Rumsfeld Lies When Questioned On WMD Statement

Former CIA analyst, and current anti-war activist, Ray McGovern, called Sec. Rumsfeld to task for previous statements he'd made on Iraq today during a speech Rumsfeld gave in Atlanta. The version of this story that is being played up by the press- as the AP article would indicate- is that Rumsfeld was 'heckled'. That's right AP, Statler and Waldorf were up in the balcony shouting insults at Rummy.

At first I thought the term referred to some protestors who shouted at him during the speech (which is a side issue in the story, anyway), but the AP title specifically states Rumsfeld was "Heckled by Former CIA Analyst". Apparently, asking a pointed question now counts as heckling in America.

During the Q&A session, McGovern asked Rumsfeld why they lied to get us into a war of choice, a charge Rumsfeld denied. He blew off any accountability he has for the case they made for war turning out wrong, stating "I’m not in the intelligence business". Tell us something we don't know, Don.

McGovern then called him on his 2003 assertion that he knew where the WMDs were. Rumsfeld denied ever saying that. McGovern then quoted him back what he said in 2003. Rumsfeld stammered for several seconds (do these people honestly not know their words are recorded and archived?) and then diverted away from that issue... Rumsfeld in the end never accounted for the lie he had just spouted.

Rumsfeld then changed the subject, trying to use Zarqawi to make an Iraq-9/11 connection, an assertion McGovern quickly shot down.

Video here- VIDEO: Rumsfeld Called Out On Lies About WMD

Here's a transcript of the first part of the back-and-forth, courtesy of Atrios-

QUESTION: So I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people, why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?

[*Booing in audience*]

RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven’t lied. I did not lie then. [*Applause in audience*] Colin Powell didn’t lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. The President spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I’m not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinion. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.

RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and –

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were- Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

RUMSFELD: My words — my words were that — no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.

QUESTION: This is America.

[*audience applauds*]

RUMSFELD: You’re getting plenty of play, sir.

QUESTION: I’d just like an honest answer.

RUMSFELD: I’m giving it to you.

QUESTION: Well we’re talking about lies and your allegation there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. Was that a lie or were you mislead?

RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

QUESTION: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That’s also…

RUMSFELD: He was also in Baghdad.

QUESTION: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital. Come on, these people aren’t idiots. They know the story.

This is why I want to see these guys under oath in a Senate investigation. They're really bad at lying.

For the record, here is the May 4, 2003 exchange from ABC that McGovern referred to:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: …We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Gosh, I guess Rumsfeld forgot saying it.

This is a standard trick they use- instead of defending previous statements they made, they deny ever having said them. President Bush did it when called on his 2002 statement that he wasn't that interested in Osama bin Laden anymore. Vice President Cheney did it when called on statement about Iraq and nuclear weapons. Rumsfeld has done it before when called on statements made calling Iraq an imminent threat. And the President has also denied that they said there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Then they get shocked when they are called on these lies. Like I said, apparently not only do they underestimate the intelligence of the American people, they also don't realize 'cameras' and 'microphones' record the things that they say.

The Colin Powell mention is odd too, since he has come out publicly since retiring to state that he, along with many others, severely questioned the intelligence prior to the war. He indicated in a recent interview that he didn't buy into the idea of an Iraqi nuclear threat, stating “That was all Cheney.” He also verified the accounts of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, stating "I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.” He insisted he gave his speech to the U.N. based on a mix of good faith and loyalty to the administration. This says a lot about Powell (that he sold his soul and helped lie us into war), but it certainly doesn't say that he believed his presentation was accurate.

Another interesting thing I found about this exchange was this- after McGovern reminds Rumsfeld of his 2003 quote, you hear Rumsfeld saying "no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second." The camera is only on Rumsfeld, but I think it's clear that, at this point, security was grabbing McGovern and trying to remove him. Does security always remove people who ask tough questions at these events? That seems to be a pretty upsetting thought. At least Rumsfeld was smart enough to know his bad press would be doubled by allowing that to happen.

The distraction of this did give Rumsfeld a chance to dodge the question.

The right-wing blogs are already ranting on this, trying to make McGovern the issue. Yet, in all their exposes of McGovern as a 'moonbat', I notice one thing... not one blog I went to made an attempt to defend Rumsfeld or the accusations made against him. The facts just aren't with them there. So as usual, it becomes easier to attack the critic- be it the media, Cindy Sheehan, or ummm, 68% of America- than to actually address the substance of the issue. It's amusing to observe.

The issue is that Rumsfeld was caught in a lie. Again. He still has a job... why?

[PS- The Rumsfeld torture legacy continues.]