Yes I heard it. Here are some comments:
Q: Is the reason for the attacks on the front lines to help the opposition take Kabul before the winter?
Rumsfeld: The reason for the air attacks on Taliban and al Qaeda forces is to destroy Taliban and al Qaeda forces.
Q: Secretary Rumsfeld, you seem to be suggesting that the news-media reporting on Friday somehow jeopardized or put in jeopardy the lives of U.S. troops.
Rumsfeld: It did not. They all returned safely.
Q: And I was going to say, if that was the case, I was wondering what in particular you thought jeopardized the mission.
Rumsfeld: No, no. I just think that the idea of someone in this building providing information to the public and to the al Qaeda and to the Taliban when U.S. Special Forces re engaged in an operation is not a good idea, besides being against -- a violation of federal criminal law.
Q: Well, which information reported on Friday prior to the operation do you think crossed the line?
Rumsfeld: I think --
Q: (Inaudible) -- question.
Rumsfeld: I think that the release by a person in the government who had access to classified information to the effect that the United States of America was planning and was about to engage in a special operation in Afghanistan clearly was (a) a violation of federal criminal law, and second, it was something that was totally in disregard for the lives of the people involved in that operation. Anyone who decides that it's -- for whatever reason, maybe they want to seem important, maybe they want to seem knowledgeable, they totally disregard the fact that people's lives could be put in jeopardy by giving notice to the al Qaeda and the Taliban that U.S. forces were planning to make an entry into their country. That does not seem complicated to me, and it seems so self-evident, that it just floors me that people are willing to do that.
Q: But this was video coverage and selection of material that was controlled absolutely by the military and the government. Could you talk about why that's preferable, in your opinion, to having these decisions made by media independent of government?
Rumsfeld: Well, in the normal conflict you have a front and you have media embedded in the U.S. troops. In the case of the special operation, where people parachute in to a hostile environment, it obviously is not some place that the press is going to be parachuting in with a very small -- relatively small number of American Rangers and special forces doing that.
Q: Why is that?
Rumsfeld: Because -- why is it that the press should not be parachuting in?
Q: As opposed to a military photographer, who is still necessarily -- is still a cameraman with camera equipment.
Rumsfeld: Well, it seems -- I'm amazed at the question. I would think that the world would fully understand that it does not make sense, when a handful of American soldiers are parachuting into a hostile place and are going to be fully occupied in dealing with the opposition forces and shooting them, to the extent it's necessary, collecting intelligence, photographing things so that they know what's going on, and then being extracted -- the idea of embedding a press pool into that group seems to me to be outside of the realm of reasonableness.
Q: But, then again, Mr. Secretary, you can put reporters on the Kitty Hawk, let's say, couldn't you?
Rumsfeld: That's true.
Q: Will that happen?
Rumsfeld: It might. And it is possible at some point we could do that. We just have not thus far because of the discussions we've had with the people involved, and they felt that it would not be appropriate at this time. And it may very well become appropriate at some other time.
Q: Can you say why it would not be appropriate?
Rumsfeld: Yes?
Rumsfeld: Sure. We're back at two questions for everybody. It would sure be easier if we did one, we could get a lot more people in.
I couldn't care less where the source of the leak is; the responsibility is the same. It puts people's lives at risk and it's just terrible.
It is terrible. And I just can't imagine people being that irresponsible that they're willing to do that.
But there's no timetables on this. The task is clear. We're going to root out al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership and the Taliban government, and that's just a part of the effort that will be conducted worldwide.
Yes?
Q: Did you -- did your guys come out with more people than they went in with on this? Did you bring someone out?
Rumsfeld: You know, here -- let me explain the problem here. The short answer is no, we did not take any prisoners or bring out any detainees for interrogation.
Q: Or defectors, volunteers, people who wanted to come out?
Rumsfeld: The answer is no.
Now I don't know that answering it that way makes a lot of sense, and let me tell you why. They may not know whether we did or not. In war, things are confused, and they may not know. And so it may have been better for me -- and I thought about this before I came down here and decided to answer it just the way I have -- but in the future, I'm not going to. (Chuckles.)
Our goal is not to demystify things for the other side. This is a very complicated set of problems. The goal is to confuse, it is make more difficult, it is to add cost, it is to frighten, and it is to defeat the Taliban and the al Qaeda.
And I answered it honestly because it just struck me it would be a useful example. But in the future I'm not going to answer it.
Q: Well, can I just ask you something, then?
Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm.
Q: I mean, I do understand what you're saying, but as members of the news media, with great respect, how do we evaluate your credibility when you are answering us? Can you say to us, "I'm simply not going to answer," or are you opening the door, with great respect, to the possibility of less than truthful answers?
Rumsfeld: No, absolutely not. I've already announced that from this podium. You will receive only honest, direct answers from me, and they'll either be that I know and I'll answer you, or I don't know, or I know and I won't answer you. And that'll be it.
Q: Can we return to the Northern Alliance and your sense of timing, which I -- it baffles me that you are now hitting certain troops that they've been begging you to hit for several weeks, and you seem to be indicating there is no sense that you are now ready to have them advance. Is the United States now ready to have the Northern Alliance advance toward Kabul because you are taking down these front-line troops?
Rumsfeld: Well, first, let me parse that question a little bit.
Q: It's just one question.
Rumsfeld: The impression that you have left by the question is that it's true that they have been begging us for weeks -- several weeks, to be precise, I think -- to hit the troops in front of them. That, to my knowledge, is not true.
First of all, there is no "they" in singular. The Northern Alliance is a group of separate elements that have somewhat consistent interests, but, on the other hand, they also have competing and conflicting interests. And they do not always agree with each other as to what should be done.
You will find that throughout this effort, you will be hearing, I suppose via cell phone, from people who are talking to people on the ground in the various factions that comprise the Northern Alliance, as well as in the south. And people will be saying things that they believe will advantage them -- not only vis-a-vis Taliban and al Qaeda, but also vis-a-vis some of their fellow Northern Alliance forces or factions, if you will.
The United States and the coalition forces have, for a period of days, been seeking out concentrations of Taliban and al Qaeda fighters. We have had uneven success. To the extent we have excellent ground-to-air coordination, the success improves. To the extent that some of the forces move forward against Taliban and al Qaeda forces, our success improves because it flushes them.
I have heard the same stories you have. But the correct answer is the one I've just given. We are happy and eager and willing to do what we can to help seek out and destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda forces.
Q: Can either of you --
Q: Mr. Secretary --
Rumsfeld: Excuse me. Excuse me. He asked another piece of the question, which I believe was: Are we now ready to allow the forces to move? We have been ready and we certainly are ready to have the alliance forces move, both north and south.
Q: And that is an indication that some of the other political pieces of the puzzle, which I understand are not your problem on the one hand, but are your problem --
Rumsfeld: Sure.
Q: -- because we're part of the same -- you are part of the same government -- those pieces are beginning to fall into place?
Rumsfeld: The pieces are being worked on, but I think it would premature to say they're falling into place. There are a lot of people who are working on them. The reality is that we believe very strongly that the threat to the world has not disappeared, and that the sooner the al Qaeda and Taliban forces are dealt with, the sooner the threat will begin to moderate. And therefore, we're not holding back at all.
Q: Can either one of you offer an explanation for the television pictures we've seen that appear to show landing gear or some other part from a U.S. helicopter? Have you got any idea what that is we're seeing?
Rumsfeld: No.
Myers: No, not at all.
Q: General, could you talk about --
Q: The leader of Pakistan, Mr. Musharraf, has asked that the bombing stop when Ramadan begins in a couple of weeks. What's your reaction to that? Is there anything you can say from this podium to assure him or other allies, Muslim allies in the region, who have similar concerns?
Rumsfeld: I would say two things. First, that we have great respect for the views and concerns of the many countries that are cooperating in this effort. And as I have said on a number of occasions, the sensitivities and the perspectives vary from country to country.
We also have to recognize two other things. One is that there continue to be terrorist threats in this world, and the sooner we deal with this problem, the less likely it is that you're going to have additional terrorist attacks. And third, history is replete with instances where Muslim nations have fought with -- among themselves or with other countries during various important holy days for their religion and it has not inhibited them historically.
Rumsfeld: We'll make this the last question.
Q: Sir, if I could return to what we were discussing earlier --
Rumsfeld: You bet.
Q: -- without in any way impugning your promise that you're not going to not tell the truth to us, do you worry, however, that by withholding so much information and by withholding so much access, that may undermine the credibility, ultimately, of the United States government's story of what's going on?
Rumsfeld: First of all, we're not withholding so much information. I am admittedly withholding some information that I think would put American lives at risk, or would jeopardize the effort we're engaged in. But in terms of saying it's a lot, it isn't. The press in this -- this is a very open society, and the press knows, you know, almost as much as exists and almost as soon as it exists. And the idea that there is some great iceberg down there that's not known, below water, it's just not surprising that people would imagine that, since they know, by our own testimony, that there are things they do not know, and therefore they imagine the worst or the biggest or the most. But it's just not true. The press does know the overwhelming portion.
And you will find that we will be uniformly honest from this podium -- not just Rumsfeld, but Myers and everyone else that we send down here, to the best of our knowledge.
And to the extent we make a mistake, we'll come down the next day and clean it up.
But clearly, we do not want to undermine the effort, and it strikes me that how the press handles this new conflict will also contribute to the success of it.
Q: Do you have time for one policy question?
Rumsfeld: I don't. (Laughter.) I really don't.
(Laughter, cross talk.) |
