What
You're Missing in our subscriber-only CounterPunch newsletter
WHO RULES: THE ISRAEL LOBBY
OR UNCLE SAM?
The answer
at last! Uri Avnery, former Knesset member, assesses the Lobby's
power. "If the Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow
annulling the 10 Commandments, 95 U.S. Senators (at least) would
sign the bill forthwith." But, yes, in the end the dog wags
the tail.Fifty
years ago Allen Ginsberg's "Howl" blew the cobwebs
out of millions of young minds and drove a stake through the
heart of Eisenhower's America. Lenni Brenner remembers Ginsberg
in the East Village.Dr Mengele died in exile, in disguise. Dr Ishii
died rich and recognized, in his own Tokyo home. Christopher
Reed on Japanese WW2 medical tortures and how the U.S. covered
them up.CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember,
we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription
to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find
anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition.
Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
He quotes Rumsfeld's exchange
with Ray McGovern and then writes:
"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."
No, he did not, because this
was not a basketball game. This was a rare instance of someone
acting as a reporter and questioning a member of the gang that
lied this country into an aggressive war. And it was not "the
adminitsration" that made those claims. It was individual
people, including Rumsfeld.
"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."
Again, this was not a basketball
game. No scoring. Rumsfeld not only did not rely on the CIA.
He created his own "intelligence" operation in the
Pentagon called the Office of Special Plans. Has the Washington
Post heard about this?
"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. Certainly we remember
not too long ago administration officials saying that WMD were
still to be found, that it's not over 'til it's over."
Ponder for a moment the frame
of mind of someone so unconcerned with the emergence of facts
but obsessed with the statements of people in power that he imagines
it is news that Rumsfeld admitted what the whole damn world knows.
Amazing. Arkin has not said anything to suggest that Rumsfeld
didn't lie, but he has explained the second half of his headline.
Rumsfeld should go, he clearly thinks, because some powerful
people have said so. What other reason could there be for anything
to happen?
"In the end it comes down
to McGovern's question: Why did you lie, not did you."
It does? OK, what's the answer?
To either question. Did he lie? And if so, why?
"A better question for
McGovern, once he was given a chance to talk, once he was standing
there 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?"
So, rather than answering Ray's
question which "it comes down to," Arkin is fantasizing
about how much nicer it would have been had he asked a softball
and let Rummy smash it out of the park.
"I know that Rumsfeld
could have slipped away with some political answer. It is still
a better question."
Why is it?
"I imagine McGovern's
goal yesterday was to get on the evening news. It was a spectacle,
and McGovern wasn't really seeking an answer to any question:
he already had the answers; he was just seeking to expose."
Why imagine these things? You
could ask Ray. Pick up the phone and call him. He might have
some actual insight into what he was trying to do.
"The protestors screeching
impeachment and 'lying' yesterday, as well as McGovern, can't
accept that there is a difference between being wrong and deceiving."
They can't? Have you asked
them? And, by the way, what is your definition of screeching?
Rumsfeld was not wrong. Rumsfeld was deceiving. How do we know
this? It's not because Rumsfeld has admitted it, and therefore
it's not for any reason you'll ever accept. It's because of the
enormous quantity of evidence that Rumsfeld (the man who asked
Richard Clarke on September 12, 2001, to find a way to attack
Iraq) was bent on war with Iraq no matter what. The plans are
laid out publicly by the Project for a New American Century.
Each claim that Rumsfeld promoted, from the ties to 9-11 to the
aluminum tubes to the niger uranium to the chemical and biological
weapons was known by him to be false. See www.afterdowningstreet.org
This is a man who claims to
be promoting freedom but has authorized detention without charge
and torture. This is a man who claims to be helping the Iraqis,
but has used napalm, depleted uranium, and white phosphorous
on them as part of their liberation.
Does it not abuse the English
language at this point to even entertain the possibility that
"Rumsfeld didn't lie"?
Arkin presses on:
"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. Bush
is Hitler, and with that he, nor Rumsfeld, deserves human courtesy.
Human courtesy would mean understanding fallibility, fear, pride,
the drive of false certainty in office. I'm not asking anyone
to accept the war or the dominant national security orthodoxy,
which I abhor."
Oh, of course, and it shows,
it really does.
"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 are here as citizens to teach and guide them."
And to impeach them and remove
them from office. May I mail you a copy of the US Constitution?
"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.'"
And that's even true, when
the person accused HAS NOT BEEN LYING.
"My guess is that the
impact of the confrontation won't be for Donald Rumsfeld to seek
forgiveness. More likely, the Secretary will just become ever
more careful to say nothing at the podium or in interviews in
the future."
So, when a citizen challenges
a cabinet secretary who has nothing to hide, the result is that
our noble public servant then hides his worthy work from us.
So, the proper behavior would be to obey, and then the facts
would all come out? Suddenly I understand how the Washington
Post operates.
"The best reason for Donald
Rumsfeld to step down as Secretary is that he has become the
debate, a lightening rod who can no longer continue to perform
this important duty. 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. 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."
So he's right, but should resign
because we barbarians think he's a lying criminal. I'm sorry.
If he had an ounce of honesty in him and were in any way wrongly
accused, I would advocate for him remaining. Arkin, on the other
hand, has just openly confessed to writing columns without content.
There is not a word here on the topic of whether Rumsfeld lied.
Arkin should resign immediately.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.