...so the Italian La Republica reports aren't true? Check out more of their "I never met that man" denials.

One should read Mr. Paul O'Neil's book to see another observation of the "cabal" between VP Cheney and SecDef Rumsfield. O'Neil did not see open meetings and discussions happening either.

Where there is smoke ...

Um ... By saying that he "never met" Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, didn't he just confirm that State was indeed minimized in the run up to war?

You guys are missing the gist of the direction the questioning should have taken. If Rumsfeld wanted to take the tack that he was unaware of even the NAME of Powell's top advisor, much less his position, it should be taken as an ADMISSION that there was in fact a very exclusive "cabal" of decision makers in the lead up to war.

See my prior comment that is the second one in this thread. I am not a fan of Rumsfeld at all; however, it was Cheney who never served in the military and took many deferments to avoid service in Vietnam. Rumsfeld did serve. The following is from his official bio at DOD website:

"Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989."

That service doesn't make him any less responsible; it probably makes him more so. Colonel Wilkerson had the courage and ethics to publicly express his regrets and shame. Rumsfeld and Powell have yet to do so. Rumsfeld should be asked about this at every press conference and every other opportunity.

You're right, POA. It's really a combination of the two: Rumsfeld and Cheney knew full well who all the participants were, but they also were convinced that they were the only ones who really mattered. And his response at the press briefing is direct evidence of the cabal-like nature of the decision-making in this admin.

'Arrogant' doesn't even begin to describe Rumsfeld. 'Megalomaniacal' maybe...

I've been impressed with David Shuster's reporting which I have only recently tuned in to. Maybe Matthews should move over, bow out.

re: Matthews....

Watching the end of Hardball last night, one got the distinct impression that Andrea Mitchell took him to the woodshed over the "anti-Italian" comments made the previous night. And when an administration flack like Mitchell tells you you've gone too far, you KNOW you've gone to far....

and you thought that the acting Vice President Rumsfeld would agree that there was a cabal ??

to think that the President of Vice Cheney would allow them to question his motives, never

obstruction to the end !! viva la obfuscasíon

>

Monica comes to mind ;-)

You left out the best part; Rumsfeld's non-denial denial:

Q -- was this department involved in, aware of, in any way, in the alleged efforts by the Vice President's Office to learn about Mr. Wilson's trip to Africa?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not to my knowledge, but how could one answer that? I mean, you've got a department of hundreds and thousands of people, millions of people, and you say, "Was this department in any way involved in some allegation?" My goodness gracious. Only a --

Q You never spoke about it with the vice president?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I -- how would I know if I ever spoke about it with the vice president over five years? I don't recall speaking it -- with him about it, and I don't recall the department being involved. Is it possible? I mean, my goodness, that's -- that question is such a -- it's -- what is that game? Fish. Give me all your sevens or something. I mean, that's not for me.

Q Mr. Secretary, one of the implications --

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think he thinks I just fell off a turnip truck . . .

Rumsfeld is a dangerous and arrogant megolamaniac, ten cards short of a full deck. That cutesy "goodness gracious" bullshit masks a man that would nuke 100 million people in a hearbeat if he thought he had the "morale mandate" to do so. In my opinion, Rumsfeld is just as, (if not more so), dangerous as Cheney is. The two of them together is this planet's worst nightmare. If one was writing a stage play about mankind's destiny being to nuke ourselves into oblivion, or release some nasty bug that will spell the end for us, the current batch of frightening characters in Washington are certanly the perfect cast for such scenarios.

First, Linda, you are right, Rummie did serve in the military from 1954 until 1975; however, if my memory serves me correctly - you will have to check the records - I don't think he ever served in combat, and, well, I do recall a war or two having occurred during that time period. I am curious as to how he was able to avoid combat.

Second, Dick Cheney not only avoided service by having obtained several deferments as you so noted, but he had the audacity to make matters worse by publicly stating a few years ago he had "other priorities" during the Vietnam War. I am certain there were thousands of men who died in Vietnam who would have preferred to have been doing something else, too, but, unlike Dick, they didn't have the power to make the same choices he did.

How anyone could expect that a man who could make such an atrociously insensitive statement could ever be capable of fully understanding what it means to lose one single American soul in combat is utterly beyond my realm of understanding. I don't condemn him for not having served - many men from both sides of the aisle avoided service during Vietnam. I do, however, condemn him for trivializing the deaths of those souls who did.

Third, with respect to Rummie's press conference.
The last thing Donald Rumsfeld wants to do is give Larry Wilkerson additional press. Remember, many who watch his conferences are either sympathetic to the military or part of the military. The last thing Rummie wants is for someone to learn how credible a witness Wilkerson is. No, instead, the best way for him to handle it is to minimize him.

Essentially Rummie's message is this, "Wilkerson? I don't recall him. Uh? Well, yes, he was some peon staffer who worked for Powell. Yes, o.k. Well, I wouldn't pay much attention to what he says. He's just upset because his boss's suggestions weren't accepted by the President while mine and Dick's were, and, well, speaking of his boss, if Powell had something to say about having a case of "sour grapes" like his peon staffer has, then I'd think we'd hear it from him. As for Wilkerson, who the hell cares what he has to say."

with all due respect, read between the lines. Rummie is trying to trivialize Larry Wilkerson. He wants the press to think that Wilkerson and his ranting about the "cabal" is no more significant to him than a speck of dust on his thick reading glasses. It's all part of the game. Don't give Wilkerson any more visibility than humanly possible. The last thing Rummie wants is someone who'se watching the conference - someone who's sympathetic to the military or, even more, someone who's in the military - asking more questions about who Wilkerson is and what he's got to say. Rummie ain't no dummie. He knows Wilkerson is too credible of a critic. A soldier or two or their families might just want to listen to what Larry has to say.

No, the way Rummie and Cheney are going to play it is the following: Larry is just a peon staffer who's upset because his boss's suggestions weren't accepted by the President. It's just a case of sour grapes. Additionally, they've got their people out there on the airwaves responding to Wilkerson's accusations about the cabal by saying,"No there was never a cabal. The President was in on everything from the very start."

Additionally, Cheney's got his hitman Rush threatening that if the Dems want to pull stunts like closed sessions in the Senate, then, the Republicans will have to start investigating Wilson, the State Department, and the CIA.

What the Democrats need to do - and this is coming from a conservative Republican - is appeal to moderate Republicans. They must say, "With fine American men and women serving in harm's way as we speak in Iraq and issues such as Syria and Iran on the table, how can anyone call our attempt to discern the facts a stunt?"

Please ignore last four paragraphs. Editing problems when posting.

"What was his job, this fellow"? Is he serious?

So the Secretary of Defense never met the Secretary of State's chief of staff? Unbelieveable! Perhaps this says more about the Bush administration than anything else.

Drew,

Remember bald-faces lies are to be expected from an administration where Cheney can say publicly and repeatedly that he never used the phrase "it's been pretty well confirmed" that Saddam is linked to terrorism -- after they've shown the video of him saying exactly that.

And sapere -- here's what I don't get -- these clowns in the WH are dragging the party of Lincoln into the gutter and rolling in the muck --where are the Republican moderates on this? The only hope they have is a quick cauterization of these neocon bullies. Why the silence from people like Specter and Susan Collins?

AJ, the sad answer to that question appears to be: they aren't really moderates.

I don't know exactly, AJ, but I suppose one reason is that the moderates are afraid of Cheney.
I've heard he has a history of ruling with an iron fist.

If ever, though, they were going to speak up, now, is as good a time as ever.

I saw this live on cspan. Rummy was clearly deflecting blame from himself and pointing the finger at Dubya. It was quite telling to watch.

How did the Lehrer interview go?

I thought the most significant comment made by Rumsfeld at that press conference was that he already has enough 'peas on my knife.' Wonder who the peas are!?

CAN ANYONE SAY RUMSFELD GET F---ED!

Perhaps some might suggest that Rumsfeld is demonstrating the indicia for the early onslaught of Alztheimers.

Rumsfield's act has gotton old and worn out. You can sense a new boldness in our sheepish media these days too. More hard questions are on the way and "goodness gracious" responses no longer amuse. The run-up to the Iraq war has finally become something for American's to talk about. How did we get them to let us talk about that? They must be loosing control.

I ask you if this works: The entire clique lies all the time about everything. So to interpret their comments one should reverse everything.
1. Rumsfeld did know Wilkerson. Of course, they probably had an affair going on. Even.
2. The Prez was not in on it because the Prez just doesn't get it. Never did. And he cries a lot at home in the dark. They just needed an actor who does a credible one role-- tough guy hick--for 8 years, then they kill him...as an excuse (one of many) to initiate martial law. Rummy has a thing for Laura...when he becomes Viceroy she's his.
3. If you think "the cabal" is going to crumble on this line of questioning, well, "goodness gracious" you must have forget that they already killed 3,000 americans at the WTC...duh.
And a few more bodies in order to conquer the world's last best oil reserves sounds like a good trade off to all of them. Syria would only be a distraction compared to that. And Iran a good place to practice with the Daisy Cutters--they're kinda hard to toss out there, y'know. First thing they'll hit will be the university where the last remnants of Iranian secularism are hanging out. They profess to hate the mullahs, but don't forget the mullahs give them reason to live...and be tough guys.
This show is incredible. In 2005 we are all supposed to be flying our own anti-gravity saucers just to pick up the laundry.
Instead we're wondring if Dorothy can pull away the curtain from the Cult of Armageddon.

Why should any of us be surprised by anything coming out of this consumate liar? He has been referred to, by someone who worked with him and actually admired him, as "the most ruthless man I ever met".

I wonder how he would do in the middle of a Marine assault?

Perhaps he would say; "This is not the war I was talking about"

Frank Espada

Rumsfeld should be locked up for sacrificing so many troops lives that did not need to be sacrificed. If you're going to war, you don't buy your weapons at WalMart. Or, maybe you do if you're Rummy!

He needs to find a good Old Folks Home and check in!

The curious thing for me is that the founding fathers and mothers never expected a psychotic surrounded by psychopaths to take over the government so they never added "psychosis or other madness" as grounds for impeachment. They figured we were smart enough (as rich white landowners always are) to stop a madman from getting that far. But if you look at Cheney, Rummy and Dubya speak about the dead babies in pools of blood on the streets of Bagdad you see that little sparkle in their eyes and that sick grin on their faces... sure signs of psychotic inclinations. Why did Cheney fly hurriedly to New Orleans when he heard about all the unclaimed bodies floating in the swamp water? What did he have for lunch the next day?

Wow, what a surprise to see the press doing there jobs for a change.
Maybe there's hope after all...NOT.
I guarantee, the weaponsindustry/fossilfuelindustry/mediagiants will fade this story away as soon as the next tabloid sensation comes along.

oops...make that their jobs.