Transcript of Rumsfeld regarding "Salvador option"

[Cocoa]

Also interesting is his dancing around the question of special forces going into Syria...

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050111-secdef1961.html


<snip>


SEC. RUMSFELD: The -- on the subject of Iraq, I also have been reading and hearing about this so-called Salvatore -- Salvador option, I think it's called. And I looked all through Newsweek, which apparently was the place it supposedly had appeared. I couldn't find it. But everyone's talking about it, and it's nonsense.

The reality is that the responsibility of the commanders there in the coalition and the Iraqi government is to see that the Iraqis are trained up to provide security for that country. And somebody has been reading too many spy novels and went off in flights of fancy, which I hope have been put to rest.

Q No hit squads?

(Pause for interpretation.)

(Laughter.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: It sounds a lot like "nonsense." (Laughter.)

INTERPRETER (?): It is. (Interpretation continues.)

Q What's the nonsense part? I mean, you mentioned just very broadly this story was nonsense, but what particularly is wrong about that?

Q Plus, you didn't read the story, it sounds like?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I couldn't find the story. All I've seen is the reporting on the story. And I said it clearly -- there's nothing like that taking place.

Q Like what?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Like what's in the story.

Q But you didn't read the story! (Laughter.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: No, what's the story supposedly that so many of you are hyperventilating about.

Q Just to be clear, Mr. Secretary, are you ruling out that U.S. Special Forces would ever go into Syria in pursuit of insurgents? Which is one thing that the story did say. Are you ruling that out?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Where did you see the story? I couldn't find it --

Q We'll provide you a copy, sir, right after the briefing. We'll make sure you get a copy.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Where did you see it?

Q It's on the Web.

Q It's on the Web. It was e-mailed to me.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, they didn't even put it in the magazine?

Q No. (Laughter.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: I buy the magazine!

Q (?): Maybe it's a virtual story.

Q Well, sir -- (inaudible) --

SEC. RUMSFELD: I'll answer a question.

Q Please. Are you ruling that out?

SEC. RUMSFELD: First of all, the Pentagon doesn't do things like are described in the reporting on the story -- since I've not seen the story. Second, the task of training the Iraqis is to train them to do the things they need to do to provide security for their country, and it does not involve the kinds of things that are characterized in that story at all. It just doesn't.

Q With respect, sir, the story said that there was consideration of U.S. Special Forces going into Syria as an option to pursue insurgents. You say you're not -- you're not looking at anything in that --

SEC. RUMSFELD: We're not training people to do that, if that's what question is.

Q Yes, sir.

SEC. RUMSFELD: No, we're not.

Q No, no. The question is U.S. Special Forces, not training Iraqis to do that.

SEC. RUMSFELD: U.S. Special Forces are not going into Syria.

Q And you're not considering it?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Why would I even talk about something like that? I mean –

Q You said, sir, that the article wasn't true. You --

SEC. RUMSFELD: It isn't true.

Q Okay.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I shouldn't say the article isn't true, your reporting on things that are not happening. It may not be of interest to anybody that that's the case, but I'd love to have somebody take that aboard. It is simply fanciful.

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. sounds like Special Forces and trained Iraqis are going into Syria soon :)

[whistle]

2. That's it, that's it, the reporters are getting the hang of it...

...the only way to snag these bastards is to call them on their lies and press them to explain their logic. Rumsfeld is totally in denial on this one and should be pushed relentlessly by reporters to explain what he says. That was a great piece of journalistic pursuit, I love it!

[underpants]

3. It is simply fanciful

I have tears in my eyes from laughter at reading that.

[rkc3]

4. Let me ask you again - Who's on first, sir?

Exactly.

[gratuitous]

5. Who was the uppity reporter?

The one who pointed out that Rumsfeld was calling details of the story "nonsense" when he was also claiming he hadn't read it. One of the reporters noted that without knowing what the story said, how could he call it nonsense?

I suspect that reporter will soon be reassigned to interviewing stumps. As a purely practical and business decision by his employer, and not having to do with any threats or other contacts from the administration or its lackeys, so stop saying that.

[Tracer]

6. I've heard the "Rumsfeld Defense" more often than I care to.

The Rumsfeld Defense: Upon being asked about a questionable practice that has been reported in the news, DENY THAT YOU'VE EVER SEEN OR READ THE ORIGINAL NEWS REPORTS, and bluster on that you've only heard other people talking about the original reports.

[Cocoa]

7. yep

that's classic Rummy. He even denies reading things, govt. reports, that it's his responsibility to read. Condi's another one that makes frequent use of this technique.

[underpants]

8. I'm just waiting for him to whip out the "Chewbacca Defense"

Again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense

[noonwitch]

9. If I were a Washington reporter, I'd much rather cover Rummy than

anyone else in that administration. He's certainly the most entertaining. He does have an interesting way with words.