About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Defending Rumsfeld, Novak cherry-picked from Sen. Clinton's list of past "rosy picture" statements

August 11, 2006 11:33 am ET
image

SUMMARY: In his nationally syndicated column, Robert Novak claimed that Donald Rumsfeld was correct in asserting that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would have a "dickens of a time" finding examples of Rumsfeld's making "rosy statements" about Iraq. But in making the assertion, Novak limited himself to four examples offered by Clinton of Rumsfeld's testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Clinton in fact cited a total of 13 instances, including the following, ignored by Novak, which Rumsfeld made before the House Appropriations Committee: "My impression is that the war was highly successful."

16 Comments

In his nationally syndicated August 10 column, Robert D. Novak claimed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had "apt[ly]" asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) would have a "dickens of a time" finding examples of Rumsfeld's making "rosy statements" about Iraq. Novak asserted that "among the 'many' statements to the Armed Services Committee" Clinton cited in a statement she inserted into the official hearing record, none was "more triumphant than [Rumsfeld's] 2004 comment: 'I do believe we're on the right track.' " However, of the 13 instances Clinton cited, Novak considered only four examples of Rumsfeld's testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, ignoring the statements from congressional hearings, media interviews, and other forums. For instance, Clinton quoted Rumsfeld claiming before the invasion that the Iraq war "could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," and stating in August 2003, "My impression is that the war was highly successful."

Although Rumsfeld's comment came in response to Clinton's statement that "[t]his is not 2002, 2003, 2004-5, when you appeared before this committee and made many comments and presented many assurances that have, frankly, proven to be unfulfilled," Rumsfeld did not limit his assertion that he had "never painted a rosy picture" to statements before the Senate Armed Services Committee. After Rumsfeld's testimony, Clinton promised "to submit for the record a number of the secretary's former comments," also without referring to Armed Services Committee testimony exclusively. Similarly, earlier in the hearing, Clinton stated that Rumsfeld had spun "rosy scenarios" about Iraq without such a limitation: "[W]e hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios, but because of the administration's strategic blunders and, frankly, the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy."

As Clinton promised at the end of her exchange with Rumsfeld, she inserted into the official hearing record a statement that included several instances of what she called the defense secretary painting a "rosy picture" of the situation in Iraq.

Some of the examples Clinton cited:

  • September 30, 2003: House Appropriations Committee hearing

RUMSFELD: My impression is that the war was highly successful.

  • February 4, 2004: Senate Armed Services Committee hearing

RUMSFELD: The increased demand on the force we are experiencing today is likely a "spike," driven by the deployment of nearly 115,000 troops in Iraq. We hope and anticipate that that spike will be temporary. We do not expect to have 115,000 troops permanently deployed in any one campaign.

  • June 23, 2005: House Armed Services Committee hearing

RUMSFELD: The level of support from the international community is growing.

  • March 9, 2006: Senate Appropriations Committee hearing

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV): Mr. Secretary, how can Congress be assured that the funds in this bill won't be used to put our troops right in the middle of a full-blown Iraqi civil war?

RUMSFELD: Senator, I can say that certainly it is not the intention of the military commanders to allow that to happen. The -- and to repeat, the -- at least thus far, the situation has been such that the Iraqi security forces could for the most part deal with the problems that exist."

  • February 1, 2006: Department of Defense news briefing

QUESTION: One clarification on "the long war." Is Iraq going to be a long war?

RUMSFELD: No, I don't believe it is.

  • March 30, 2003: ABC's This Week

RUMSFELD: We know where [Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.

  • February 20, 2003: PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER (anchor): Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?

RUMSFELD: There's obviously the Shia population in Iraq and the Kurdish population in Iraq have been treated very badly by Saddam Hussein's regime, they represent a large fraction of the total. There is no question but that they would be welcomed.

  • February 7, 2003: Town-hall meeting with U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy

RUMSFELD: And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

From Novak's August 10 nationally syndicated column:

Because of low seniority, Clinton got the floor near the end of the three and one-half hour session. Other senators posed serious questions about policy and operations, and even partisan Democrats wrapped comments around questions to the secretary. But Clinton made no pretense, using most of six minutes allocated each senator to assault Rumsfeld, campaign-style. She concluded: ''Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?''

Taken aback, Rumsfeld was silent momentarily before uttering a favorite phrase: ''My goodness!'' He then compared his approach to the senator's: ''I've tried to make notes and to follow the prepared statement you've presented.'' He instantly produced a masterful point-by-point rebuttal.

Clinton briefly looked startled, then told Rumsfeld: ''This is not 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, when you appeared before this committee and made many comments and presented many assurances that have, frankly, proven to be unfulfilled --'' That was too much for Rumsfeld, who interrupted: ''Senator, I don't think that's true. I have never painted a rosy picture.'' He added that ''you'd have a dickens of a time'' finding ''excessively optimistic'' statements. ''I understand this is tough stuff.''

With no time left to speak, she put Rumsfeld's allegedly rosy statements in the record. ''We didn't have a 'dickens of a time,' '' a Clinton aide told this column. But Rumsfeld's characterization was apt. Of 13 examples mined by Clinton's staff, only four were among the ''many'' statements to the Armed Services Committee. They are no more triumphant than this 2004 comment: ''I do believe we're on the right track.''

Many of the supposedly false claims Clinton attributed to Rumsfeld are subject to interpretation. At the end of 2002, he said on CNN's ''Larry King Live'' in respect to Afghanistan: ''The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.'' In truth, the Taliban government had been dispersed and the al Qaeda guerrilla camps were demolished. Clinton omitted that Rumsfeld added: ''It's not going to be a perfectly tidy place.''

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by randall (August 11, 2006 11:54 am ET)
         

      I wouldn't mind the opinions of conservatives like Novak as much if they would just once, once, stop being apologists for the Bush clan and acknowledge what 60 percent of the American people now know- that this war was a mistake, has not made us safer and has been poorly planned and executed.

      It is when Novak and his ilk continue to believe their job is to defend the indefensible that makes me disregard any comment they choose to make.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (August 11, 2006 12:00 pm ET)
           

        Yep for all their manly man swagger, none of these neocon bozos have the guts to confront the truth. Count Novak would lose his power.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by runningwithsissors (August 11, 2006 11:55 am ET)
         

      It seems that Novak looks a little more dead every time I see a new picture of him.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (August 11, 2006 11:59 am ET)
         

      "RUMSFELD: We know where [Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."

      So... they were everywhere?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by robotchubby (August 11, 2006 5:51 pm ET)
           

        Rumsfeld specifically didn't say the weapons were northeast, southeast, southwest, and northwest of Tikrit and Baghdad.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (August 11, 2006 12:03 pm ET)
         

      For his complicity in the Duhhbya/Cheney/Rove plot against Joe Wilson, Jon Stewart used "douche bag" to describe Robert Novak.

      I think that was a completely unjustified comparison.

      A douche bag serves a vital function.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by monkeyboyiv (August 11, 2006 12:25 pm ET)
           

        "A douche bag serves a vital function."

        I'm going to laugh at that for at least a week. I wanted to call Novak a tool, but that implicates that he's useful for something.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Slade (August 11, 2006 12:04 pm ET)
         

      Sorry, couldn't resist.

      Not only would I like to see members of the conserv...I mean...republican media stop defending the Bush administration, I'd also like to see people who call themselves conservatives stop defending the government period.

      Since when do conservatives defend the government. Let only the federal government.

      Up is down. Black is white. Over is under.

      What ever happened to conservatism?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bexter (August 11, 2006 2:26 pm ET)
           

        The neo-cons have taken over the Republican party and trying, with Lieberman , to take over the Democrat party.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 12, 2006 11:41 pm ET)
             

          It is the Democratic Party. The GOP started calling it the Democrat Party years ago because they didn't want people to think they were more democratic than the Republican Party.

          Please use "Democratic party" when referring to them.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by redking75687 (August 13, 2006 1:55 am ET)
               

            They sure don't look democratic in Pennsylvania. The Dem Party is now challenging another Green candidate who made it on the ballot for invalid signatures. If they love democracy so much, why are they so damned scared of it?

            Report Abuse
      • Author by fawltylogic (August 11, 2006 2:43 pm ET)
           

        War is peace

        Freedom is slavery

        Ignorance is strength

        Report Abuse
        • Author by notforyou (August 11, 2006 5:15 pm ET)
             

          or Bush is conservative, or the media is liberally biased. all oxymorons!

          Report Abuse
    • Author by rufus t firefly (August 11, 2006 1:07 pm ET)
         

      should not be allowed to appear on any show unless accompanied by a laugh track.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by februsmax9273 (August 11, 2006 9:51 pm ET)
         

      should both be behind bars.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.