The typical Washington press briefing -- whether from the White House or Pentagon --generally displays one dominant characteristic: a notable lack of useful or new information. As of late, thepresence of a barely disguised hostility and contempt towards the attending reporters is also quitenoticeable.
Reporters are at least half the reason why press briefings are usually a waste oftime -- Washington's press corps simply ask the most meaningless, non-confrontational questions imaginable.What is worse is when, after the fact, correspondents or pundits talk about how the reporters in attendance"pressed the issue" or "touched sensitive areas." Such comments further obscure the factthat the real questions are not asked and powerful figures in Washington are not held accountable for whatthey say.
Advertisement
Today's briefing presented by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of theJoint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers was no exception.
After opening statements from Rumsfeld and Myers, the groveling reporters squealed from their seats, "Mr.Secretary," "General," like a gaggle of pre-pubescent boys trying to win a chance to kiss theprom queen. Rumsfeld continued the simile with his tough guy responses and general air of disrespect.
One of the first questions Rumsfeld faced was: "Mr. Secretary, two quick ones,if I may. Did you have information--"
The Defense Secretary quickly reprimanded the questioner for wanting to ask twoquestions: "With all this crowd, why don't we just try one?"
Advertisement
After, quite naturally, ending up asking multiple questions anyway, the reporter wasreprimanded further by Rumsfeld: "I thought we agreed on just one."
While tone of voice cannot be conveyed through the printed word, the environmentRumsfeld attempts, and succeeds, to create is one of sheer intimidation.
Some of the "pressing" and, indeed, almost rhetorical questions askedinclude:
"Do you plan to try and move quickly to stop [the setting afire of oilwells]?"
"[I]f indeed we missed Saddam last night, what does that do to the Iraqispirit?"
"Is it also your hope that some elements of the military might remove Saddamthemselves?"
There was also the following exchange:
Rumsfeld: The fewer [Iraqi defectors] there are, the risks that it will be broaderand more difficult, take more time, and more lives will be lost.
Q: Mr. Secretary, what evidence do you have that it's actually working, that thereare actually Iraqis who are heeding this call to--
Rumsfeld: We have evidence.
Q: And what sort of evidence is that?
Rumsfeld: Good evidence.
This coming from the same administration that recently presented forged documents tothe United Nations Security Council as the key evidence in its campaign to prove that Iraq had revitalized itsnuclear weapons program.
Rumsfeld also made a highly questionable comment regarding the depth of the"coalition of the willing." Reuters news agency picked up on this and has already released anarticle refuting his claim.
Advertisement
Rumsfeld said, "The coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition thatexisted during the Gulf War in 1991."
Reuters skillfully pointed out that "But the facts put out by the administrationitself suggest otherwise.
"In 1991 at least 33 countries sent forces to the campaign against Iraq and 16of those provided combat ground forces, including a large number of Arab countries.
"In 2003 the only fighting forces are from the United States, Britain andAustralia. Ten other countries are known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly eithermedical teams and specialists in decontamination, making a comparable alliance of about 13 countries.
Advertisement
"U.S. officials have named 33 countries which support the U.S. invasion of Iraqbut this includes countries which are providing overflight and basing rights and which are giving onlydiplomatic or political support for the invasion.
"President Bush said on Wednesday that 35 countries have chosen to 'share thehonor' of supporting the campaign but U.S. officials could not name more than the 33.
"They say some 15 other countries are cooperating with the U.S. war effortbehind the scene, mostly by giving access to bases and airspace, but they do not want to be named.
"In 1991 the United States and its allies did not count countries which providedoverflight rights or political support because the campaign had the overwhelming support of the U.N. SecurityCouncil, which had voted 12-2 for the use of force."
Advertisement
Arguably, the most significant thing uttered during the entire briefing was thischilling threat from the Defense Secretary: "What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict.It will be of a force and scope and scale that has been beyond what has been seen before."
Matthew Riemer studied Russianlanguage and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a largerautobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org where this firstappeared.
