Nov. 5, 2006 – UPDATED

On Saturday, Nov. 4, the Army Times released an editorial titled, "Time for Rumsfeld to go." It is important to first note that the "military papers" that have run this editorial are not owned, managed, or controlled by the U.S. military. They are privately held newspapers forming part of the Arlington, Va.-based Gannett publishing chain.

The editorial included a number of inaccurate and misleading statements.

Click here to read the Pentagon’s detailed response.

Nov. 03, 2006 — A new Letters to the Editor archive can be found here.

Oct. 31, 2006 — There are a number of prevalent myths about the War on Terror. Over the next few weeks, the Pentagon will highlight some of the more prominent ones in the public dialogue—and explain why they are nothing more than myths.

See the first five myths here.

Oct. 27, 2006 — Several news outlets, including the AP and Washington Post, reported or headlined incorrectly that Secretary Rumsfeld told “critics” to “back off” during yesterday’s press briefing. In fact, the Secretary was referring specifically to journalists who were seeking to create a perception of major divisions between the positions of the U.S. and Iraqi governments. He was not referring to critics of the administration’s Iraq policy.

Read the DOD letter to the Washington Post.

Read the transcript of Secretary Rumsfeld’s press conference.

Oct. 27, 2006 —This week’s exchange with the New York Times isn’t the first time the Department of Defense has expressed concern about inaccuracies in a Times editorial. A September 7 editorial (“A Sudden Sense of Urgency”) asserted that, with the transfer of 14 high-value terrorist suspects to Cuba, “President Bush finally has some real terrorists in Guantánamo Bay.” In fact, those held prior to the transfer included personal bodyguards of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda recruiters, trainers, and facilitators. Another individual held at Guantánamo was Mohamed al-Kahtani, believed to be the intended 20th hijacker on September 11th.

The Times declined to issue a correction, noting that “the phrase in question was meant to be somewhat lighthearted in tone and not literal.”

Read the full exchange here.

Oct. 24, 2006 —The Pentagon today asked the New York Times to correct an editorial, which claimed that “There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfeld’s negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories, rather than listen to his generals.”  Whether the Times believes there were (or are) enough troops in Iraq, it is demonstrably untrue that troop levels in Iraq are the result of Secretary Rumsfeld’s “not listening to his generals.”

Generals involved in troop-level decisions have been very clear on this matter, making numerous statements that are not new—or difficult—to find, such as extensive commentary in General Franks’s book, American Soldier.  The implication is that the New York Times either believes these generals are not being truthful, or that they are too intimidated to tell the truth. The Pentagon would vigorously dispute both characterizations.

Read what generals themselves have to say about the subject, in a Pentagon letter to the editor.

UPDATE: The New York Times has declined the Pentagon’s request to correct its editorial.

Oct. 20, 2006 —In response to a Newsweek article on Afghanistan (“The Rise of Jihadistan,” October 2, 2006), the Department of Defense sent Newsweek a lengthy rebuttal of points of fact and opinion, as well as a request for an “opportunity to submit a stand-alone column that not only rebuts some of the more sensational charges, but offers your readers a clearer view of the very real challenges we face in Afghanistan—as well as the many achievements of the past five years.”

Newsweek dismissed the rebuttal as the “government position,” as well as the request for a stand-alone column. The Pentagon’s response to that letter read in part: “First, a ‘concise’ letter to the editor, of say, 200 words, cannot adequately address an [sic] 2200-word article containing a series of false assertions. Second, the issue is not Newsweek’s position versus the ‘government position.’ The issue is that your readers were given a one-sided, opinion-laced article on Afghanistan based on falsehoods—which is something that journalists and editors are usually concerned about. Your dismissive reply is disappointing, to say the least.”

Oct. 18, 2006

The Weekly Standard.

To the Editor:

Bill Kristol’s recent article “No More Huffing and Puffing” manipulates Secretary of Defense Donald’s Rumsfeld’s comments at a recent press conference and misleads your readers.

Mr. Kristol’s article quotes at length from a recent press conference by Secretary Rumsfeld. The Secretary opened his remarks by noting the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attack on the USS Cole. The Secretary then moved into a discussion of the threat posed by North Korea.

Mr. Kristol interrupts Secretary Rumsfeld’s remarks by interjecting a question, asking, “But on the sixth anniversary of the attack on the USS Cole, what are we doing about these threats and trends?” He then proceeds to use the rest of the Secretary’s remarks—in which he discusses the need for cooperation of the international community on stopping North Korea—to answer a question the Secretary was never asked.

Mr. Kristol conducts this misleading parsing of Secretary Rumsfeld’s statement so that he can make his point that, in his words, “the lesson Rumsfeld takes from the USS Cole and all that has happened since, is this: We’re dependent on the ‘international community’ and we need to cooperate with others.” (emphasis added.)

Though it may strike some as odd that Mr. Kristol takes issue with the notion of the “need to cooperate with others,” Secretary Rumsfeld said nothing of the sort. His discussion of the international community pertained specifically to the President’s policy on North Korea, not our reaction to the Cole bombing or other terrorist attacks. If anything, in fact, the Secretary’s comments on the international community could be read as exactly the opposite of what Mr. Kristol implies. Indeed, a few days earlier, the Secretary noted at another press event the following: “The international community’s going to have to do a lot better or else face a world that will be quite different, with multiple nuclear nations and . . . the added risk of these very lethal weapons falling into the hands of non-state entities.”

A full transcript of the Secretary’s comments in both press conferences—absent Mr. Kristol’s commentary—is available at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/.

Sincerely,
Dorrance Smith

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs