Rumsfeld journalists

Journalistic Rebutals (my personal favorite - skewers media bias and corrects incorrect assumptions and premises in crisp no-nonsense way)

(These were all taken directly from the transcripts provided by the defense department. To find context simply put the phrase into google with " " around it and look for the defenselink.mil site. In a very few cases I have removed some wordy replies and grouped relevant quotes together from the same transcript. This was only done if the quotes were already close together and the context didn't change.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: How long will it take to get enough of those various security forces to secure the country internally? Our military analyst, Tony Cordesman, says it’s going to take at least through 2006.

MR. RUMSFELD: Well, it’s interesting to me that some people think they know that. Because it’s not knowable.

Q: What about the -- [inaudible] for the public who -- you know, beyond the criticism from human rights organizations for using the cluster bombs, they're calling for a halt -- could you explain the tactical rationale for using them?

Rumsfeld: They are being used on front-line all Qaeda and Taliban troops to try to kill them, is why we're using them, to be perfectly blunt.

Q: Mr. Secretary, there’s also an article in the Guardian that says there is disagreement between the intelligence in the U.S. and Britain whereas in the U.S. they think that the remnants of the Saddam regime are responsible for the surge in operations while the British are feeling that more indigenous people are – and groups. What’s your assessment?

Q Mr. Secretary, can I ask you about your opening statement? You said that the challenge in Fallujah is being contained and that the situation in the south has largely stabilized. And I wonder, if that's the case, why then is it necessary to keep extra troops in Iraq for 90 days?

Q: Mr. Secretary, at the White House last night, a senior White House official after the president spoke said that the decision to make the strike was made some time between 6:30 and 7:00 Eastern time. It's apparent that that decision to strike was not in line with what we have been led to believe about the war plan. Was the intelligence you got fragile enough where you felt you had to go at that moment and not start with, say, shock and awe or some other phase of the war?

A: "Well, Dick, calibrate me, but the first thing I'd say is I don't believe you have the war plan -- (laughter) -- a fact which does not make me unhappy. (Laughter)"

Q: Mr. Secretary, (inaudible) Iraqi security forces in (inaudible), why don’t they (inaudible)?

SMITH: Mr. Secretary, sometimes, though, in a situation like this, don't these commanders on the ground tell you the answer you want to hear?

RUMSFELD: No, you don't know these commanders. They don't do that at all. These are enormously confident, talented individuals who are speaking their mind every day.

RUMSFELD: Wait a second. I'd like to go back and say one comment about something you said. You suggested that the generals and the leadership in Iraq might be telling me the answer I want to hear. That suggested you know what I want to hear, and you don't.

What I want to hear is the truth. And I hope they're telling the truth, and I believe they're telling the truth. And if they're not, they're not serving the country very well, because I have no bias one way or the other. I'm perfectly willing to recommend to the president we increase the number of forces if, in fact, that is what is in the best interest of this country.

Q Secretary Rumsfeld, do you want the catch him dead or alive or either way?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, the president's policy is dead or alive. And, you know, I have my preference – [laughter, applause] -- but that's not a government position. That's a personal position.

Q What is that preference, sir?

SEC. RUMSFELD: [Laughs.] I'll just leave it to your imagination. [Laughter.]

Q: Mr. Secretary on the illusive Osama bin Laden, given the fact that the Paks are giving us much greater cooperation on their side of the border and (Inaudible.) the tribal areas, and the weather will begin to improve for a possible spring offensive or whatever you want to call it on the Afghan side of the border. Do you think there is reason for perhaps increased optimism that he might be caught? While not making a prediction --

Rumsfeld: Come on, Charlie. I'm not going to get into that. Increased optimism, slightly decreased pessimism. Look, he's at large. He's probably alive. He's probably in Afghanistan or Pakistan. And we're probably going to catch him or kill him. We'll know in time.

Q: Mr. Rumsfeld, some experts are saying the insurgency in Iraq could last 10 years or more. Is this possible, in your estimation?

Q: You hear, part of an effort to get the media to focus on the good that's going on inside Iraq, but how can you do that when you yourself in that infamous memo said it's going to be "a long hard slog" and you question whether we're winning the war on terrorism?

Rumsfeld: First of all, the memo was not infamous. It's simply a memo that I wrote. It's part of my job. It seems to me that's what the Secretary of Defense's task is, is to see that we're doing the best possible job we can do to protect the American people from foreign terrorists.

Q: Some people say that the current insurrection in Iraq is traceable to the closure of a newspaper a couple of weeks ago by Mr. Bremer. I'd like to get your thinking and reasoning about that event and what it may have contributed to the events of the last week and a half or so.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I love the beginning of that question, "some people think." There is nothing that some people don't think. (Laughter, applause.) The idea that the conflict and the flare-ups and the shootings and the killings that are taking place in Iraq today are a result of the closing of that paper, I think, is, A, a stretch, and B, undoubtedly not provable, and, I would submit, not only not provable, but not accurate.

Q: Mr. Secretary, going back to these attacks again, these increasing attacks, as you've pointed out a number of times the face of war has changed dramatically. These people will stop at nothing, these guerrillas will stop at nothing in killing innocent people.

Is this prompting your determination perhaps to use U.S. Special Forces around the world to go after these people?

Q: [Inaudible] Do you still have confidence in the general in charge down there, sir?

Rumsfeld: I'll let you know when I don't, but I do. It's General Miller and he's done an excellent job of improving the circumstance with respect to the interrogation process. He's managed his assignments well. What is actually taking place there we'll know more about later. But clearly your second question to respond in any way other than I did would require someone to pre-judge something that I just explained in answer to your first question was underway and it would be inappropriate to do that.

Q: Why is it that you still have confidence in the commander there? Why have you not relieved him of duty?

Rumsfeld: I don't know how else I could -- how I could be clearer. What they are doing is reviewing the procedures to determine are there ways that we can do this in a better way. That's what we always do. We -- you learn from experience and you have lessons learned. The implication that every time something happens in the world, you should fire somebody is kind of a -- not a -- kind of a mindless approach, it seems to me -- the implication of it.

Q I'm asking for a purpose, sir. When you were at the afternoon soiree of General Myers and you asked for a secure phone, was that to call the president back to tell him that you pretty well knew that it was Saddam? (Laughter.) And how did you keep the secret from all of us?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Very skillfully, I mean -- (laughter).

Le Sumier: We’ll come to that a little later. But you declared victory on May 1st President Bush did. What --

Rumsfeld: What he said was not victory. He said that, on May 1st he said that major combat operations had been concluded. He was correct. Other people characterized that as claiming victory. We said all along that it would take time.

Rumsfeld:We'll take one last question and I will decide who it is. It's you.

Q: What can you tell us about the attack on General Abizaid's convoy today?

Rumsfeld: Nothing. I've been in the hearing for three hours.

Q: Sir, do you think that --

Rumsfeld: No, no, no. You had your question.

Q Laurent Zecchini from Le Monde: Secretary of Defense, you have asked NATO countries to provide more troops in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Till now their response has been very poor. What does that mean? Does that mean, for instance, as one U.S. official said recently, that NATO is in an excellent shape and that NATO has fully recovered from the Iraqi crisis?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Let me just take your question and try to correct it. And it may not be easy, but -- you began by saying the response has been very poor. You're wrong. The response has been excellent. The secretary of State and the head of the Central Command last year began the process of working with other countries, NATO as well as others, went out to something in excess of 100 countries, I believe. And at the present time we have 32 countries in Iraq. Of the NATO nations -- there are 19 NATO nations, excluding the United States, there's 18, and we have 11 of those countries currently in Iraq, and an additional one announced this week that they intended to offer troops. That would be 12 out of 18. That is not a poor response. Of the NATO invitees, six of seven are currently in Iraq. So all of this myth about poor response and going it alone is simply that: a myth.

Q What are your expectations for the donors' conference? I mean, why this bit of optimism that the Gulf states are going to come through?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I haven't expressed any optimism. Have I? Or pessimism, either one. Have I?

Q: (Inaudible.)

Rumsfeld: I did that once [said DC has a higher murder rate then Baghdad], and I was advised that it wasn’t the best idea. But there are hundreds of homicides in most major cities in the world without getting particular.

SEC. RUMSFELD: First of all, I don’t want to bring troops home from Europe and Asia. I want to have our troops wherever they ought to be in the world – that it is the most cost effective for the American people, that it is the most hospitable for the troops, that offers our country the greatest flexibility, agility and lethality and where the deterrent will be the strongest. That is my goal. I do not get up and say, “Gee, I want to bring troops home.”

Q: But doesn’t the report indicate that there are military intelligence officers, 27 of them involved here and civilian contractors and of course, some of these abuses happened under interrogation circumstances?

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: That’s not the report of the Schlesinger Panel. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite of what the Schlesinger Panel says.

Rumsfeld: You just said he has told others, and of course you don't know that. Others are saying they were told by him and I think more -- (Inaudible.).

Q: Lots of others are saying, and they're all saying the same thing. And as I say--

Rumsfeld: Is that right?

Q: -- we expect to hear from Aristide himself sometime shortly.

Rumsfeld: Good.

Q: Now, I’m sure you’ve been told of what South Korea has in mind in sending the new group of troops. Is there a regional --

Rumsfeld: Well, I’m going to wait until there is a public announcement. It’s not clear to me that that’s what he said, is it? I haven’t seen that in the press. Maybe he has.

Q: Well, you just came back from the talks at the Blue House with President Roh Mo Hyun, didn’t you? Didn’t he mention?

Q Mr. Secretary, what about the critics who are out there saying that the administration is putting a happy face on the war on terrorism publicly, but privately this memo indicates that things are not so happy, that, in fact, you --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Those that are attentive here in this room know that that's not what we've done here. What we have done is we've put out a very straightforward, accurate, to the best of our ability, and balanced view of what we see happening and what we believe to be the case. And there's been no mystery about the fact that this is -- from the very beginning we've said that this global war on terror is a tough one, it's going to take a long time, it's going to take the cooperation of a lot of countries, it's going to take all elements of national power. These were things that have been said and repeated consistently for 2- 1/2 years.

Q: And why can you do this better than the U.N?

Rumsfeld: Well, the U.N. doesn’t have forces. The U.N., obviously, if one looks at their record and what they do, they don’t do what we’re doing. We’ve got 130,000 troops there, we’ve got another 20 plus from 32 other nations, we’ve got another 70,000 Iraqis who are engaged in this process and we have to see that we transfer security responsibility to the Iraqis at a pace that’s appropriate as rapidly as possible. (underline mine!)

Hume: Mr. Secretary, General Wesley Clark suggested this week with regard to that memo that you wrote asking all the questions, that you had to leak it yourself, and that you did leak it. What do you say?

Rumsfeld: That's just nonsense. I didn't leak that memo. That's insulting.

Hume: He said that he heard about it through the gossip and on the Sunday talk shows. Shouldn't we believe that?

Rumsfeld: Listen, if people start getting their information from that, we're all in trouble.

Q Could we get a clarification on a pretty serious implication that you slipped into one of our answers earlier? It was in response to Martha's question about the missiles. And you said that Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiyah are often there to videotape these terrorists conducting these attacks.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I don't know if I said "often," but certainly they are there from time to time.

Q Do you think these -- (inaudible) -- coalition forces?

SEC. RUMSFELD: -- and I'm not in a position to make a final judgment on it, as I've indicated earlier.

And I didn't just slip that in there, I STUCK it in there! (Laughter.)

Q Mr. Secretary, I wonder if I could get your thinking, please, on the tactic of targeted killing, given what happened in Afghanistan in the last several days ago. There are reports that there are plans to do the same now in Iraq, acting on intelligence concerning the whereabouts of midlevel anti-coalition leaders, special units having been formed to do this. I'm wondering if you can comment on that, as well as the report that Israeli experts are helping to train this force and will actually help advise this force.

SEC. RUMSFELD: But the phrase -- to use the phrase "targeted killing" I think is a misunderstanding of the fact that we're in a war where, obviously, the people who don't surrender, who are terrorists trying to kill innocent Iraqis and coalition forces, are people we want to stop. We would be happy to capture them, we'd be happy to have them surrender, and if they don't, we'd be happy to kill them. And that's what's going on. But the implication or the connotation of "targeted killing" I think is unfortunate because it suggests an appetite to do that, which is not the case. The goal is to stop terrorists from killing innocent men, women and children, Iraqis, and coalition forces. It seems like a perfectly logical thing to me.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you listed a number of accomplishments that are occurring in Iraq. Every day on the mainstream press and television, electronic media, all we hear about are the problems, the blunders, the difficulties. How is your department going to be able to get more information out about the positive things that are happening so when we talk with our constituents and the people in our state, we're able to say we are actually making progress?

Rumsfeld: Well, I guess, you know, when you live in a free system, the press is going to decide what's news. And if they decide bad news is news and good news isn't news, there's not a whole lot we can do about it except to try to get more and more people knowledgeable. So we've been working very hard to do that.

Al Jazeera: If I understand, some people say you are targeting Iraq because it is the weakest side of the axis of evil, and that you want to cover your failures in Afghanistan, you still have unfinished job.

Rumsfeld: The failures of Afghanistan. Did you see the people when the coalition forces and the Northern Alliance and the forces on the ground liberated Kabul? They were singing, they were flying kites, they were happy.

Two million refugees have come back into that country. Is that a failure? People are voting with their feet. Individual people. Neither you or I will ever meet them, but they're making a conscious decision to go back to Afghanistan because they know of certain knowledge that it's better there today than it was before. That is not a failure. That is an enormous success.

Q: Mr. Secretary, I wonder -- the European Union has announced that its members combined would be prepared to contribute about $234 million to Iraqi reconstruction. That's peanuts compared to what the United States is contributing and to the need as assessed by the World Bank. And I just wondered, are you -- are you disappointed in that, surprised by it, and what does it say about the possibilities at the donors conference?

Quirk: Given that, were you disturbed, or what’s your reaction to Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s comments that was on the wire yesterday regarding his comments that it could be years now for coalition forces in Iraq and that he, at some point, could see another a major conflagration in that country and in the region involving U.S. forces. Is that a personal opinion from the man on the ground, or is that a policy statement that came from the top?

Rumsfeld: I’ve met with Sanchez and talked to him on the phone and I’ve never heard him say anything like that.

Quirk: It was in direct contradiction to Deputy Wolfowitz, for example, who said the end of next of year. Is that a viable timetable?

Q: How do you expect the American people to vibrate to the positive spin that you're trying to put on this and the President's trying to put on this when Americans are being killed, there are attacks each and every day, and this latest attack at the Al Rashid, they penetrated a defense area, a secure defense area.

How can the American people see it your way when these things are happening every day and Americans are being killed?

Rumsfeld: First of all, I'm not putting a positive spin on it. I just have said that this is a tough business, it's a dangerous business, it's always a tragedy when Americans get killed or Iraqis get killed, and it's a war, a low intensity conflict that's taking place. So your suggesting that that's a rosy picture I think is a misunderstanding of the situation.

Q: What about the charge that [inaudible] you're losing ground in Washington regarding Congress and the White House. That you're less in the loop than you used to be regarding Iraq.

Q I have a non-Saddam Hussein question. Both Germany and France today said that they would relieve -- be in favor of relieving some of Iraq's debt. They told this to Secretary Baker. Given that, as a former businessman, might it be prudent now to revisit the Pentagon's decision of December 4th to exclude France, Germany, et cetera, from the list of prime contract candidates for the reconstruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: First of all, the Pentagon -- that was not a Pentagon decision, that was a decision that was fully agreed upon throughout all the agencies, all the relevant agencies of the United States government. And any suggestion to the contrary would be in error.

Second, the decision was not to deny anyone contracts. The decision was to preserve for those people who made the Iraqi people's liberation possible the access to prime contracts -- prime, as opposed to subcontracts. And that's an important distinction. No one got up in the morning and said, "Gee, who could we deny a contract?" The implication of that has got everything backwards. What they decided was that here are people who took political courage, who took physical courage -- 63 countries -- and assisted in this coalition, and isn't it a reasonable thing that they ought to have an opportunity to bid and participate in that process?

The other thing we were very interested in also is that it be companies and countries that will hire Iraqis. We think it's terribly important that the contracts that are let have some -- to some degree will put to work the Iraqi people so that the efforts all of us are making to have a success in that country will be more likely.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Furthermore, we're not talking about the dollars that come from Iraqi oil, we're not talking about the dollars that come from international contributions, we're not talking about the dollars that come from the U.N. oil-for-food process, we are talking about the dollars that the taxpayers of the United States of America will be contributing to the economic future and success of that country. And we've always had a policy of deciding how our tax dollars would be spent, just like every other country decides how they're going to spend their money when they spend it.

Q You were saying that showing the pictures of Saddam Hussein definitely didn't violate the Geneva Convention. That seems to me to be a real contrast with what happened in Afghanistan, when news photographers were not allowed to shoot photos at all of detainees. Why is that not -- (off mike)?

SEC. RUMSFELD: We don't have, as a practice, photos now of detainees. What we have here is what I said earlier. You have a very unusual situation. You have a person who was one of the most brutal dictators in the adult lifetime of anyone in this room, who tortured people, who killed people, hundreds of thousands of people he killed, and intimidated the entire nation and the neighbors; and it is enormously important that people see that he is out of commission, that he is what he is. He was a fugitive, living in a dirt hole, surrendering, and controlling that country no more forever.

Q If that's not a violation, can we now photograph detainees when we have the opportunity?

SEC. RUMSFELD: No. No. I mean, a common detainee, why would one want to do that? Why would one want to -- this --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, come on, now. The International Committee of the Red Cross is crawling around down there, people from all those countries. There's no issue about how those people are being treated. They're being treated very, very well by fine young men and women who went to the high schools that you went to. And any implication to the contrary would be false.

Le Sumier: Still today you have those 680 enemy combatants. That’s quite a burden. There are some issues with putting them into a judicial process and stuff. How did you explain you can’t find a solution to treat their case, whereas, for instance, Roosevelt had managed to properly judge the Nazi leaders in Nuremberg?

Rumsfeld: If you go back in history you’ll find that most countries engaged in a war captured people and kept them off the street so that they could not go back and kill again. They didn’t start trying people. Nuremberg was in what year?

Rumsfeld: Yeah. The war had been over for a year before trials had occurred. More, two years in the case of Europe probably. The task, if a person steals a car in France or the United States, the task is to find them, arrest them, and then punish them. And the purpose of punishment is to dissuade people from stealing cars or robbing banks or killing people, whatever it is. Your purpose is not to interrogate them and find out who their co-conspirators were.

But when you scoop up an enemy combatant and you have a prisoner of war or an enemy, what’s the phrase, EPW, enemy prisoner of war, or a detainee, depending on which circumstance they’re captured in, the purpose is not to punish them immediately.

Rumsfeld: The purpose is to keep them off the street. Which is why we had thousands of German prisoners here in the United States, and Japanese prisoners in various places, and why folks in Europe had during every war. The idea that this is something new is, it’s only new to some people who don’t have a memory about what’s going on.

Why is that? There are two reasons. One is to keep them off the street if they’re a determined terrorist. The other is to interrogate them and find out what’s going on, who their friends are, who trained them, where are they getting their money, who re the likely people to do something terrible again, where are they likely to do it?

So the process of doing that is what’s been going on. It’s not to punish them, and they’re treated very well.

Q: Jamie McIntyre from CNN. A year ago you came here and you met a lot of resistance from U.S.-European allies who believed that the UN inspections in Iraq were working and they should be given more time and you argued against that. Now you come back a year later, the U.S. having not found the weapons in Iraq that it believed were there -- not found them yet -- do you come back with any more sympathy for the European viewpoint that you experienced when you came here a year ago?

Rumsfeld: The way you phrased the question is unfortunate. [Laughter] And had I been in your shoes I would have phrased it much differently and probably much better. [Laughter]

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, time will tell. We'll all know soon enough. You folks report the news. You don't report the future, do you?

Q Mr. Secretary -- (off mike) -- discussions with the allies had reached the point of direct talks now. On that point, in regards to Okinawa and the base at Futenma, in the event that that base is closed, what kind of alternative bases are you thinking about?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I don't want to get into speculation about closing bases. I just won't do it.

Q Regardless of closing that base, then, can you confirm reports that the U.S. -- and that there's talks going on yesterday and today with the Japanese delegation. Has there been a proposal for another base to be opened on Shimoji Island?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I'm not going to get into the discussions. I happen not to know the answer to that question, but even if I did know I would not get into it. It seems to me we've got wonderful friends and allies around the world. These things are complicated. By discussing them prematurely, particularly inaccurately, and it has to be -- the odds are 90-to-1 that any speculation on this is inaccurate because we don't know where it's going to end up. What it does is it raises people's hopes in some places and dashes people's hopes in the other place, and it just jerks everyone around and it's not helpful. Why not just report the news that's happening instead of the news that is never going to happen? It's not hard.

SEC. RUMSFELD: You really like this stuff. You’ve fallen in love with this, Jim.

[Tape] "He [Rumsfeld] did not recall any particular counterterrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11 other than the development of the Predator unmanned aircraft system for possible use against bin Laden. He said the DOD," the Department of Defense, "before 9/11 was not organized or trained adequately to deal with asymmetric threats."

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, Chris, if you look at how our government is organized historically, the Department of Justice has the responsibility for law enforcement in the United States. The Department of Defense is, in fact, by law, under the posse comitatus law, prohibited from the engaging in frontline law enforcement, police-type activities.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I mean, if you're looking for the president to have said his heartbreak over what took place, he said it. He said it well. And he's touched the lives of many of the people who are suffering from that terrible attack.

I think one of the things that has to come out of this, I hope, is that a truth, and the truth is these attacks aren't over, there will be other attacks. And a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique, and there's no way that that can be prevented, there's no way you can defend against every attack, every minute, every day, against every conceivable type. If people are determined to kill innocent men, women and children, they can do it. That's why what's being done is the right thing to do. You have to go after the terrorists, and the haven for terrorists where they are, because it's not possible for a defender to defend against every attack.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I do not believe that there's any evidence, or any suggestion that President Musharraf was involved, and I have no knowledge that would permit me to support the allegations that you cited in your interview with Musharraf.

Q: Mr. Secretary (inaudible) violence (inaudible) this week. (Inaudible) of the Israeli decision to assassinate Ahmed Yassin? Any concerns that of that conflict entering into Iraq? And what’s your take on if Ayman al-Zawahiri still alive and (inaudible)?

Q: Mr. Secretary, given the international terrorism seem, if anything, to be on the increase. It’s certainly just as rampant in the last couple of years. And given that coalition forces are being attacked and are being killed almost on a daily basis in Iraq, do you look back at all and ever harbor any doubts about the way that this administration has handled the events of the last couple of years?

Rumsfeld: Well, one always is constantly looking for lessons learned and how one might do something better. I think the thrust of the question ignores the biggest single reality that exists and that is that the United States was going about its business on September 11^th in 2001 and it was attacked and 3,000 Americans were killed. Now, people from other countries were killed -- men and women and children, people from all walks of life, people from different faiths. They were killed. The United States had done nothing.

And the thrust of your question is, oh, well, if you had done something different, maybe something else would have changed. This country was attacked. It was the worst attack in the history of our nation. And you’ve got a choice at that point. You can say, well, maybe if we don’t do anything about that, maybe they’ll go away. Maybe those terrible people will not do it again. Well, what nonsense, they’d already done – attacked the U.S.S. Cole. They had already attacked Khobar Towers. They had already attacked the United States – terrorists had an airliner and PanAm flight.

And throughout history, there have been people who follow that philosophy who said, gee, maybe if I just turn my head, they won’t hurt me. Maybe they’ll hurt somebody else, instead of me and that’s a good thing, they think. Well, it’s not a good thing. These people are going around systematically trying to kill innocent people all across the globe and they ought not to be allowed to do it. And any suggestion that if you go after them, because they are doing it you, in fact, would be better off, if you hadn’t done that is utter nonsense.

Q: I wasn’t suggesting, Mr. Secretary, you should have done nothing. I was asking whether you thought you should have done things different?

Q Does that mean you will capture Zarqawi in this instance, or you're hoping to?

Q Mr. Secretary, there's an estimate that there may be as many as 100,000 Fallujah civilians still inside the city. If there were a large number of civilian casualties, is there a chance you could win the battle of Fallujah and lose the larger war of Iraqi public opinion and feed the insurgent propaganda machine?

SEC. RUMSFELD: There's no reason to get into hypothetical questions like that. There's nobody who knows how many people there are in there. And the U.S. forces -- I can speak for them, not for the Iraqi forces -- but the U.S. forces are disciplined, they are well led, they're well trained. They are using precision, and they have rules of engagement that are appropriate to an urban environment. And there aren't going to be large numbers of civilians killed, certainly not by U.S. forces. So why would I want to walk down that road?

Q If I could follow up, Monday General Abizaid chastised Al- Jazeera and Al-Arabiyah for their coverage of Fallujah and saying that hundreds of civilians were being killed. Is there an estimate on how many civilians have been killed in that fighting? And can you definitively say that hundreds of women and children and innocent civilians have not been killed?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I can definitively say that what Al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.

Rumsfeld: Okay, a couple of things before we start. I am not great with dates or times and I don't have a lot of notes that can be helpful. The last time we met you asserted things, saying, “You did this or you said that,” as though you knew what I did, and you were wrong a lot.

Woodward: I apologize for that. It was based on NSC notes and what other people said.

Rumsfeld: Other people, exactly. And your assumption is, if somebody says that to you, that it is correct. Therefore you assert it to me. That causes me a lot of problems, because then I have to stop and say, “No, that's not right.” Almost everything you asked me was premised with an assertion that was either incomplete or wrong, and it changed the whole nature of it. You'd be better off with me if you asked those questions about the premises in the question you want to ask.

Woodward: My overall goal in this, because I have good relationship with President Bush and he wants me to do this, I think, as you know.

Rumsfeld: A couple of other things, I tend to ask a lot of questions of the people I work with and I tend to give very few orders. This place is so big and so complicated and there's so much that I don't know, that I probe and probe and probe and push and ask, “Well, why wasn't this done?” or “Shouldn't this be done?” but it's generally with a question mark at the end.

Rumsfeld: I've read a lot of stuff about me that doesn't sound that way and I think you ought to have that fact in your head.

Woodward: But start with Iraq, you told him. Get that out first. That's what he said.

Woodward: And then there was a Commander's estimate request, sent down to him, December 1st, which he was going to -

MATTHEWS: Mr. Secretary, let me ask you about the war in Iraq and the boldest question I could put to you here in the Pentagon. Did you ever advise the president to go to war?

RUMSFELD: Well, Chris, I saw some clipping of your interviews on this subject. When you asked that question of Woodward, Woodward said that the president said he had not asked me, now – so why would you ask me? You have it from the horse’s mouth.

MATTHEWS: Because – well, that’s right, in that circumstance in that room, but all those months in the run up to war I would imagine that at some point sitting in the interstices of the West Wing he would have said, hey Don, do you think we ought to go? I mean, is there any – weren’t you ever asked your advice?

RUMSFELD: Possibly. I just don’t know that. I haven’t read the – all these –

MATTHEWS: You know, we were over at Walter Reed a couple weeks ago and I’ll tell you, there’s nothing like it – to meet those young guys.

RUMSFELD: You don’t need to tell me. I go over there frequently. (underline mine!)

MATTHEWS: They’re gung-ho. They’re gung-ho guys, and the ones that lost like a limb – they’re going to make, you know –

MR. MATTHEWS: What do you make of the New York Times poll today? And I know polls aren’t everything. Fifty-eight percent of people say it’s not worth the loss of life – this war in Iraq.

MATTHEWS: It’s spiked up, you know. Is this the bad news that’s done this? What do you think has done it?

RUMSFELD: Well, I suppose it’s the most recent three weeks of casualties that have been taken in Iraq that might have affected the polls. I don’t know. I don’t follow the polls. The president doesn’t follow the polls.

MATTHEWS: Colin Powell has called this a second government. In fact, he’s called Feith’s operation a Gestapo –

RUMSFELD: I’m correct when I said you don’t know that. I’ve talked to Colin about it and I think that you ought to ask Colin what he –

MATTHEWS: He has said on the record – I can only get what he’s said on the record. We haven’t gotten to him yet. But he has said that’s something he doesn’t recall saying, so then that’s his cover –

MATTHEWS: Because if he didn’t say it, he would have said I didn’t say that.

MATTHEWS: That would be – that would be – I would think that would be – that (wouldn’t ?) be what I would call a clear-cut denial, Mr. Secretary. So would you. That would be a clear-cut denial. Let me move on here because – it’s just –

RUMSFELD: Listen, the – any thought that that’s a second government is utter nonsense.

MATTHEWS: And there’s no traffic in intel from the Iraqi National Congress pushing – intel that would support the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq didn’t find its way through these various – these people working here in the Defense Department to the vice –

MATTHEWS: No, it’s just – this is in the New York Times yesterday front page.

MATTHEWS: If you had to make a quick reaction – If I said the name Ahmed Chalaby and I said, reliable? Unreliable? What would be your answer?

RUMSFELD: Oh, look, I’m not going to start criticizing members of the Iraqi governing council.

RUMSFELD: Come on. He – under the law passed by Congress, he’s – his organization, the INC, receives funds to do a variety of things. The employee – that’s unbelievable, Chris. You know better than that.

MATTHEWS: No, I just think that people in the world who hear that he’s making this kind of money from us would question his independence. Wouldn’t you?

MATTHEWS: No, but I work for NBC News. At least I know – you know who I get paid by.

MATTHEWS: I know. Okay. All right. That's a good point. He could drop us right now.

SECRETARY DONALD RUMSFELD: I am waiting for the - I’m waiting for the results of the inspection and the assessments and the studies to make a judgment as to whether or not it was an aberration. And - and other people are saying that and other people are saying it’s systemic. And I’m saying I don’t know. That’s why we have all these people doing all these things is to try to find out. And I keep getting misquoted over and over and over again about the Geneva Convention. About that, about every - and I think it’s useful given the - the, volatility and the energy that’s in this debate. I think it’s very useful for you folks to try your damnedest to be precise and don’t repeat things that are inaccurate if you can possibly avoid it. And when you see things that are inaccurate knock them down because there’s a bucket of it floating around.

Q: Would it be safe to assume that the United States will not be using some of its forces in South Korea for operations in Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Well, that’s a question that, I think, is unanswerable. We rotate people all the time. I’m sure there will be somebody here, that served in Korea, who will end up serving in Iraq or Afghanistan or Okinawa.

Rumsfeld: You’re not asking the question that I’ve answered. You’re talking about forces in Korea serving in Iraq. And our forces rotate in and out of Korea all the time. And, they are going to rotate in and out of Iraq all the time. And, I don’t doubt for a minute that somebody that has served in Korea will end up serving in Iraq.

Q: But, pulling out a certain division? That still means, people rotate. Is that what you mean?

Rumsfeld: No. I think what you mean to be asking, which is a little different than I’m answering, is, you are asking, “Are we going to take major units and subtract from our capability on the Korean peninsula and put them somewhere else, whether it’s Iraq or Afghanistan or what have you?” And the answer is no. We don’t have any plans to do that.

Sec Rumsfeld: Good morning. They’re still pulling together information on it, and I think I’d prefer to uh, to wait until there’s harder information

CNN: Turkey was already reluctant to participate in the coalition; do you think this will change things further?

Q: Mr. Secretary, the Bush administration has repeatedly stated it does not want a draft, but there are repeated claims that there are plans in the works to draft certain specialties like doctors, language specialists and computer experts. Do you need and, sir, would you support some sort of selective military draft?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Absolutely not. This is a mischievous political effort that’s being made to frighten young men and women. The truth is we do not need a draft. We’re not going to have a draft. There is a law that exists on the books passed by Congress that requires that there be a selective service system and that it requires that they make assessments from time to time about various skill sets. But there is not a draft. There will not be a draft. I was one of the first people that opposed the draft back in the 1960s when I recommended we move to an all-volunteer service when I was a congressman from the state of Illinois and introduced legislation to achieve what we finally achieved in 1969 and 1970. We’ve got 295 million people in this country. We have 1.4 million on active duty and another 865,000 in the Guard and Reserve. And it is not a problem at all attracting and retaining the people we need to serve in the armed forces. Every one of them is a volunteer.

I just looked at the recruiting numbers here. The Army and the Navy are at 100 percent of their targets in goal; the Marine Corps is at 100 percent and the Air Force is at 101 percent. So the idea that we need a draft is false and mischievous and, in my view, nothing better than a scare technique.

Q: So, sir, you would not even support a selective draft of, say, doctors, which is what came up today in The New York Times?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Look, go back and read that article carefully and then check it for facts. You’ll find we do not have a draft. We do not intend to have a draft. There is no intention to draft doctors or dentists or veterinarians or anything else I can think of…

Q: Back to Iraq, sir, there have been estimates, as you know, the U.S. troops will be required to remain in-country for up to 10 years before that country is able to stand on its own. What’s your best guess of the length of time our active duty component will need to remain in Iraq?

SEC. RUMSFELD: You know, you say “there have been estimates.” Who in the world estimated 10 years? I don’t remember hearing that myself, but do you know, offhand?

Q: It’s been bandied about. It’s been one of the numbers that’s been floated on the campaign trail and by others like that, saying up to 10 years may be a possibility. I take it, by your response, that you’re saying far less than that?

SEC. RUMSFELD: It’s probably the same people who were talking about a draft. (see 'The Draft Myth')

Q Mr. Secretary, we're hearing today about a Pentagon assessment which suggests the insurgency in Iraq might be bigger and better funded than thought in the past. I'm curious if you still think that you're facing a few dead-enders, as you've called them, in Iraq, or is this beginning to look more like a quagmire?

Oh, Jamie. I would -- well, it's not allowed to bet in -- but I would guess that you couldn't find any quote of me saying "a few dead-enders."

It is true that I included among the various categories of opponents of the Iraqi Governing Council and the interim Iraq government and the coalition forces dead-enders. That is true. And there are dead-enders. But I doubt that I said "a few." If I did, I'd love to see where.

So I would submit that the thrust of your question was not only imprecise but inaccurate, the idea that anyone is suggesting this is easy or that there are just a few problems or people. We've said repeatedly that it is tough and complicated and that there are a variety of different elements opposing the Iraqi government and the coalition.

And as you know well, they include a variety of categories, including foreign terrorists -- relatively small number compared to the total, but probably among the most lethal-- criminals, people who do things for money -- some -- a relatively larger number of foreign regime elements and, quote, "dead enders," people who have it in their mind that they have a chance to take back that country for a vicious dictatorship.

Couple that with people like the -- oh, the Sadr people, who have been engaged in various unhelpful activities during an earlier period --throw into the mix the harm that's being done by a couple of neighbors, Iran and Syria—and you have what we've characterized as an insurgency by a group of extremists who are determined to prevent that from becoming a free country. Now, Jamie, you can call that a quagmire if you'd like to, but it's at your option. That word was used in Afghanistan after a relatively short period, as I recall, by a few of you folks. (underline mine!)

Q You summarize the insurgency -- in a report from this building, officials, unnamed officials, are saying that the insurgency is growing, both in intensity and numbers and funding. You characterize -- what's your assessment -- your latest assessment on the insurgency? Also, do you think --

SEC. RUMSFELD: This business of unnamed officials is wonderful. You could -- in an institution this big, with a million-four active- duty military personnel, 800,000 or whatever it is civilians, another 865,000 Reservists and another 400,000 individual ready Reservists, you can imagine -- you could get officials in this building saying almost anything you would want, almost any day of the week.

I haven't seen these -- this article about unnamed sources talking about it. But I would guess if they're knowledgeable unnamed sources, it would very closely approximate what I just said.

Q Mr. Secretary, could we ask that you would come down and see us more than every couple of months, sir, in the future? Seriously. It seems like you're

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think so. You know, we really did want to have -- after sovereignty was passed, we really did want to have the Iraqi government step up and talk about Iraq, and that's been a good thing. And I -- therefore, we calmed down the U.S. presence in terms of public affairs in Iraq, as you'll recall, and we did here.

The second thing is the president asked Colin and me not to be involved in the campaign, and every single question would have been about the campaign. There wouldn't have been any way in the world to not become enmeshed in the campaign. I would have dearly loved to come down here during that period. (Laughter.) There are a few things I would have liked to have said. (Laughter.) But -- and -- (underlying mine!)

Q: Secretary Rumsfeld, if you could comment on reports that private US and Israeli security firms are hiring Nicaraguans and Guatemalans to work as snipers in Iraq. My question is, is this part of a larger, new US strategy to outsource private military recruitment in the third world as the coalition of the willing becomes unglued?

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: That's really a pistol of a question. You buried several inaccuracies in there. First of all, the coalition is not coming unglued. We have a large number of countries that have been participating. NATO is now participating. The United Nations has been helping and I'm sure there are people who would like to see it come unglued, including the extremists and the terrorists and the former regime elements, the Baathists. But it's not coming unglued, it's doing fine. Second, with respect to the thrust of your question, I've never heard of that and know nothing of it.

Q: All four announced today. Have you’ve submitted your resignation? Are you – do you plan on or can [Inaudible]?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I have not discussed that with the president and I think I’d prefer to discuss that with him before I do with you Charlie. And I think I’ve answered that same question…

SEC. RUMSFELD: … previously, almost exactly the same way. And one would have thought that it would have penetrated.

DONNELLY: The Financial Times today editorializes that it is, quote, "time to consider Iraq withdrawal," close quote, noting the protracted war is not winnable and it's creating more terrorists than enemies of the West. What is your response, this questioner asks.

RUMSFELD: Who put that question in? He ought to get a life. If he's got time to read that kind of stuff -- (laughter) -- he ought to get a life. (Scattered applause.)

RUMSFELD: The extremists are determined to destroy states. They are determined to destroy free systems. They are determined to take their violence and spread it across this globe, and we can't let them do it. And The Financial Times is wrong. (Applause.)

QUESTION: If I may follow up, have you any comment about the new assertions in the book by Seymour Hirsch about how high up and when the administration knew about abuses of prisoners.

RUMSFELD: No, I’m not aware of it. I know that when he wrote a couple of articles for some magazine that we put a team of about 4 or 5 people tried to find if anyone could find any scrap of truth in anything that he had written and we were unable to do so.

RUMSFELD: I haven’t seen the book. You just heard me answer the question. I have not seen the book. I’m not aware of these allegations. I’m saying that—you should listen very carefully—when there was an article, I think, in the New Yorker that he wrote we had a team of people go out and see if they could find any proof in it. We were unable to validate anything in that article. But I have not seen the book, maybe somebody else has.

SEC. RUMSFELD: What does it cost?

Q Well, sir, for my instance, my situation, for instance, I have two kids. I have one that's two years old and I have another one that's 10 months, and I pay $300 a month for one child and only 10 percent off the next one. So that's like almost $700-something a month.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah, that is a good slug. I have no idea. I should know, but I don't know. I think -- I can't -- I have trouble believing that it is a federally imposed regulation.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes.

SEC. RUMSFELD: It is?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Talk about micro-management. (Laughter, applause.) What does someone in Washington knew -- know about what the fair rate ought to be for day care on a single post? (Cheers, applause.) Unless, of course, it was the Congress, in which case, in their ultimate wisdom, I'm sure they were right. (Laughter.)

Q: Not to belay with the point but it sounds from your respond there that you had not been briefed about this prior to Dr. Rice’s briefing of the Times in memo.

Rumsfeld: That’s true.

Q: Okay. Did you talk to the President about this beforehand?

Rumsfeld: Have I talked to him about it?

Q: Yeah?

Rumsfeld: No.

Q: Did it come as a surprise to you then?

Rumsfeld: No that’s what the NSC’s charter is. It’s just kind of– the only thing unusual about it is the attention and I kind of wish they’d just released the memorandum.

Q: But if they are already working for one year in debate you said – told us why then is it necessary to make a memorandum?

Rumsfeld: I don’t know.

Q: (Inaudible).

Rumsfeld: I don’t know you have to ask them, I don’t know.

Q: What’s your perception?

Rumsfeld: I’ve already responded to that.

Q: It’s not clear why?

Rumsfeld: Pardon me?

Q: It’s not quite clear to me why?

Rumsfeld: I said I don’t know. Isn’t that clear? You don’t understand English? I was not there for the back grounding.

Q: But one might think you talk about it with Condoleezza and with others in the National Security Council when you’re sitting together, the 5 or 6 of you.

Rumsfeld: Yeah, we talk about everything.

Q: And she doesn’t announce I’m writing a memo by the way, to you?

Rumsfeld: I happened not to know that she was going to write a memo but that’s true everyday that someone on the NSC writes a memorandum or someone in one of the principal departments. I mean I write memorandums all the time that people don’t know I’m writing until they receive it. I think that you’re looking for something that’s not there.

Q: Mr. Secretary, [inaudible] a couple of Members of Congress said that [inaudible]. How do you handle [inaudible]?

Rumsfeld: I don't think about it a lot to be honest with you. It's that season I guess. What else?

Q: Congressman [Inaudible] indicated some concern about the emails – about the $20 miliion that had been supposedly parked at the Special Operations Command?

Q: Could you address whether the congressman’s concern was that maybe something was trying to be hidden from Congress?

Rumsfeld: He answered that in the hearing. He did it brilliantly. Do you want to -- Were you in the hearing

Q: It’s getting closer to the election and some democrats are talking about [Inaudible] national security [Inaudible] and you have one democrat saying that General Shinseki was fired for saying that number of forces needed in Iraq was higher than what the Administration was predicting at that time. Could you clarify what happened with that?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Sure. I’ll have a go at it and then Gen. Myers might want to. First of all, he was never fired. And the newspapers that repeat that month after month after month are wrong, in accurate, unreliable, irresponsible, I can think of a few more adjectives – egregious. Yeah. But it’s a myth. He was never fired. He served out his full term. Fact number one. Second, my recollection is that he was a before a committee. He was pressed over and over again, “Well, how many troops do you think it’ll take if you did go to Iraq, or for the postwar part of Iraq.” And I think he finally said something in defense that, “Well, it might take the same number it would take to defeat Iraq.” And they said, “Well, how many is that?” And he said, “Well, maybe several hundred thousand.” Well, several hundred thousand is 3[00,000] or 4[00,000] hundred thousand.

Gen. Myers who is the chairman of the chiefs, he is the individual who met with the chiefs and reviewed what numbers were needed. And the numbers that were provided were the numbers that were asked for by the combatant commander. There is no mystery about it. Nobody turned them down. Nobody said it should be a smaller number. And the people who were running around the world saying that simply are wrong, and they’ve told they’re wrong and it is amazes me why they would keep saying it?

Arab Journalist: While we’ll talking about Iraq, in this region we’re hearing that there is a sort of a “deal” between Saddam Hussein and coalition forces in which he was disappeared. And...

Rumsfeld: That’s just ridiculous. That is absolutely ridiculous. The United States doesn’t do secret deals with people like Saddam Hussein, and I can’t imagine anyone who could be so confused that they would even think such a ridiculous conspiratorial theory. It’s nonsense.

Arab Journalist: One of the things the Coalition has done is to change the regime, then replace the regime with another regime which is more democratic, a new system in Iraq, a new life in Iraq, but still there is no new government. There is not been much progress in this regard. Many are talking about this in this region.

Rumsfeld: That’s fascinating. Six weeks ago Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq. Six weeks later, he’s not. And you say lots of people are talking and saying, “Well, why isn’t there a new Iraqi government?” The idea that in six weeks the Coalition could go in, take over from Saddam Hussein, put his regime out of business, and expect that you could have a new government in six weeks is so unrealistic it’s just impossible to believe that people are really saying what you just said people are saying. I can’t even believe that. Nobody is so unrealistic to think that. It takes a long time for people to fashion a new government. You’ve also phrased it that the United States is going to put in place an Iraqi government. That’s not true. We’re not. We’re going to create a secure environment; we’re going to provide humanitarian assistance for the people of Iraq, medicine, food, water. And we’re going to create an environment that they can fashion a new government. It will be an Iraqi government that has been fashioned by Iraqi people and it will not be a government that is imposed by the United States.

Arab Journalist: You might have heard this in the Arab world, the Americans “protected Ministry of Oil ministry because they’re looking for the Iraqi oil, and they disregarded the rest of the ministries and institutions.”

Rumsfeld: Well, first of all you used the word the Arab world as though there is a single opinion. I find that that’s not the case. I’ve spent a good deal of time in this part of the world, in many countries and with many different people over three decades, and I don’t find there is a single unified deal on issues like that, so I would challenge the premise in your question.

Arab Journalist: Thank you very much, Mr. Rumsfeld, secretary of Defense. I wish I had plenty of time as I have plenty of questions, but we don’t have time. Thank you very much for being with us and we hope that you have a last statement as you travel to Iraq tomorrow, and is it to end the operation in Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Is it to end the operation in Iraq?

Arab Journalist: Yes, we heard, declaration of ending Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Rumsfeld: No, you certainly hear a lot of things that are unusual. I don’t know quite how that happens, but we feel a responsibility and the coalition forces do, that if a regime is taken out and there are humanitarian needs in that country, and there are still pockets of resistance, there are still people getting killed and wounded --American and Coalition forces -- by some of these so called death squads that have been roaming around the countryside, the kinds of people who had their headquarters in hospitals and schools, the kinds of people who used the Red Crescent for military purposes and hid under the guise of humanitarian assistance, and that’s the kind of people they were and they are. And what we need to do is to see that we create a sufficiently secure environment there, for a period of time, so that the Iraqi people can fashion themselves the future. And that’s what’s going to happen. We’re going to move from a phase of major military activity to a phase of security stabilization, and to assist and participate in reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. We’re going to stay there, as long as it takes, for that opportunity for the Iraqi people to fashion a new government and we’re not going to stay one day longer.

Q: Mr. Secretary, unfinished business, let’s look at Iraq, were you and the combatant commanders surprised at the level of resistance after the major fighting ended or were you blindsided?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I don’t know that I’d use either word. Anyone who – once the decision was made by the president to invade Iraq and remove the regime, you know that predictability just isn’t what happens. It’s unlikely that things will be perfectly predictable. Certainly, the intelligence we received did not lay out the kind of a postwar environment that we’d be in. On the other hand, I don’t know that anyone expected that you would get perfect predictability. And so what we’re dealing with today is something that’s evolving and changing on the ground. It is a tough situation and our folks out there are doing a superb job.

Schieffer: Let me ask you about a criticism that's been leveled by the Military Officer's Association of America, that's 300,000 retired and active duty officers, who say that your plan to increase the size of the Army by the policy they call stop loss is simply a back door way to reinstitute the draft. They say that when you decided to increase the force levels up to, I think, 30,000, I may not be exactly right on that figure, instead of doing that by recruiting more people, what you're doing is telling people who are already in the service that they're going to have to stay an extra amount of time, maybe as much as 16 months. And what they say, this is their criticism, is this is the most unfair kind of draft, because what you're doing is drafting people who have already served the country. What is your response to that?

Schieffer: They've listed it as one of their top legislative priorities is to get this changed this year.

Rumsfeld: The fact is, they're not well informed. The plan for the Army is not my plan for the Army, it's the Army's plan for the Army. General Schoomaker and Les Brownlee have put it forward, they've testified on it. And we have been increasing the size of the Army for close to two years. We have emergency power to do that, we've been doing that. The suggestions that the Army should be increased in size are basically coming from people who haven't been watching what's been taking place. It's been growing, and it is still growing, and it will grow more in the period ahead, under General Schoomaker's plan.

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I hope to take a walk down there if I can. I always enjoy it. And I’m going to have dinner with a Belgian friend. I hope. I hope. Unless something else comes up. I never know.

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Dull? If there isn’t war or something, you’re not happy? Is that it? It has not been dull. It has not been dull. It’s been interesting. Those countries around that table are engaged in defense reform, they’re engaged in looking at Europe and trying to figure out how they connect with Europe and they’re wrestling with governmental reform. They’re wrestling with economic reform. It is an enormously exciting time for those countries. And for Europe, larger Europe. Dull would be the last word in the world that I would pick for what’s happening in terms of the energy and the interest and the difficulty of what’s taking place. It is really an important set of experiences that they are all going through. First time we’ve had a non-military minister of defense of Ukraine here. Ukraine makes this enormous decision (inaudible). There are big things happening. This isn’t like watching hair grow.

Q Mr. Secretary, have you seen or heard about this tape that was given to a French journalist in Iraq, that purportedly shows the shooting of the DHL plane last weekend, although you don't actually see that, but you see people, about 10 men with shoulder-fired missiles.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I'm not knowledgeable about that.

Q You're not aware of that at all?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I didn't say that. I said I'm not knowledgeable about it. Someone mentioned that it existed, but -- so I'm aware of it.

Q Can you talk at all about what that says about the organization?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I can't, except it doesn't take a genius to fire off a -- shoulder-fire a missile at an airplane.

Q But the idea that they want to get a tape out there. What does that tell you?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, that point. I mean, they do that type of thing. People do that, take credit. I mean, we constantly have people after an incident call up and say, "We did it! Look at us; aren't we wonderful? We killed a bunch of innocent men, women and children."

Q On Iraq, given the fact that the U.S. military still has substantial security responsibilities, what do you now say to the American business community -- given the level of violence, given the concern about the recent beheadings of course, what do you say to American contractor companies about how comfortable they should feel about sending their employees to -- their civilians to serve in Iraq between now and the elections?

SEC. RUMSFELD: First of all, we talk about Iraq as though it's a homogeneous, cohesive whole. And the fact is, just as in the United States or any other country, things are different; there are different circumstances in different parts of that country. And second -- therefore, the answer to the question is some places are -- as the prime minister indicated -- quite accessible to people; other places are more difficult. And we know that.

Second, we don't give advice to businesses. I mean, I was in business, and business people know how to make risk assessments. They do it all the time. They do it with respect to their employees. They do it with respect to their management techniques. They do it with respect to investments. And they know how to do this.

Q But, of course, the U.S. government gives a lot of advice to American business and civilians.

Q: Numbers that aren't classified and that maybe you guys have been a little less accurate on are the actual costs of Iraqi reconstruction. And just five or six months ago --

Rumsfeld: Any implication -- first of all, we were criticized for not knowing -- not giving answers because we didn't know the answer. Everyone I've seen who gives answers have been wrong. Repeatedly during the war, the questions came from you: How many casualties will there be? How much will the war cost? How long will it take? Every single time we answered: We can't say that. And everyone in this country who stood at these podiums and answered those questions, have been flat wrong. And frequently they have been wrong fast. And it's -- there are so many variables involved that people with good judgment don't try to say, "I'm smart enough to take all those variables and make an appropriate estimate and come out with a single-plan answer." So I haven't done that. So when you say "you guys", I don't buy it.

Press: Mr. Secretary, why shouldn't there be a public discussion or decision about withdrawing troops from Iraq in the next six to nine months?

Press: Well do you think that it should be more, do you think other people should be allowed to kind of give their opinion and kind of follow through with it?

Rumsfeld: Everybody is giving their opinion. It's a free country. We have a wonderful country. We have senators and congressmen and people saying things, writing columns, everyone's got a different opinion. If anyone looks at history, they will know that setting an arbitrary timetable based on the calendar is not a very prudent thing to do because you end up being demonstrated to have been unwise.

Press: Why shouldn't there be a public discussion and/or decision about withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq in the next six to nine months?

Rumsfeld: There is a public discussion. The question is whether it's wise or not. The President's opined that it's not wise. Some have suggested it is. History suggests it's not. The idea of setting an arbitrary timetable when circumstances on the ground vary and depend on other conditions and other variables history suggests is not a smart thing to do.

Press: On Iran, Mr. Secretary, do you think they are sincere about giving up their nuclear program?

Rumsfeld: I haven't heard a word out of any Iranians suggesting they want to give them up so I don't know how you could say are they sincere.

Rumsfeld: I don't know how to answer that. The President's spoken on this, Condi Rice has spoken. That's enough for me.

Q Yes. More specifically, you use the 136,000 number, and you yourself acknowledged that there's been a dispute -- some members of Congress claim that number's much lower. But today --

SEC. RUMSFELD: I mean, anyone can say anything they want, but facts are facts. And this is what -- I spent an hour this morning with Petraeus going every -- over every one of these numbers, and General Casey.

Q But this morning before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Joint Chief Chairman General Myers said that Lieutenant General Petraeus has about 136,000. There are some 40,000 who are considered deployable, totally combat-capable, to -- according to General Myers, could go anywhere and do anything. And then, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz said that there is, in fact, among the armed forces a 40 percent absentee rate. So it would seem to me that -- well, let me ask you --

Q -- don't you think that that -- using that 136,000 number consistently, wouldn't that be a little misleading as to the capabilities of those forces?

SEC. RUMSFELD: A number does not give you capability. It gives you numbers. I said that in my opening comments here. And it can't be misleading, because I've just said exactly what you've just said.

Press: And on the other hand, are you concerned you're [because of the Iraq war] pushing the Iranians and Syrians together?

RUMSFELD: The question the way you stated it implied that the Iranians and Syrians have not been connected for decades, which would be incorrect. They have been connected. Iran is a terrorist state; Syria is a terrorist state. The Iranians have been working with the Syrians and sending down weapons for the Hezbollah through Damascus into Beirut, Lebanon and into the Bekaa Valley for years after years after years. So there's nothing new in terms of that relationship.

Press: On Iran, Mr. Secretary, do you think they are sincere about giving up their nuclear program?

Rumsfeld: I haven't heard a word out of any Iranians suggesting they want to give them up so I don't know how you could say are they sincere.

QUESTION: Secretary, when you mention that the countries are helpful and others are not helpful, in your recent visit to Argentina and Brazil, what was the reaction to, when you raised the issue of Venezuela and U.S. concerns, that Chavez may try to destabilize the region? Did you find them helpful or neutral or unhelpful?

RUMSFELD: I didn't raise that issue in the way you phrased it, so the discussion didn't happen that way.